PBH / Off Topic: do your thing / Forums (active)

Example of Obamanism...

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

--------------------------------------------

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D!

No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

By davidyamiga on Aug 31, 2009, 07:27 in Off Topic.

Aji1 says on Aug 31, 2009, 07:49:

That is one of the most direct, simple, and succinct explanations of why socialism doesn't work long term I have ever heard.

Thanks DyA

I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

0 funny, 1 helpful.

SlyFrancis says on Aug 31, 2009, 07:58:

I guess you are making a reference that Barack Obama is a socialist because he wants affordable health care to all americans. Let me see , your taxes pay for police, fire , sanitation, teachers, medicare, social security, unemployment and so many other social programs that benefits all of the citizens of the United States but lets not give healthcare to all. I guess Fox News does have a broad audience.

"If you won't stand for something, you will fall for anything"

1 funny, 0 helpful.

kingfish5515 says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:11:

That is a great point and the way reality is. The ironic part is that in reality most profesors are very liberal and push socialism, or rather the principles of socialism. Harvard, where messiahobama went and taught is one of the most prolific left wing universities of them all. It would be nice if in reality the majority of educators would actually teach something like this experiment. KF

0 funny, 1 helpful.

luce says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:24:

Many Republicans also want affordable health care to all Americans - that's not limited to Liberals (I mean Democrats). The difference is the Liberals think it should be a mandated from and paid for by the government. John McCain also pitched strongly for Health Care during his campaign. Some of the very ideas McCain was offering that Obama totally rejected (and naturally all the media went with him) those very ideas being rejected have now been reviewed by Obama's people and are being viewed as possible solutions.

Loyal to both.

0 funny, 2 helpful.

katwhiskers says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:26:

Sly, Davidyamiga isn't saying Obama is a Socialist because he wants "affordable health care to all americans" he is saying it because Obama is a Socialist, it's what he is politically, Socialism is his core belief system, he has been honest and upfront about that all along, even before his run for the presidency. He's written about it, he's verbalized it, he's lived it.

I miss the wonderful sound of silver coins in my pocket, abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back real money.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

Papi de Alejo says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:30:

This example is too simplistic to convey all of the perceived evils of Socialism or to accurately reflect on modern or even historical US economic history. I remember when there used to be an income tax upwards of 50% in Britain. I don't remember exactly how much it was, it might have been as high as 75%. But at that time there were and still are many multi-millionares in Britain. But I digress.

Without looking on the side of the equation that speaks to the obligations of a society to provide certain essential services through its government, lets look only at the personal income side. Which is impossible to analyse using the example above. If a person is earning $100,000 per year and pays a tax of 21%, he would keep to himself $89,000. If another person were earning $1,000,000 and had to pay a tax of 31%; he would keep to himself $690,000. Granted, I do not know at what level of income you go from 21% to $31%; but for my greedy purposes, I would much rather pay 31%. Meaning, I will be earning a lot more than the guy earning $100,000 and keeping a hell of a lot more to myself.

So in the example above, while it might correctly reflect the concept of "true" socialism, it certainly does not reflect anything that has ever been seen in US history nor anything that is being contemplated by anyone other than those who for whatever reason want to paint the government with a different brush than the reality that exists.

Live simply... Love generously... Care deeply... Speak kindly...

1 funny, 0 helpful.

luce says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:38:

Many countries that have tried socialist governments but I can't think of one that's been successfully (which includes in my definition success of its people). To me it's because those types of governments are not of the people, by the people and for the people. The example given is crystal clear. Even though there's alot of terrible situations in the US, there's also many wonderful success stories of people who worked harder than others and overcame any and everything to succeed. Because they were free to work harder for their own reward. Also, I've heard the swine flu vaccine will be free in the US to all Americans (in the order of priority given by the CDC) through health clinics. Naturally, you can still go to your doctor and pay an office visit fee and get it.

Loyal to both.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

suizo says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:48:

Brians - there are no socialist governments in Europe. They are socialdemocratic (e.g. Sweden), this is not the same as "socialist".

Crackheads suck!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:49:

Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness

0 funny, 0 helpful.

luce says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:55:

GY - you misread. I said I've heard - or read in the newspaper - that the swine flu vaccine will be free to all in the U.S. at the health clinics, but in order of priority set by the CDC (obviously this would apply to all folks withouth health insurance). I also mentioned you can still get the vaccine through your doctor's office but will probably have to pay an office visit.

Loyal to both.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

luce says on Aug 31, 2009, 08:56:

GY - apologies - to clarify, here in the US health clinics are government run and are for folks without insurance or of low income. It just occurred to me you may not have realized this.

Loyal to both.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

apeters says on Aug 31, 2009, 09:19:

well, when I am paying $216 every month, and on top of that I pay $25 per visit, and I also have to pay for any prescriptions, I will welcome any damn change to the health care system. Call it socialist or whatever, the health care system needs a revamp, and Obama is fighting hard for this. Funny how people show up with AK 47s at a health care rally, but nobody shows up with those when we enter a fake war with Iraq. This country has a lot of shit backwards...and I welcome a change. When there is a huge budget problem in California, and the first thing to go is EDUCATION and HEALTH CARE, there is something seriously wrong. This whole "Obama is socialist" shit should be the least of your worries.Having to clean up the mess that Bush created without hurting existing programs and trying to create jobs, and fix the economy, and so on, should be your worry. This socialism argument is tired, do something productive, like wave your AK 47s.

0 funny, 1 helpful.

luce says on Aug 31, 2009, 09:20:

Brians - GY made a good point that the health clinics (provided in every county and most counties have several locations throughtout) are not the first place visited by those in need. That's why those clinics are there yet most people go first to the ER, even during the daytime, during the week. Obviously those folks are not helping their own cause - if they went to the health clinic for vaccines and routine health care before it became an ER situation. I don't have personal experience about health clinics so I don't know why people do this - maybe there's long lines.

Loyal to both.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Papi de Alejo says on Aug 31, 2009, 09:26:

They are underfunded and understaffed.

Live simply... Love generously... Care deeply... Speak kindly...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

pedro (☼Travelguide writer) says on Aug 31, 2009, 09:29:

That example in the OP is communism. It's not socialism, nor is it Obamanism.

I think most people would support the thesis that pure communism is not sustainable on a scale of nations. Even on a scale of communities (eg a kibbutz), it will have a lot of issues but it may work. Over a time period of a generation, at least.

Properly calibrated socialism (income redistribution etc) can and does work in the real world.

If your country (the USA) is dealing with a difficult moment, one reason could be the volume of people too poorly educated or wilfully ignorant to think critically about what they're told. Like in the OP. To which I would add an overwhelming sense of entitlement.

As an outsider, I admire many things about the USA. But when it comes to certain aspects (your two weeks vacation per year, strange pecking order for access to health care and bizarre legal torts judgements), you are the laughing stock of the developed world.

"this may seem a strange post but it is not...when in colombia men need to be aware that colombia women may try to be seductive and entice a travelling gringo to have sex with them..to be forewarned is to be forearmed..." -- pow wow

1 funny, 2 helpful.

jaramillo says on Aug 31, 2009, 09:36:

Buyer beware of simple truths.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Aug 31, 2009, 10:12:

David--what does this have to do with Colombia?

No hay Peor Ciego que el que no quiere Ver o Sordo que el que no quiera Oir--Sarah Palin, Wasilla Alaska

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) (Trustee board) says on Aug 31, 2009, 10:22:

Oh dear....nothing ´for the time being.
But it's an interesting thread. Oh well, it'll have to be moved to off-topic soon.

A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

0 funny, 0 helpful.

katwhiskers says on Aug 31, 2009, 11:12:

This has gotten way too serious, time for a little song to cheer us up, take it away Tim...

I miss the wonderful sound of silver coins in my pocket, abolish the Federal Reserve and bring back real money.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

RAAAY says on Aug 31, 2009, 11:23:

The current Health Care proposals have nothing in common with Socialism. You could even argue it is the opposite. The most contentenus aspect of the new proposals is the " Public Option".

Conservatives have strong opinions on this, as their belief is that, Goverment can not run any enterprise properly.

Really, what is proposed is another Insurance company, that people can use if they WISH, or continue with their own private company if they wish. One of the many conditions will be, you MUST buy coverage. If you don't, you will be penalised 1% or 2% of your income.

That gets everybody covered, reduces the burden on the public purse, and provides competition to the existing insurance companies. It is believed that this competition alone, will reduce pemiums of the existing private carriers.

Of course, it is a huge bill, with many provisions, and it cannot be simplified to what I wrote above. But, right now, that is the issue that is causing the biggest problems. Why should this cause a problem. Money. Money Money. Interest groups are throwing huge resourses to prevent any change in the status quo, because they are making huge amounts of money now. They push all the right buttons, scream " Socialism "....Goverment control.....Obama turning us into Russia....etc etc........And of course, the " ditto heads " are going along with it.

.........Its useless to argue with ignorance

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Lcacique says on Aug 31, 2009, 11:53:

I think it is hilarious that people scream and pout about the possibility of the government "controlling" health care, but they have no problem with the insurance industry and the drug industry controlling it. That is bizarre as hell. The argument that these industries are better equipped to run a healthcare system is ridiculous if you believe that the system is supposed to do something other than make executives unimaginably wealthy.

I also think it is hilarious when Obama gets painted as a socialist when he has already incorrectly caved in to the pharmaceutical giants. Not to mention, his hatchet man - Rhambo, has told the progressives to shut up about not accepting any bill that does not include a public option because Obama - much the same as the Republican party - depends on funding from the insurance giants, pharmaceutical companies, etc. I cannot even imagine how you guys would react if we actually had a progressive president.

It is perverse that there are individuals in this country who think that it is evil to consider health care a common need that should not be kept from individuals simply because their pockets are not deep enough for greedy insurance companies that are making incredible profits. But historically it has taken Americans a long time to come around to moral issues, so within 50 to 60 more years we most likely will relinquish our embarrassing title as the only western industrialized nation without universal healthcare.

"Es fácil vivir con los ojos cerrados interpretando todo lo que se ve mal..." ~ J. Lennon

1 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Aug 31, 2009, 12:21:

Lcacique--on your first sentence, this is what I find hilarious about those who don't want healthcare reform. They have NO problem with some Insurance CEO Pointyheaded Beancounter dictating your care, what MD Specialist you can or cannot see, what Meds the MD is not allowed to prescribe yet they whine about the Government, hear any complaints from those on Medicare such as these? Hardly, so there is the proof. When is the last time you ever heard any US Citizen, Republican, Tea Partier, Democrat ect renouncing his/her Healthcare he receives through Medicare? Look hard, they are the Holy Grail in this arguement. I see no complaints from the Party of NO when some Healthcare CEO like McGuire of United Healthcare is given an Annual Salary of $4 + Million as well as a Stock Options of $1 + Billion. Where is the outrage on their part? Think the salaries paid to these useless Health Insurance CEOs have no influence on Insurance Rates? Why do we even need Health Insurance CEOs? They add nothing of Value to the Healthcare Mix--they do not Diagnose an Illness, they do not prescribe Meds or a plan of Treatment. They simply add Billions of $$$ to the cost layer while providing nothing of Value. If anyone says they add value, please tell us what it is they add ?

No hay Peor Ciego que el que no quiere Ver o Sordo que el que no quiera Oir--Sarah Palin, Wasilla Alaska

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Aug 31, 2009, 12:31:

Wiki on Health Insurance CEOs; This article is an Example why the Insurance Companies don't want meaningful reform,,,

Mcguire:Resignation of McGuire
On October 15, 2006, it was announced that McGuire would step down immediately as chairman and director of UnitedHealth Group, and step down as CEO on December 1, 2006 due to his involvement in the employee stock options scandal. Simultaneously, it was announced that he would be replaced as CEO by Stephen Hemsley, who has served as President and COO and is a member of the board of directors. [12] McGuire's exit compensation from UnitedHealth, expected to be around $1.1 billion, would be the largest golden parachute in the history of corporate America.[13]

McGuire's compensation became controversial again on May 21, 2009, when Elizabeth Edwards, speaking on The Daily Show, used it to support her argument for a public alternative to commercial insurance[14]. Edwards stressed the importance of restoring competition in health insurance markets noting that at one point, "the President of United Health made so much money, that one of every $700 that was spent in this country on health care went to pay him":

Estimates of McGuire's 2005 compensation range from $59,625,444 [15] to $124.8 million[16], and the revenue of United Health Care was then $71 billion. It has therefore been suggested that Mrs Edwards may have meant to say that one of every $700 that was spent on United Health Care premiums went to pay McGuire.

[edit] McGuire's Settlement With SEC
On 6 December 2007, the SEC announced a settlement under which McGuire was to repay $468 million, including a $7 million civil penalty, as a partial settlement of the backdating prosecution. He was also barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company for ten years.[17][18][19] This was the first time in which the little-used "clawback" provision under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was used against an individual by the SEC. The SEC continued its investigations even after it in 2008 settled legal actions against both United Health Care itself and its former general counsel.[20].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group

No hay Peor Ciego que el que no quiere Ver o Sordo que el que no quiera Oir--Sarah Palin, Wasilla Alaska

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Aug 31, 2009, 21:35:

thank you.
thank you VERY MUCH..... davidyamiga !
_______

impeach the p.o.s. now.

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Sep 1, 2009, 00:25:

P.O.S.=Sarah Palin Can't impeach/recall her cuz she quit 1/2 way thru the race. lol

No hay Peor Ciego que el que no quiere Ver o Sordo que el que no quiera Oir--Sarah Palin, Wasilla Alaska

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Sep 2, 2009, 17:50:

still got that "Palin Paranoia", eh mike?

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Sep 3, 2009, 05:47:

She is so laughable, her lack of facts, her(palin's) ignorance is indeed refreshing. lol

No hay Peor Ciego que el que no quiere Ver o Sordo que el que no quiera Oir--Sarah Palin, Wasilla Alaska

0 funny, 0 helpful.

goin_south says on Sep 3, 2009, 06:28:

P.O.S. = Piece of Sarah, mike??

nothin I say is to be takn for my words, but rather for the words of Sailor Jerry.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

miamimike says on Sep 3, 2009, 09:26:

I wonder if she has figured out that Katie Couric Question yet like Shara " where do you get your news on current events from" She had no answer that day, maybe 10 months later she has figured it out! lol What a Dunce, as a Schoolgirl, she must have spent a lot of time in the corner wearing that pointy dunce cap. lol

No hay Peor Ciego que el que no quiere Ver o Sordo que el que no quiera Oir--Sarah Palin, Wasilla Alaska

0 funny, 0 helpful.