Socialism Experiment

[mesue]

(an email worth sharing)
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 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 socialism. 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.

[Riven37]

Those students are nuts. One, those students never lived in a socialistic country how would they know. WE (America) and history know socialism does not work and was a failure in Europe, and is failing in England.

[mikenold]

Even though socialism has been proved to be a failure everywhere it has been tried, you will still find any number of idiots to try to say that it will work "this time".
There is also an old saying, "There's a sucker born every minute", and what it says has also been proved time and time again. However, some people never learn.

[Save Us]

Socialism equals existence at the bottom denominator, it is illogical and not human.

. It flies in the face of striving for excellence, a principle on which this country was founded.

Plain and simple.

[Dumbfounded]

The Buffalo News : Opinion

Monday, April 6, 2009

“Government is not the solution, government is the problem.” Those words spoken by the grand patriarch of the modern conservative movement, President Ronald Reagan, rank with the Y2K bug as one of the greatest false prophecies of the 20th century.

President Theodore Roosevelt proved regulation helps, not hinders, the free-enterprise system. Before the Meat Inspection Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act were passed in the early 20th century, meat processed in the United States was so pestilent that it was banned in Europe. Once the federal government set standards, Europe opened its markets to American meat processors.

One of the greatest debacles owed to the conservative dogma of deregulation was the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.
Deregulation allowed savings banks to act like securities brokerage firms. Fast profits for the few were huge, hundreds of banks failed and the stock market crashed in October 1987. In 1999 the conservative-dominated, veto-proof Congress undid a significant provision of one of the greatest economically stabilizing regulations in economic history, the Glass-Steagall Act.

This was the genesis of our current financial disaster.
Conservatives have a proven track record. First they deregulate, a few get rich, banks fail, the stock market crashes, unemployment rises and then they call the people hired to clean up the mess “socialists.”

Patrick P. Braunscheidel

West Seneca



This is why people are WRONG for calling Obama a "socialist."





"Shaddup, Dumbfounded!!! You-You wimpy liberal communist satanist anarchist moron peace-loving jerk! Go back to Sweden if ya don't like Amurica, Mr. sociologist-Sociopath-Socialis-WHATEVER!!! Obama's evil! Obama's wrong for the Yoonited States!! Yeeeeee-HA!!!"

[Dougles]

but wasn't it CLINTON, REID, FRANK, DODD AND PEOLSI, that signed the deregulation that lead to this?? OPPS!

I don't think many conservitives have problems with moderate regulations, is the spending 10 TRILLION in 3 months that they have problems with

The Govt regulating things isn't the same as the govt creating govt jobs at the shrinking tax payer base's expence to "save the nation"! One can work and the other can't ofcourse were presuing the WRONG ONE!

[Flutter]

While I don't believe your "socialist example" ever really happened Mesue (it sounds too similar to a factory in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged). I will admit you have a point.

Socialism and Capitalism are both Utopian societies. They rely on the good will of all men. Socialism further relies on the selflessness of the individual, which is a very rare trait.

So, pure Socialism will never work, it requires perfect people. Pure Capitalism never works either because human greed ensures that those at the bottom of the food chain won't have enough "trickle" to survive on.

A mixture of the two is required to create a stable and lasting society. Too far to the Capitalist end, and the workers revolt, to far to the Socialist end, and the desire to achieve dries up. The questions isn't why we aren't going back to pure Capitalism, it's how far can we dip into Socialism without upsetting the Robber Barons.

However, we have a confused mixture in this country, because we keep electing Republicans who give tax breaks to the rich and powerful, so that the burden of supporting the government grows heavier and heavier on the backs of the middle class. I.E. most of the people on this board. You labor under the mistaken impression that it's your taxes that will be raised in an Obama Administration, when truly, the burden of government will be shifted off your shoulders. Unless, of course, you make more then $250k/yr - in which case you've had 8 years of not paying your share - shut up and pay your taxes.

[Dougles]

While I don't believe your "socialist example" ever really happened Mesue (it sounds too similar to a factory in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged). I will admit you have a point.

Socialism and Capitalism are both Utopian societies. They rely on the good will of all men. Socialism further relies on the selflessness of the individual, which is a very rare trait.

So, pure Socialism will never work, it requires perfect people. Pure Capitalism never works either because human greed ensures that those at the bottom of the food chain won't have enough "trickle" to survive on.

A mixture of the two is required to create a stable and lasting society. Too far to the Capitalist end, and the workers revolt, to far to the Socialist end, and the desire to achieve dries up. The questions isn't why we aren't going back to pure Capitalism, it's how far can we dip into Socialism without upsetting the Robber Barons.

However, we have a confused mixture in this country, because we keep electing Republicans who give tax breaks to the rich and powerful, so that the burden of supporting the government grows heavier and heavier on the backs of the middle class. I.E. most of the people on this board. You labor under the mistaken impression that it's your taxes that will be raised in an Obama Administration, when truly, the burden of government will be shifted off your shoulders. Unless, of course, you make more then $250k/yr - in which case you've had 8 years of not paying your share - shut up and pay your taxes.

Again the people who make 250K or more a year make like 30% of the INCOME and pay almost 50% taxes, whose not paying their share???

if it's anyone who needs to pay more it's married couples!! Give them the same tax rates as singles but give them a higher child tax credit!

[Save Us]

Again the people who make 250K or more a year make like 30% of the INCOME and pay almost 50% taxes, whose not paying their share???

if it's anyone who needs to pay more it's married couples!! Give them the same tax rates as singles but give them a higher child tax credit!

was in the albright knox art gallery this weekend marveling at the art without the help of benefactors would not exist., let alone be appreciated.

The arts, architecture, science, flourish and attain great heights under free societies.

Drop a person to the lowest ideology and you will crush his or her spirit.

There must be balance, unfortunately it is always the case where the actions of a few change the course of many lives.

[Flutter]

Again the people who make 250K or more a year make like 30% of the INCOME and pay almost 50% taxes, whose not paying their share???

if it's anyone who needs to pay more it's married couples!! Give them the same tax rates as singles but give them a higher child tax credit!

I wouldn't argue with that. The fact that married couples get to pay significantly lower taxes then I do is a major thorn in my side.

I start to wonder sometimes, what all the married people on this board are actually bitching about... since it's the single folks and the LGBT community who carry an even larger tax burden then you do.

I'm helping my partner raise three kids, but yet I'm still paying the single rate... And you guys feel put upon? **** off.

[Dougles]

was in the albright knox art gallery this weekend marveling at the art without the help of benefactors would not exist., let alone be appreciated.

The arts, architecture, science, flourish and attain great heights under free societies.

Drop a person to the lowest ideology and you will crush his or her spirit.

There must be balance, unfortunately it is always the case where the actions of a few change the course of many lives.

The funny part in a socialistic or marxist society, ARTIST's are demend unless

[Dougles]

I wouldn't argue with that. The fact that married couples get to pay significantly lower taxes then I do is a major thorn in my side.

I start to wonder sometimes, what all the married people on this board are actually bitching about... since it's the single folks and the LGBT community who carry an even larger tax burden then you do.

I'm helping my partner raise three kids, but yet I'm still paying the single rate... And you guys feel put upon? **** off.

now just imagine if you made 250K a year, how pissed woud you be!!

[Flutter]

was in the albright knox art gallery this weekend marveling at the art without the help of benefactors would not exist., let alone be appreciated.

The arts, architecture, science, flourish and attain great heights under free societies.

Drop a person to the lowest ideology and you will crush his or her spirit.

There must be balance, unfortunately it is always the case where the actions of a few change the course of many lives.

I'm not entirely sure where you're trying to come out in this debate?

Are you calling Socialism the Lowest Ideology? I'd challenge that assertion - it requires the most from it's people with the least reward, as such it's the most demanding ideology. I can understand why there is reluctance to embrace an ideology, especially by those who grew up in the McCarthy era and were spoonfed anti-communist propaganda with their cheerios, that requires self sacrifice without guaranteeing any individual benefit. I understand, deep down, that all human being have greed at the core of their beings, and that this will always remain with us as a species, even at some future date when starvation and sickness are things of the past. But to call it the lowest ideology is a great disservice. It's impractical, because it requires perfect people, and we're all flawed, but the system itself is beautiful. Too Beautiful to exist but for a gleaming second in reality.

And free from what? Economic restraints? Hunger and Privation? Lack of adequate medical care? I've got news for you sunshine, Capitalism doesn't guarantee that any better then socialism does - but at least socialism makes the attempt, rather then relying on the generosity of the upper class. How much more free would that artist be if, free from the pangs of hunger and the harsh reality of sickness when uninsured, he could simply create beauty in the world without concern for such petty annoyances. Patronage of the arts is a hindrance of the artists creative potential, for they must not upset their Patron, and so the art must be colored by the Patron's likes and dislikes, instead of granting the artist true freedom to create.

[Flutter]

now just imagine if you made 250K a year, how pissed woud you be!!

I would have been as happy as a pig in slop for the last 8 years as the Bush Regime cut my taxes in half.

The chart you posted in another thread was only taking into account how much they paid on their declared income, not their capital gains, not their inheritance, and most assuredly not the income for their businesses. They hide the majority of their income behind these fronts because these tax shelters have been created specifically for them.

[Dougles]

I would have been as happy as a pig in slop for the last 8 years as the Bush Regime cut my taxes in half.

The chart you posted in another thread was only taking into account how much they paid on their declared income, not their capital gains, not their inheritance, and most assuredly not the income for their businesses. They hide the majority of their income behind these fronts because these tax shelters have been created specifically for them.

And under Obama you'll have your rate doubled! And even with all that they still pay more than their "fair" share!

That's the problem with Liberals, they think the rich are only that way by some scam or by inheritance, how wrong they are! My grandma because a millionaire by working her ass off and saving like the majority of "rich people".

If you look at the top 100 richest people only like 15 got it by inheritance, 8 of those are the waltons!