Obama's plan in the classroom

[gator]

I apologize if other's have already read this in a mass email forwarding, but I just really like the story. This story just really seems to express my feelings about conservative values versus liberal values. I tend to feel that conservatives are more self-sufficient beings, willing to accept their fate, succeed or fail. Liberals want a safety net for the "less fortunate" so that no individual is a complete failure. Unfortunately, they never seem to realize that preventing the failure of the individual always limits the success of the whole. Here goes....


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.

[GoGreen23]

Gator-

I actually have never read this story, surprisingly, but I did enjoy it. Haha, it kind of makes you think a little bit. The last couple lines are very true though

...when there is no reward for hard work, who would want to work hard?

[zilla]

"Liberals want a safety net for the "less fortunate" so that no individual is a complete failure."


I think this line is a bit much. I think a safety net is important for those that have worked hard and have fallen on bad times. A person that has worked hard for the last 20 years at the Ann Arbor News and has now lost his job deserves no safety net until he gets back on his feet? No unemployment insurance? No right to COBRA? No state backed job training?

When you become old Gator should we assume you will turn down medicade?

[chriswebber]

"Liberals want a safety net for the "less fortunate" so that no individual is a complete failure."


I think this line is a bit much. I think a safety net is important for those that have worked hard and have fallen on bad times. A person that has worked hard for the last 20 years at the Ann Arbor News and has now lost his job deserves no safety net until he gets back on his feet? No unemployment insurance? No right to COBRA? No state backed job training?

When you become old Gator should we assume you will turn down medicade?

A safety net is a unique word. If I go out on my jet ski on wear my own life jacket. I prepare for the worse. I do not go out on the lake expecting another boater will share. When I fall of the jet ski, I will not drown, nor will I be reliant on others to get back on my jet ski. However, some people believe it's up to other boaters to rescue them. Each task has risk, and people should prepare for the worst case scenario. When people do not prepare, they infringe on other people's rights. When does your emergency constitute my problem?

[zilla]

A safety net is a unique word. If I go out on my jet ski on wear my own life jacket. I prepare for the worse. I do not go out on the lake expecting another boater will share. When I fall of the jet ski, I will not drown, nor will I be reliant on others to get back on my jet ski. However, some people believe it's up to other boaters to rescue them. Each task has risk, and people should prepare for the worst case scenario. When people do not prepare, they infringe on other people's rights. When does your emergency constitute my problem?

Nice ivory tower reply to a real situation in Ann Arbor. So these people deserve no unemployment insurance? Yes or no?

[gator]

Chris and Zilla,

Yes, I should have used the term "government provided safety net" or "a safety net provided at the expense of others."

Zilla, to your point about this AA News person; I am not a cold hearted prick. I am understanding......within limits. I like to lend a hand to others, but I don't like being taken advantage of by others. I understand that people have tough times. When people are TRYING to work, I can understand lending a hand. In fact, I have always advocated that government provided financial assistance should only be allowed to those who have been employed within the last 6 months and have recently lost their job. Further, I think the total term of assistance eligibility should be capped at 2 years for your entire life. It's never taken me longer than a couple of weeks to find some form of work, so I think that is generous.

The programs that I do have problems with are social security (which was supposed to be temporary anyway), medicare, medicade, current welfare programs, and this universal healthcare crap they are pushing now. These are like lifetime (craddle to grave) security blankets for people too sorry or scared to provide for themselves.

To your point about me accepting medicade (and even social security) when I get older, the problem is that these programs are not OPTIONAL security blankets - they are forced on me. I would love that money that the government takes from me to set up my own retirement and healthcare options. The truth is I could provide better options for my family than the government will by the time I retire (and suspect I still will). On the other hand, that money has been steadily taken from me for years, and it will continue to be taken away from me until I retire. Therefore, you better believe I will take whatever puny benefits I can get back. Nevertheless, I'm still not going to rely on the government to set up my retirement....I actually want to live comfortably during my retirement.

Bottom line, I would be perfectly happy if the only social program provided by the government was a "tuff-luck emergency fund" which has very limited application and eligibility, as described above. If you don't meet that eligibility, it's time for the survival of the fittest. You know, that's another thing I can never figure out about most liberals - they believe in evolution over creationism (I happen to believe in both), but every social program they favor exists solely to prevent the survival of the fittest. Go figure. I guess that's why these social programs always fail - they go against nature.

[chriswebber]

No one wants to get in a car wreck, no one likes to pay for car insurance, but we do anyways.... where's my free government car insurance? If some drunk dude runs into me on my way to feed the blind and homeless, I'm responsible to fix my own car with my own insurance. I don't ask you to help me. I'm not cold hearted, I am a responsible citizen. Sad, the people at the AA news lost their jobs. Sad, the people at the AA news could not make their jobs profitable. Why does it affect me? Can't they buy Aflak or something? I'm sure there's a private insurance company that won't bill me for your lost job...

[gator]

No one wants to get in a car wreck, no one likes to pay for car insurance, but we do anyways.... where's my free government car insurance? If some drunk dude runs into me on my way to feed the blind and homeless, I'm responsible to fix my own car with my own insurance. I don't ask you to help me. I'm not cold hearted, I am a responsible citizen. Sad, the people at the AA news lost their jobs. Sad, the people at the AA news could not make their jobs profitable. Why does it affect me? Can't they buy Aflak or something? I'm sure there's a private insurance company that won't bill me for your lost job...

Chris, in a perfect world we would get no government interference and everyone would be responsible enough to take care of themselves. Nevertheless, you and I both know that we will never get libs to agree to an absolutely heartless government. In truth, we shouldn't ask for that either if people are TRYING to support themselves. Companies move, they go bankrupt, they lay people off and it's sometimes really out of controll of their employees. I don't have a problem with the government helping those everyday people through a tough transition like that, but at some point the tit has got to dry up (or we will have HUGE deficits like we have right now every year). Alright, MF'ers, time for you to get a freaking job. If the government was a little more coldhearted in their approach, I think this country would be shocked at how low the unemployement numbers could get, i.e., get a job or starve to death. People would get their ass to work. Chris, in principle you and I agree that we want government to expect people to be self-sufficient, but I don't mind some very, very limited support for those bad times.

[chriswebber]

Chris, in a perfect world we would get no government interference and everyone would be responsible enough to take care of themselves. Nevertheless, you and I both know that we will never get libs to agree to an absolutely heartless government. In truth, we shouldn't ask for that either if people are TRYING to support themselves. Companies move, they go bankrupt, they lay people off and it's sometimes really out of controll of their employees. I don't have a problem with the government helping those everyday people through a tough transition like that, but at some point the tit has got to dry up (or we will have HUGE deficits like we have right now every year). Alright, MF'ers, time for you to get a freaking job. If the government was a little more coldhearted in their approach, I think this country would be shocked at how low the unemployement numbers could get, i.e., get a job or starve to death. People would get their ass to work. Chris, in principle you and I agree that we want government to expect people to be self-sufficient, but I don't mind some very, very limited support for those bad times.

Why rely on the government? Given the government the money gives them the power. They get to make the rules. I would prefer something as a private insurance company, or this thing called charity. I wouldn't let my neighbor starve. His kids wouldn't sleep in a gutter. Why does the government need to perform this task? Governments are always corrupt. Why patronize them?

[MICHDAD1]

In six months Obama has cost/spent 23.7 Trillllllion dollars. He is absolutely the worst President in the history of this country and I believe the polls are starting to show it. Suck it up Zilla facts are facts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/07/21/the-237-trillion-question-treasury-calls-figure-inflated/

[gator]

Why rely on the government? Given the government the money gives them the power. They get to make the rules. I would prefer something as a private insurance company, or this thing called charity. I wouldn't let my neighbor starve. His kids wouldn't sleep in a gutter. Why does the government need to perform this task? Governments are always corrupt. Why patronize them?

This may be the first time I've ever engaged someone more right than me. I really can't disagree with your thoughts because you're right - the government is always corrupt. I just don't know what other organization can be as full reaching to say, "OK, you've been receiving benefits for X months, in X amount of time you are going to be cut off." If it was as hard core as that, the overall cost would not be that much. I'll bet the Health and Social Services portion of the budget would fall through the floor (comparitively speaking). If the program was structured properly, where there was no leeway(sp?) in rules, I think even the government could pull this off. Basically, I share your lack of compassion after a certain point, but I do recognize that people have periods of difficulty. I know the government f***s up everything they touch (I always argue that), but charity, as much as I encourage it, may not be as far reaching in certain communities. I would like everyone to have the same amount of leeway, i.e., up to 6 months from last job and a total of 2 years eligibility....after that, you starve or get a job.

[zilla]

Why rely on the government? Given the government the money gives them the power. They get to make the rules. I would prefer something as a private insurance company, or this thing called charity. I wouldn't let my neighbor starve. His kids wouldn't sleep in a gutter. Why does the government need to perform this task? Governments are always corrupt. Why patronize them?

Not everyone has rich parents they can fall back on like you. Your attitude is exactly why the republicans are on the outside looking in.

[zilla]

"you starve or get a job. "


Or better yet when they can't find a job they rob your ass.

[gator]

"you starve or get a job. "


Or better yet when they can't find a job they rob your ass.

It seems I have a little more faith in humanity than you. Even if they do decide to rob me, I've got something waiting on them. You can't go more than a few feet in my house without running into a "home protection device."

Edit: Sorry, my double wide.

[zilla]

In six months Obama has cost/spent 23.7 Trillllllion dollars. He is absolutely the worst President in the history of this country and I believe the polls are starting to show it. Suck it up Zilla facts are facts.

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2009/07/21/the-237-trillion-question-treasury-calls-figure-inflated/

"In fact, beyond the attention that the $23.7 trillion figure is getting, the report is pretty useful as it lays out all of the some 50 initiatives or programs started by both the Bush and Obama administrations to deal with the financial crisis."


How interesting the article you posted mentions Bush as part of this 23.7 trillion but no mention of it from you in your post. Was this intentional on your part or did you just not read the entire thing? Simple question I think.

[gator]

"In fact, beyond the attention that the $23.7 trillion figure is getting, the report is pretty useful as it lays out all of the some 50 initiatives or programs started by both the Bush and Obama administrations to deal with the financial crisis."


How interesting the article you posted mentions Bush as part of this 23.7 trillion but no mention of it from you in your post. Was this intentional on your part or did you just not read the entire thing? Simple question I think.

I will agree that Bush was a spender too. What does crack me up is hearing Obama last night saying, "I haven't been blaming the previous administration." Puhhlleeezzz!!! Two questions later he's talking about the deficit and economy he inherited. My favorite was his talk today talking about fiscal responsibility. He mentioned that the national debt doubled under 8 years of Bush. I agree that was bad. The problem is Obama never mentions that the yearly deficit jumped from $165 billion under Bush to about $1.8 trillion in Obama's first year. He also didn't care to mention that he has tripled the national debt in his first 6 months. Really, can Obama lecture conservatives about fiscal responsibility? I'm not saying republicans have any room to talk, but Obama's talks come off as really lame. I'm disappointed with the whole damn bunch. I want to replace them all and get some people in there that will cut government spending to the bone, pay off this debt, quit borrowing from China, and tell everyone looking for a free ride that the tit has gone dry.

[MICHDAD1]

"In fact, beyond the attention that the $23.7 trillion figure is getting, the report is pretty useful as it lays out all of the some 50 initiatives or programs started by both the Bush and Obama administrations to deal with the financial crisis."


How interesting the article you posted mentions Bush as part of this 23.7 trillion but no mention of it from you in your post. Was this intentional on your part or did you just not read the entire thing? Simple question I think.

Bush is second in line behind Obama for being a fascist/socialist. Obama has taken the fascism to another level. He is thoroughly enjoying spending the created dollar. The one thing that separates Obama from Bush is the fact that Obama is spending the money on corporations. Bush was spending the money on the military industrial complex.

[MICHDAD1]

Bush is second in line behind Obama for being a fascist/socialist. Obama has taken the fascism to another level. He is thoroughly enjoying spending the created dollar. The one thing that separates Obama from Bush is the fact that Obama is spending the money on corporations. Bush was spending the money on the military industrial complex.

Sometimes I wonder if Obama is purposely trying to de-value the dollar. It's on it's way just a matter of time before the crash.