A huge "majority" of the class had insisted that Obama's democratic socialism worked and that no one in the “Changed America” would be poor and no one would be rich.  The sophomore students were 99% convinced that they knew Obamunism worked.  They had all read about "national, democratic socialism" as freshmen and they had watched Obama on TV. 

The class was sold on socialism.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class using Obama's democratic socialism."  For the rest of the year, all grades would be averaged.  Everyone would receive the same grade so no one would be "unjustly" at the "bottom" of the class and no one would be "unjustly" at the "top" of the class. 

There would be "economic justice" and "grade equality" in the class.

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. 

Within weeks, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little, studied even less.  The students who studied hard for the first test decided they wanted a "freer ride" too, so they studied a lot less.  It was a “utopian paradise” for slackers. 

The second test average was a D!  No one was happy.

When the 3rd test was administered less than two months after plunging the entire class into Obama’s progressive, "democratic" socialism, the average was an F.

The grades never increased above an F as the envy and blame created rage.  More tests, more F’s.  Even the slackers had hard feelings.  No one would study for the benefit of anyone else. 

All failed.

On the last day of class, the professor told the sullen students that Obama’s gangster socialism would ultimately FAIL because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great.  But when "democratic" socialism takes away the reward, no one will endeavor.  Most people will work to 'get through their workday' but few, if any, will strive to their full potential or excel or innovate. 

Most shocking to all of the students, the professor made it clear that all the F’s were final, everyone failed.

Bottom-line:

In the future, thanks to gangster socialism, everyone in the class would have a hard time finding any job.

National democratic socialists are oblivious to the power of personal productivity, making all people much better off.  National democratic socialism makes everyone poorer.  However, everyone in the class getting an ‘F’ and having a hard time finding any job are not the greatest dangers.   The greatest risk is that these students will forsake the pursuit of happiness and the love of liberty for all for the rest of their lives. 

These students will never be fully human. 

Free market capitalism brings happiness; redistribution does not.  The reason is that only free market capitalism brings liberty for all and earned success.  Earned success involves the ability to create value honestly -- not by inheriting a fortune, not by picking up a welfare check.  National socialists are focused on economic justice and grade equality.  Economic justice by itself is not what makes people happy.  Progressives believe they can build a better society through economic justice and income equality.  Free market capitalism makes earned success possible for the most people because how much I work depends on how much I get to keep.  Earned success is what makes people happy.  All people on this planet, except progressives, understand when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great.

99.999% of people (excluding the ultra, far-left who are always angry) want to be free to pursue happiness and their full, individual potential.

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

First posting on the comment board:

"So, if a person makes 1,000,000 dollars in a year and his tax is 39% which means $390,000 (keeping it simple here without discussion of deductions) he has $610,000 left to spend.  Perhaps less if you subtract state taxes. Oh dear.  This poor fellow is the victim of socialism... only $600,000 to live on.  Maybe we should take 50%?  Or maybe we should take 90% of the millionaire's income.  I think $100,000 is more than enough to live on; no matter how much rich people make.  In fact, no one should be allowed to keep more than $25,000, at most $50,000."

Second posting on the comment board:

Dark, dark humor for anyone with a brain.  The best, European style, American national democratic socialist, Paul Krugman makes this parable ring.

According to Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times:

"It’s true that the U.S. economy has grown faster than that of Europe for the past generation.  Since 1980 — when our politics took a sharp turn to the right, while Europe’s didn’t — America’s real G.D.P. has grown, on average, 3 percent per year.  Meanwhile, the E.U. 15 — the bloc of 15countries that were members of the European Union before it was enlarged to include a number of former Communist nations — has grown only 2.2 percent a year.  []  On Employment America arguably does better: European unemployment rates are usually substantially higher than the rate in the USA, and the employed fraction of the population lower."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Third posting on the comment board:

"Oh, puh-leeze!  The overwhelming majority of folks "at the bottom" are not there because they "dropped out of high school, got involved in drugs and crime and never held a job."  Many of them have thankless, back-breaking, and often even dangerous jobs that they work harder at than most of the posters on this venue can even imagine.  So what about those folks?"

Fourth posting on the comment board:

"At least in my view, if there are more people being served by Sweden's social welfare system now than there were ten years ago, then, by definition, they have -- in fact -- EXPANDED their social welfare system during that period."

Observer Journal Special Note:

9 million people live in Sweden.  More people fart at lunch in Atlanta Georgia than live in Sweden.  Even in a tiny country like Sweden, socialism does not work.  AS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM, socialism does not create enough jobs.  Socialists are incapable of understanding the power of personal productivity in the private sector making all people better off.  Just to stay afloat, socialist countries must export both products and young, job hunters to capitalist countries.

Fifth posting on the comment board:

" Socialism is not a four letter word: Blame it on fifty years of fierce misinformation campaigns perpetrated by both the government and business interests. First, let’s set this straight once and for all, for those who seem to have allowed the prevailing meme to sink in: Socialism is not Communism.  Strangely, due to a decades-long and highly simplistic rhetorical merger, that simple fact is not understood by most Americans.  When applied responsibly, Democratic Socialism is the only way to achieve some measure of equality in society.  In fact, democratic socialism is entirely compatible with capitalism, though, unfortunately, those who have the most to lose - that is to say, the vastly overpaid - are and always have been in the position to persuade those with the most to gain – that they should oppose it."

We at the Observer Journal really love the irony in this quote, "When applied responsibly, Democratic Socialism is..." 

Democratic Socialism has been tried over and over.  Democratic Socialism has failed over and over and over and over.  Per the far-left, democratic socialism failed not because socialism is a moronic economic system, but because the wrong people were running national, democratic socialism. 

The Observer says in counterpoise, "It must have been the same 'corporate types' who screwed up the 'evil' corporations, running democratic socialism into the ground, over and over and over, again, in Africa, South America and Europe for the last 100 years!" 

"When applied responsibly..." cracks the Observer up!

Sixth posting on the comment board:

"America is stupid, stupid, stupid. We are giving our money away to the insurance companies to restrict our care and deny us coverage. They are of no help to us. We need health care, people, not health insurance. We, as a nation, could become "self-insured" and cut out these blood sucking middlemen. This would save us collectively so much it is staggering. Yes, the bills in Congress would be expensive... but the costs to America as a whole? Still lower than what we pay now. Just consider your insurance premiums to be "taxes" and then you can see that our taxes have been skyrocketing!  Worried about government waste?  Just because the waste is in the private sector doesn't make it any less obnoxious than when the government wastes. We could spend the money that goes to administration and put it into actual health care. Why anyone would oppose this is beyond me...unless, of course, they just don't get it."

Seventh posting on the comment board:

"I have always felt that being balanced (not too far to the left or right) is a good thing and in economics especially and I would submit that this country has, since Reagan, gone way to far to the right in the economics department in taxes, deregulation etc... which has directly led to our current situation.  It seems that many people are starting to feel the same way."

Eighth posting on the comment board:

We're talking about the relative merits of socialism here, not "the Nancy Pelosi's of the government"!!!!!  Leave the politicians and bureaucrats out of this discussion.  Even if we cleave off those whom you clearly consider unworthy of any social safety net support -- let's just say, for example, that would include undocumented workers, those who collect their wages "under the table," those who dropped out of high school, got involved in drugs and crime and never held a job (and their children) -- from the totality of those who are living under the official poverty line or are considered to be living in "relative poverty" in these United States that still leaves tens of millions of Americans, most of whom are children, wanting."

"Leave the politicians and bureaucrats out of this discussion..."

The Observer REPEATS in counterpoise, "It must have been the same 'corporate types' who screwed up the 'evil' corporations, running democratic socialism into the ground, over and over and over, again, in Africa, South America and Europe for the last 100 years!"

Nineth posting on the comment board:

One of these days, Reagan's "Trickle Down" Conjecture will be shown to be pathetic foolishness.  The more we automate the world (the "Industrial Revolution a few centuries past, the computer and networking revolution we are living through, and soon the robotics and biotechnology revolution), the less we need armies of people.  And the ones we need will be available mostly at slave wages.  Labor is trending to a commodity, as we optimize globally.

We will soon see that corporate global efficiency, and growth in revenue/profits is AT ODDS WITH fair distribution of wealth and full employment. We are facing a critical choice between ideologies: (1 -ME) everyman for himself and may the devil take the hindmost vs (2 -WE) I am my brother's keeper (and vs versa) ... we're all in this boat together.

This "recession" is not a dip. It is early indication of a "perfect storm" of fundamental strategic threats to humanity, which are not only unaddressed, but also unrecognized.."

The Observer mentions in counterpoise, "If 'trickle down' is conjecture then 'spread the wealth' is conjecture and a gulag."

For all our "progressive" readers, it's a PARABLE; no need to "demand" the name of the professor...

It’s Obamunism, stupid.