Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes


February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
ADVERTISEMENT

Obama, the 'Great Equalizer'?


Wednesday, September 16, 2009 6:40 AM PDT

Comments (51 comment(s))

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

The class that he had failed insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich. It would be 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 third 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.

Fred Spitzer
Lodi

Reader Feedback

Lodian wrote on Sep 23, 2009 6:42 PM:

" A society's character and core values are reflected, and measured, by how they care for the sick, the elderly and the children. "

Report Abuse

Robb wrote on Sep 23, 2009 3:02 PM:

" Healthcare is not a right "

Report Abuse

rantraves wrote on Sep 17, 2009 9:49 PM:

" And that is the size of that Rhodie. This what every one needs to understand: the govt will implode under it's own weight. We know that Obama and his Czars aren't stupid; they know about the unfunded mandates ( SS and Medicare ), and how the collapse of these programs threaten the very existence of modern liberalism. They also know that a "free people" can survive the collapse of a failed govt; but a people held captive -- through health care -- will "insure" that governments failure can be sustained. What we are witnessing today is a battle for the supremacy of the planet no less; and Obama and his czars will stop at nothing to save themselves. Who wouldn't? I guess that's why "free people" all over are standing up and saying NO! right now -- can't you just feel the energy? "

Report Abuse

Rhodie wrote on Sep 17, 2009 4:45 PM:

" The answer is efficient regulation. Efficiency leads to better AND less regulation. I want as little government doing as much good as possible. There is too much waste in government now and adding more programs to a bloated system is going to eventually cause an implosion (or revolution). "

Report Abuse

Word Slugs wrote on Sep 17, 2009 8:57 AM:

" Cogito- " Speaking of government regulators, look at what a crack job they did watching Madoff. Yeah, those guys can be trusted to do the job right. "


So is the answer less regulation? Or, better regulation? "

Report Abuse

rantraves wrote on Sep 17, 2009 8:06 AM:

" Word: you are assuming that people would become healthier if the govt were to run health care. That's absurd. People maintain good health by being the "masters of their own morality". Yes, sh** happens, and that's what insurance is for; but if you think the govt should be running health care just because they've shown how well they run everything else -- like into the ground -- then you don't have the slightest idea of what the hell is going on around here -- Get with it Word! "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Sep 17, 2009 7:53 AM:

" jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:35 AM:

" Sparky, would you now like to change to national political accusation from "socialism" to "communism", now that this allegorical story to "support" your opposition to the president is actually abour communism? "


-Jeff,

Thanks for pointing out to us that there is a difference between the
Devil in a black shirt and the Devil
in a black shirt with a red stripe. "

Report Abuse

Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:43 PM:

" So, Voter, do you really want MORE government in our life? Do you want them running banks, auto industry and healthcare? Do you want the government telling us what we can eat, drink or watch on TV? I know the gov. is already involved in these a little but do you really want them to have more power in our daily lives?

There is a vast difference between ruling over and protecting from. Right now we have a government mostly aimed at protecting us from. My concern is that with healthcare in government control then we move very close to them ruling over us.

I don't disagree that Healthcare needs serious attention but not a complete overhaul. More lower cost care options need to be offered. Tort reform. insurance protection against being dropped for being to sick. But forcing everyone to pay for insurance, including those who can't afford it (which are people who need charitable care I mentioned) or don't want it, when the goernment is teteering on the financial brink is irresponsible. "

Report Abuse

Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:27 PM:

" "just think of all the money that would be saved by denying patients access to care or procedures that run contrary to their religious beliefs."

We've used four different hospitals associated with a religion and not once were we asked if we accept their teachings. The statement that hospitals associatd with religions would deny care to those in need is nothing more than bigoted hatred twords religion.

Prove me wrong and (outside of not performing abortions) find a religion associated church in America that has refused to care for those that don't accept their teachings. Otherwise admit your statement has no basis in reality. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:20 PM:

" Speaking of government regulators, look at what a crack job they did watching Madoff. Yeah, those guys can be trusted to do the job right. "

Report Abuse

Rhodie v2.0 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:20 PM:

" gray cloud wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:23 PM:

" Rhodie: You mentioned "Millions" without health insurance.


Can you name 20??? 10????? "

I can name about 40ish. One family lives in government housing and their oldest son was nest freinds with my oldest before we moved. An elderly couple who is self employed who created a savings account for medical needs back in the 60's, for forty years they have put in less than they would have paid in insurance and through several surgeries and medical emergencies, their account is still strong. My sister who is past middle age and only gets her needed heart medicine when my parents buy it because the rest of her money goes to alcohal, cigarettes, fast food and drugs. There is the mechanic whose every dollar goes to pay the bills but with no family, doesn't want insurance. I also know three-ish families who have established their own *insurance* plan, where they don't trust that the needed medicine would be available for them if left to red tape paper pushers so they provide for their own care through personal savings. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:18 PM:

" Election Year, if you ever need heart surgery, the best place you can go is Mercy in Sacramento. A Catholic hospital. Ask anyone. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:16 PM:

" Word Slugs, energy was never deregulated. The State was in charge of how much energy was to be produced by deciding how many power plants could be built. The PUC, a government agency, decided how much could be charged for energy. If you think that's true deregulation, you need to look up the word again. Having the government pay the bill to private companies does not mean the government does it better. It means they don't, and they know it. We need some watchdog agencies, the military, fire, and police, I don't deny that. But beyond that, privatize wherever possible. When we need highways rebuilt in a hurry, CalTrans is never in the loop for actually doing the job. They just hire and watch the experts. "

Report Abuse

election year wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:08 PM:

" I think Rhodie is really on to something by suggesting that charities, especially religious charities, should run our healthcare system. Just think of all the money that would be saved by denying patients access to care or procedures that run contrary to their religious beliefs. We already have one of those in our community...it's called St. Joseph's Medical Center. "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 9:44 PM:

" very well put Word Slug. "

Report Abuse

Word Slugs wrote on Sep 16, 2009 9:02 PM:

" Well put, voter. I am not a neo-socialist, but I think that deregulated health care has reached a place where government intervention is necessary. There are many industries where the government needs to step in to regulate for the common good. Air safety, national safety, highways, food and drug safety, and, yes, health care. Most of the these industries deal with the health and safety of the entire populace. I don't use the highways in most states, but my federal taxes go to pay for them. I don't mind that my tax dollars go to the FAA to impose guidelines on airlines and airports. In the same way, I don't mind if my tax dollars go to insure the health of the populace. A healthy populace benefits everyone. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:23 PM:

" Rhodie, you are dishonest. People with no children still pay for schools. For the bulk of its existence, the airports were used only by the wealthy and upper middle class, yet lower income folks contributed to their costs as well. You can't possibly be suggesting that charities carry the burden of providing healthcare for all those who need it. Your website is a conservative propaganda machine. The healthcare system as it now exists IS unsustainable--that's part of the reason we need reform. "

Report Abuse

gray cloud wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:23 PM:

" Rhodie: You mentioned "Millions" without health insurance.


Can you name 20??? 10????? "

Report Abuse

Rhodie wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:06 PM:

" Voter, So you think paving roads we all could potentially drive on or paying for schools any of our kids could go to is the same thing as paying for healthcare for people who don't want to pay for healthcare for themselves? I know there are millions who can not pay for healthcare because of low/no wages, but there are also million who don't buy healthcare because they don't want to, why should I pay for their insurance if they don't want to?

There are plenty of charitable organizations whose purpose is to provide funds or health services for those that need it. I have no problem donating to them if I want, but the government shouldn't force social outreach. That is like force volunteerism. *IF* the government really wanted to help then they would open up more resources for the organizations in place rather than creating trillions of $$ of debt that even the Pres. own people say will be unsustainable http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/wm2595.cfm. "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:48 PM:

" Rhodie, just about all government services involve wealth redistribution. It's necessary for the greater good and the safety and long range prosperity of the country. Poor neighborhoods can't "pay" for their children to be educated. Taxes collected from others educate poor children. As Jeff said, roads are paved in all neighborhoods, not just the wealthy. Heathcare is a public safety issue. People with no access to services incubate and spread disease and are less productive workers. "

Report Abuse

Godfather wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:37 PM:

" My wife is crying upstairs. I hear the dollar is falling every day. Mr. Obama,I think it's time you told the American people what everyone seems to know. "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:02 PM:

" you are one confusing person. you don't know what you're talking about, but we should listen to you. you have difficulty recalling the order of events in which you took part in. and you apparently don't see problem when the support for your argument actually supports a different argument. confusing indeed. "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:54 PM:

" i guess i didn't really take that as a question. i thought to be a rhetorical question, especially since there was no question mark. But when you said, "Then I asked you to explain it. Then I posted the definition of both," that makes it seem like they were two distinct actions or posts. You did it all at once, so if you even were asking me to explain, you gave me no opportunity to do so. "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:35 PM:

" 8:43 am, Jeff "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 5:08 PM:

" Rhodie, do takes in wealthy communities pay, in part, roads in depressed communities? "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 5:07 PM:

" wait a minute sparky, when did you ask me to explain it? "

Report Abuse

Rhodie wrote on Sep 16, 2009 3:04 PM:

" Word Slugs:

Do you really equate the Gov. providing for the safty of it's people as the same as the Gov. controlling the wealth of it's people? Do highway's and the FDA = government wealth redistribution? "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 1:31 PM:

" Jeff, I said I was not an expert on socialism or communism. Then I asked you to explain it. Then I posted the definition of both. Since you are the smartest person here, why don't you educate me. "

Report Abuse

Word Slugs wrote on Sep 16, 2009 12:56 PM:

" Cogito, the roads are funded by the government. Private companies construct them. The government regulates the planning, implementation, and financing of the roads. Private companies get the contract to do what the government tells them to do. And, to clarify your statement: "There's no doubt in my mind that if we let private enterprise run whatever we can, it would be run better and cost less. It always does"; you are in favor of deregulating the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and all zoning laws and regulations. Is that what happened when energy was deregulated? "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Sep 16, 2009 12:44 PM:

" Word Slugs, in California, most of our roads are built by private companies, not the government. The reason is that they do a lot better job than CalTrans used to. There's no doubt in my mind that if we let private enterprise run whatever we can, it would be run better and cost less. It always does. "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 11:53 AM:

" so, sparky, once again, you don't know what you're talking about, but we should listen to you anyway. Once again, I'll wait to you become more educated. "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 11:51 AM:

" hey rantraves, when did I support or condone socialism? I just debunked the veracity of this LTE, er, I mean unsubstantiated, mass email. "

Report Abuse

Word Slugs wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:52 AM:

" I am so sick of the Socialist influence in our country. We should let the free market rule. Why should our tax dollars be used to pay for the Socialist's Agenda? Like highways? air traffic control? The FDA? Clean drinking water? Social Security? Libraries? Any and Every Public Works Project? Even the Armed Forces can be considered a form of Socialism (Let private miltias paid by free market capitalists pay for the nation's defense). Why not let the private sector take care of all of these things? Get the government out of my life! If airlines have shoddy safety standards, the free market (and gravity) will weed them out. If food producers provide an unsafe product, the free market (and E Coli) will weed them out. The mere thought of more Socialism makes me sicker than I'd be from the food I'd eat if we didn't have some Socialist Practices. "

Report Abuse

wtf wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:32 AM:

" Excellent letter, Fred! The analogy is right on the money! I say this because it struck a chord with me.

My daughter, and this is a true story ;) when she was in the fourth grade had to work in 'teams' in class and the 'team' was graded on the 'group' effort. She was an A student and always came home complaining that only two or three people in the 'group' of seven did all the work; but they were all given the same grade and she didn't think that was fair.

Neither did I.

Sure, kids need to know how to work with others; however, they also need to learn to be both critical and independent thinkers....it's from this last group that the majority of useful inventions come from...not from clusterf*cks, er, 'groups' "

Report Abuse

rantraves wrote on Sep 16, 2009 10:18 AM:

" Jeff must have missed this lesson: socialism is supported by low cost energy. In other words, socialists don't build anything; they instead take from the productivity of others. In a "low energy" economy there would little or no allowance for "commie crybabies" unwilling to produce for themselves; However, in a "high energy" economy -- like our own -- the surpluses created by the "productive" give the "crybabies" voice. One might conclude that in a wealthy society it becomes easier to attempt appeasement through largess than to demand higher standards from the "non-productive". Anyway, the "high energy" days are being decimated by Obama and his Czars; leaving you libs in a very difficult position to say the least. So what's your leader going to do? He's going to spend money we don't have at rate beyond our ability to ever pay back -- not that we didn't hit that point decades ago. It's actually good news for America though, in that the moral fiber needed to re-build this country still exists with greater fortitude than in any other place on earth -- which might not have proved true 10 years down the road. Sorry, "socialist commies", better luck next time. "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:45 AM:

" The way I read the definition, socialism is the stepping stone towards communism. "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:43 AM:

" By no means am I claiming to be an expert on these, so maybe you could explain the difference.


com⋅mu⋅nism  [kom-yuh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
Use communism in a Sentence
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.



so⋅cial⋅ism  [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:35 AM:

" Sparky, would you now like to change to national political accusation from "socialism" to "communism", now that this allegorical story to "support" your opposition to the president is actually abour communism? "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:33 AM:

" Sparky, you're trying to support a story about a "professor" proving socialism as failure, and the fact that the professor's experiment has nothing to do with socialism, but communism instead, does nothing to devalue the whole story? This would-be professor of economics is not a very good professor if they do not understand the difference between socialism and communism. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:17 AM:

" OK, Snopes classifies it as "Legend", and has found evidence of it to be at least 15 years old. If you want proof as to how Communism works, one need look no farther than Cuba or the failed Soviet Union. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:12 AM:

" Did anyone bother to see if this story was true? Because when I got the email regarding this story, I looked it up on snopes, and it flagged it as "false". It's not even a real story. One of the big indicators that an internet story is fake, is if the first line is "this is a true story". "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:04 AM:

" Oh, it's just communism. Whew! Thank goodness. I thought it was something bad. "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:01 AM:

" Jeff....I should point out that the definition that I presented in my 7:47 post was from wikipedia. I am not claiming that as my original work. Just wanted to clear that up. "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 8:01 AM:

" sparky, thanks for the snopes link. It helps change the topic from whether or not LNS should reprint mass emails (without crediting) to the validity of the argument/allegory. The experiment the "professor" enacts is one of communism, not socialism. Thanks for helping debunk the general intent of the content. "

Report Abuse

Warrior4Life wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:52 AM:

" what's that smell? silly season again. "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:47 AM:

" Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."

Am I wrong or didn't Fred state that this was done by a professor at a college. Then, it seems that he followed that by describing what the professor did in his classroom.

I am not seeing where Fred represented this as "his own original work". "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:42 AM:

" Jeff, this is at snopes.com. I'm trying to understand...do you take issue with what the professor did in his classroom, or that someone posted it in an opinionated column?


http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=43499


. "

Report Abuse

veritas wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:30 AM:

" Jeff: I think this qualifies as "public domain" since it has surfaced everywhere on the internet.

A good summary spoken by a recent marxist presidental candidate could be written: "Spread the wealth around." "

Report Abuse

jeff wrote on Sep 16, 2009 7:22 AM:

" wow, now LNS is re-printing unverified, unattibuted mass emails. I understand it as allegorical, but it seems odd that LNS would simply re-print it. Here's a hint from a teacher: google an excerpt to check for plagarism before printing. "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:57 AM:

" In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into contact with Marxist literature. "

Report Abuse

sparky595 wrote on Sep 16, 2009 6:48 AM:

" Spread the wealth. Punish those mean rich people (the ones that create the jobs that we need). Fundamentally change America. Social justice. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. " -- Karl Marx

Wake up America. Get your heads out of the sand. obama is leading us down this road. He is a marxist. His father was a practicing marxist politician in Kenya. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Fred, you will find posts here that will support obama. Just remember, as sad as it is, some people actually want the government to dummy everyone down and take care of them from birth to death. They don't want to be responsible for their own lives. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Special Sections

Sentinel Silver 2010

Photo Reprints

Find Ads




Services

Contact Us

Office

125 N. Church St.
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95241
(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Newsroom

E-mail

(209) 369-7035
Fax: (209) 369-6706

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Problems with your subscription?
(209) 333-1400

Advertising

E-mail

(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Classifieds

Place an ad E-mail

(209) 333-1111
Fax: (209) 369-1084