Egypt4u

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.
Is this teacher truly a genius? Checked out and this is true...it DID happen!


An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently 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 will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

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.

As the tests proceeded, 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.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED 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.
It could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on)


Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.


These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Very true, LLL - - - and a sad fact - -

And what makes Obama a socialist? I guess he is defined as such by some because of the healthcare initiatives. That doesn't make him a socialist.....just civilised. What would modern America advocate? Leave people with chronic health needs to the mercy of the insurance industry? The wealthiest nation in the world but can't look after it's weak and helpless. Thank God for the NHS, a genuine socialist initiative!

I'm always amazed at the attitude of people here towards healthcare. I'm Canadian and have 'health care coverage' - sure it is 'socialistic' but I'm totally fine with that, love it!!

I meet people here who do NOT carry any health insurance and who firmly believe their health is their own responsibility and the gov't has NO RIGHT whatsoever to interfere with their health.

Personally I do NOT get this attitude. Honest I do not but it IS a common attitude here. (Actually I rather enjoy thinking the USA has a very backwards thinking with regard to healthcare.)

@ Morgita - I quite agree that wanting universal healthcare does not make Obama a socialist - but - some here see him this way. He is NOT a liked President. Very low popularity ratings etc...........

I'm always intrigued by this peculiar attitude to healthcare in America. Does the anti lobby follow through when they face situations like the birth of a child with profound and severe health needs. Do they still insist that it is wrong for the government to get involved. I hold no particular brief for Obama but the opposition to him has verged on the hysterical. Outsiders like me look on in amazement at people like Sarah Palin. Are they for real, or have they been recruited from TV cartoons like Family Guy or the Simpsons? Politics in America seems to delight in dirty dealing and back stabbing, nothing new ther, but they are not even subtle about it. Western style democracy is facing it's most severe threat since Hitler as the financial systems fail and politicians everywhere are disgracing themselves and us.

It is strange how differently we view politicians on both sides of the pond. On one visit to the States I recall chatting with some friends and they were saying how wonderful the present prime minister Margaret Thatcher was and how lucky we were to have her. Now putting politics aside, it was around the time that dear old Maggie was probably the most hated person in the UK with Poll Tax riots, industries closing down and everything else going wrong, but the Americans seemed to love her. I made the comment that their own president Ronald Regan was not a bad guy and I think that most people in the UK viewed him as a fairly decent person as far as world leaders go. I was amazed to hear the tirade directed against him, very similar to our own view of Maggie Thatcher. So I suppose it is very much down to your perspective of how things work in your own country and that is probably what is wrong with the world today with each country thinking its own ways are best.

No, I watched Prime Minister's question time yesterday, or rather as much of as I can stomach. The Punch and Judy element disgusted me. There they are, scoring points off each other and clearly exhilarated by it all. You half expect the front bench to hold up score cards. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burned! I'm out of love with politics entirely. This is not just grumpy old woman syndrome. I held out as long as I could, berating all and sundry for their cynicism, but I've had it with politics on both sides of the pond.

I'm pretty fed up with most politicians lately too. I've been following and watching the GOP (aka Grand Old Party = Republican) debates and all of their positioning coming up to nominating a candidate to run against Obama. There is one man who, to me, seems educated, worldly, knowledgeable (Huntsman) however apparently he doesn't have sufficient $$ to win the nomination. Kinda makes me wonder what is the base criteria for gaining a nomination . Seems whomever has the most money - to create their media image - is the one mostly likely to win. Doesn't seem to matter how smart you are, your work history, education, leadership abilities, ideas - it all boils down to how much money you have so that you can 'create' the media image you want the people/world to know. I think this is how we end up with the Politicians we have who are now running the world (and us into the ground).

I personally do not like the 'career' politicians. They rarely have any real sense of where 'real people' are at. Being a Congressman, even for 1 term, gives a mega life pension and easy access to all 'insider' deals.

You have got it in one LLL “Career Politicians” very few have ever held a real job, OK some because of their family wealth have obtained professional titles such as Dr or lawyer, but never actually had to practice in those fields, they are just the end result of a privileged education system.

If we really wanted to make them accountable we would instigate a system where for example the Minister for Defence along with his sons and daughters had to serve in any conflicts, the Employment Minister had to work in Tesco filling shelves in his spare time and the Minister for Pensions had to live on the average national earnings. If they were over 65 they would have to live on the state pension for the duration of their service. All ministers must use the National Health Service and see a local doctor, or dentist whilst using the same system that we all have to use for making appointments etc. .

In short I would make it a condition of holding any ministerial post subject to having to use all the public services and be subjected to all the criteria that the average person is subjected to in everyday life. They would not be allowed to fudge the issue and anyone who did so could face a prison sentence if they used private wealth during their tenure of office. That way they would have a real understanding of the impact of foreign wars, of increased taxes, of sky high fuel prices, of under funded services such as the NHS and schools. Of the poor road system and even poorer public transport and of old people living in poverty. As a reward for their services they would be paid a decent wage, collectable after their term of office and a bonus that was paid as a percentage increase based on how our national wealth had increased over that term, so no improvement equals no bonus.
But of course, it would never happen.

@H - wish we could hold those in gov't accountable and force them to actually experience how the other half lives and I don't mean like "uniform day" where once a year everybody has to wear the uniform to know what it feels like. I'm talking about real life experiences where you, the politician, have something real personal invested. Am thinking this would give one pause to want to really look at all the options.

I'm fast not liking the 'career politicians' anymore. Too elite. In the USA if you serve a mere ONE term as a Congressman you're guaranteed a phenomenal pension for life. Ridiculous!!! I'd rather the person is acting this capacity out of a real sense of wanting to help their fellow man - NOT to gain a life pension that is quite hefty.

Been watching the Republican debates. Most of the candidates are more than wealthy and don't have a clue how the 'regular' guy makes ends meet.

Most of them looked like puppets off Tracey island, all they needed were the strings.

I thought the biggest laugh in your debates LLL was Newt Gingrichs proposal to establish a community of many thousands on the moon if he gets to the White House. I don't think he will get to the White House; Mad House maybe

Community on the Moon eh?
How long before all that goes Sub Prime?

Yes wasn't that a great political strategy - lets establish an American community on the MOON!!! Sure! Sounds good to me. Can't feed or look after what is here these days but lets all rally 'round and establish a community on the MOON!

Pssst - we better let Keefy know - he can start a Moon4U site. If he starts now he can get the one up on everybody else.

What is most scarey is that these 4 are the "primo" of the crop, the "primo" of the Republican Party and so far the Republican debates have been quite an entertaining evening of telly on par with the Keystone Cops. Apparently the American public wanted this type of debate to happen so they could 'get to know' and 'familiarize' themselves better with the candidates. Get to know them up close and personal. Now that the public IS getting to know these politicians better I'm thinking the typical response is "OMG, OMG, OMG!! what have we gotten ourselves in for? And I have to pick one of these to lead my country? " Guess you got what you wished for and now are wishing you sure hadn't wanted to get to know a politician up close and personal.

From what I gather seems most here are unhappy with President Obama. This is prime time for the opposing party to get "IN" however the Republicans are proving not to have a candidate sufficient to probably challenge Obama (yet).

I'm no political analyst but there is writing, scarey writing on the wall and I don't think I'm going to be able to bury my head in the sand and hold my breath for long enough............

I think it goes for most countries where close scrutiny of candidates is allowed, what we the voter sees often fills us with despair. It has been said before and it is getting truer by the minute, there is a political class that is usually independantly wealthy, very few have made it on their own, most have used inherited wealth to create themselves even more wealth. Well to be honest there is nothing bloody hard about that is there? most of us on here if given a large wad of money could make it into a lot more, mainly because it is just a matter of investment opportunities that most ordinary folk never have because they are too busy trying to make enough money to survive.

Right on H. One of the things that comes up on the Republican debates is that Mitt Romney is a very wealthy man. At the start of the debates he seemed somewhat defensive about this however during this last debate he indicated that he IS wealthy and has all his money in a 'blind trust' being administered by professional money account managers or fund managers etc. His money does make more money as he has sufficient money to warrant professionals to manage it to make more. Once one has achieved a certain level of wealth it is really difficult to lose it back down to nothing (so long as one doesn't suddenly go totally ridiculously extravegant)

so long as one doesn't suddenly go totally ridiculously extravegant

Or get so big that the country cannot let you fail, so we all bail you out with our tax money so that you can carry on living in luxory and continue to screw us all again.