Let History Guide Decision on Socialism

We presently live in a nation teetering on the brink of Socialism. It is the word of the day. People (or businesses) cannot be trusted to dictate the supply, pricing, payroll, and overall direction of their companies. In the United States, moving this direction is the desire of many, as people have jumped off the deep end and decided that the government is more trustworthy than they are.
Think about it, the Constitution of the United States outlined a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people have decided that as long as they have job, health care, and the opportunity to pay 25% of their money in debt, 50% in taxes, and keep 25% of it for their own sustenance that it is acceptable. They have decided that they are entitled to health care, a retirement, an overpriced home, and such paid for by other people. If they get them then it is acceptable to reform this nation into "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Does history dictate that this is possible or rational?
Current events around the world paint a rather unflattering picture of Socialism. The only parts of the world actually lifting people out of poverty reside in Asia, and China, Japan, and India are three of the freest traders and most powerful producers in the world. Poverty (and recessions) cease to exist in the conditions of productivity and economic freedom. There is ascending Capitalism on the continent of Asia.
Next, we move to Europe, which is very popularly labeled as a beacon for Socialism by the right and is the desire of the left. Seldom does the media explain to us all that the government is reducing its share of GDP in nations in Europe as opposed to increasing. Nations with governments that were once 40-50% of national GDP are actually doing less, and for the better. They are realizing the grand illusion that if you take everything from the rich above a certain line, you still are unable to pay for Socialist ambitions as the rich will decide not to pay themselves so much if it means redistribution of their work to someone else. As this system is not sustainable, the government must eventually take less, influence less, and leave life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to the people and not to the nation.
And then there is the United States. There is now this 2% illusion (or lunacy) of Barack Obama regarding taking from the rich to subsidize a lack of success. The United States is moving toward a 35% government share of GDP by 2010 when the Socialist nations in Europe are moving down into the upper 30's. They have learned their lesson, and Obama ignores the lessons learned by others to believe that he's different. He chooses to NOT look to the loss of poverty in Asia, to NOT look at how unsustainable Socialism is to nations in Europe, and to look at governing selfishness alone. When one believes that they can fix someone else's problems, they will be sadly mistaken. History has spoken.
Fix someone else, they fix their own problems. Fix their problem, they're bound to repeat the events that lead to their problems in the first place. Economies that facilitate work and production are economies that lift people out of poverty through their own economic freedom, choice, and through the very work of their lives teach them that all of life (career and personal) takes work. Economies that facilitate spending and entitlement like the United States reward no work, no production, and are doomed to see GDP decline, tax revenues decline, poverty to increase, and wealth to decline.
Not only that, but the government will be so far in debt that it will be rendered insolvent. Hopefully Obama looks at history sooner or later and go back to learning as opposed to believing he has the answers. He's been campaigning since he was in college, perhaps it's time he opened up a newspaper, magazine, or a certain blog!