Morris Dovey wrote:

Mark & Juanita wrote:

.... snip

That's too bad - and does not speak well of either faculties nor
administrations of those institutions. Perhaps as an alumnus you can
advocate for the missing balance.

Could it be that the fascination you describe is more with the various
notions of Utopia than with practical, real-world systems of governance?


From what I observed, I would say that is a correct assessment. Seems
that the advocates and apologists were always making the statement
that, "it just hasn't been done right". They kind of miss the basic needs
and nature of humans and the fact that in order for their utopian visions
to work, force is required; which, unfortunately kind of destroys that
utopian feeling.

The origin of this discussion, the fact that the democrat candidate has
in
multiple instances indicated the desire to implement re-distributionist
policies and continued implementation of socialist policies was the heart
of the original elements of the discussion. If you want to categorize
and refine the degree of socialism and more specifically identify with
which statist phylum his ideas are associated, that's fine, it doesn't
change the idea that this candidate is seeking greater government
control, larger government aggrandizement of wealth for the purpose of
re-distributing it to his political gain, and punishing success in the
name of fairness.

Interesting. With the substitution of "productivity" for "success",
that's pretty much how I'd have characterized the behavior of the
current administration. :-)


Aside from the unfortunate addition of yet another major socialist program
(the prescription drug benefit), I'm not seeing that quest for more
government power.



Let's put this into an analogy to which you should be able to relate.
You
have posted extensively about you and your son's participation in pine
car
derby as well as the accompanying successes. What if the pine car derby
judges were to make the following pronouncement for next year's contest:
Given that you and your son and other winners have been so successful
over
the past several years, being able to savor the joy of victory and
competition, the judges have determined that it is not fair that other
disadvantaged children, often not of their own fault, not be capable of
enjoying some degree of success. Therefore, in order to implement a
policy of fairness and assure that the most disadvantaged be able to do
well also, those who have, for the past several years been finalists and
winners (the top 5%) will be required to build and provide two pine cars
-- the judges will then choose one of those entries and provide that car
to one of the losers from previous years (you know the ones, the kid who
shows up with the wheels nailed to the pine car block, not all of them
touching the ground, if he took some time, he may have decorated it with
crayon or magic marker) so that child will also be able to enjoy the
thrill of the
competition. We're sure you see the fairness in this new approach and
look forward to your two entries in the coming derby.

Another scenario: If your child's car did not finish in the top 1/5,
then your child is required to contribute toward the purchase of
(expensive) ball bearing wheels to be distributed only to that top 20%.


In what way does your analogy come close to the current state? You surely
are not implying that those in the bottom 80% are having their taxes raised
and that money being re-distributed to the top 20%? Just because people
don't understand basic math doesn't mean that an across-the-board tax cut
doesn't benefit everyone and it certainly doesn't mean those of lesser
means are subsidizing those of greater. We already have the case where the
top 25% are paying 86% of all income taxes while their adjusted gross
income share is only 68%. So, what do you consider fair? When the top 25%
are paying 90%, 95%, 100%? At what point does this become the dictatorship
of the majority where the 75% non-taxpayers see a way to get something for
nothing by demanding higher taxes on those other than themselves and
distribution of those funds to benefit themselves?

It also does not follow that the tax burden on those in the top 25% has
declined, as a matter of fact, just the opposite:

1986 76.02
1987 76.92
1988 77.84
1989 77.22
1990 77.02
1991 77.29
1992 78.48
1993 79.27
1994 79.55
1995 80.36
1996 81.32
1997 81.67
1998 82.69
1999 83.54
2000 84.01
2001 82.90
2002 83.90
2003 83.88
2004 84.86
2005 85.99
2006 86.27

So, where does this end, the bottom end of the distribution continues to
have less and less stake in assuring that government expenditures are
well-managed and appropriate. As a matter of fact, since they benefit
disproportionately, it is in their interest to vote those into office who
promise the most. This is not a healthy situation in which our country
finds itself.


.... snip


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough