I used to get a sick kick out of Republican partisans banging on about transfer payments inducing dependency and other moral ills among the lower orders. But, of course, redistribution schemes that transfer money upward from less well-off folks to speculators, contractors, and what-not, well, that’s all about opportunity, growth, or sumpin’.
Jack, Where do you get the idea that the Republicans are behind this? Republicans favor low taxes. Didn’t you know that?
If the University of Oregon is like most of academia it’s heavily Democrat. If you want to talk about redistribution schemes that transfer money upward, then you need to look no further than the Clinton Foundation.
AVY, so most of academia is heavily Democrat. Oh, REALLY? Well then, can you tell us your study of the composition of most of academia’s Board of Trustees/Regents? Because I can tell you that the U of O BOT is made up of corporate functionaries. And I am willing to say that is true of nearly every USAAmerican uni….
AYY, the article says that the U of O, presumably trustees and president, sent a proposal through its lobbyist to the governor. No mention that this idea erupted from a track-deprived, left-wing Democrat professoriate.
Dems are in on the redistribution-upward fun, of course. Around 2013, our Podunk Tech’s Fine and Performing Arts dean and several Democrat worthies promoted a scheme to fund arts programs through a hefty local excise tax on tobacco. The idea died quickly.
Some folks had publicly pointed out that the tax disproportionately punished poor consumers of tobacco to disproportionately subsidize arts programs that were more likely to favor upmarket non-consumers of tobacco who were more able to afford the full freight for updates on Wagner. I was one of those critics. I’m big-time okay with the arts, too, and well-argued subsidies on a case-by-case basis. I don’t like hustles.
Charlie, with a couple of extraordinary exceptions, the trustees at my local Podunk Tech are political appointees, and substantively worthless.
Charlie, Yes really. Academia really is heavily Democrat. You didn’t know that? Wow.
Any MY study of the Board of Trustees? Charlie, it was Jack who made the comment about Republicans. You should be asking him for his study of the composition of the Board of Trustees. I was just responding to him.
And besides, who ever said a Democrat can’t be a corporate functionary. Ever hear of George Soros? And he’s not even in Oregon. You think maybe some corporate functionaries might be giving some money to the Clinton Foundation? What party do think corporate diversity officers vote for?
I dunno. Everyone loves to point out the liberalism of the humanities and yet the schools and professors that get paid the most and get the most privilege — hello College of Business — have a whole lot of conservatives and Republicans in them. And I’m not quite sure why anyone would just wave away the facts of where Boards of Regents increasingly lean. Every Regent in the University of Texas system is a GOP appointee. And the Regents have tremendous power in the UT System, so yes, the argument that “academic is heavily Democrat” is, I’m afraid, an argument that’s going to require a little more than simply imperious assertion followed by haughtily dismissing any questioning of it.
As for the original post, as a track guy, I guess I’m pleased to see my sport getting some attention in the public trough. I wouldn’t mock the idea of there being money in track, especially in Oregon. But as always, the public will get virtually no return on its investment, and could far better utilize or invest or otherwise benefit from a 1% sales tax.
January 4th, 2016 at 3:53PM
That is so not ducky.
January 5th, 2016 at 9:53AM
I used to get a sick kick out of Republican partisans banging on about transfer payments inducing dependency and other moral ills among the lower orders. But, of course, redistribution schemes that transfer money upward from less well-off folks to speculators, contractors, and what-not, well, that’s all about opportunity, growth, or sumpin’.
January 5th, 2016 at 10:58AM
Field of Schemes? Love it.
January 5th, 2016 at 1:31PM
Jack, Where do you get the idea that the Republicans are behind this? Republicans favor low taxes. Didn’t you know that?
If the University of Oregon is like most of academia it’s heavily Democrat. If you want to talk about redistribution schemes that transfer money upward, then you need to look no further than the Clinton Foundation.
January 5th, 2016 at 2:39PM
AVY, so most of academia is heavily Democrat. Oh, REALLY? Well then, can you tell us your study of the composition of most of academia’s Board of Trustees/Regents? Because I can tell you that the U of O BOT is made up of corporate functionaries. And I am willing to say that is true of nearly every USAAmerican uni….
January 5th, 2016 at 6:03PM
AYY, the article says that the U of O, presumably trustees and president, sent a proposal through its lobbyist to the governor. No mention that this idea erupted from a track-deprived, left-wing Democrat professoriate.
Dems are in on the redistribution-upward fun, of course. Around 2013, our Podunk Tech’s Fine and Performing Arts dean and several Democrat worthies promoted a scheme to fund arts programs through a hefty local excise tax on tobacco. The idea died quickly.
Some folks had publicly pointed out that the tax disproportionately punished poor consumers of tobacco to disproportionately subsidize arts programs that were more likely to favor upmarket non-consumers of tobacco who were more able to afford the full freight for updates on Wagner. I was one of those critics. I’m big-time okay with the arts, too, and well-argued subsidies on a case-by-case basis. I don’t like hustles.
Charlie, with a couple of extraordinary exceptions, the trustees at my local Podunk Tech are political appointees, and substantively worthless.
January 6th, 2016 at 1:44AM
Charlie, Yes really. Academia really is heavily Democrat. You didn’t know that? Wow.
Any MY study of the Board of Trustees? Charlie, it was Jack who made the comment about Republicans. You should be asking him for his study of the composition of the Board of Trustees. I was just responding to him.
And besides, who ever said a Democrat can’t be a corporate functionary. Ever hear of George Soros? And he’s not even in Oregon. You think maybe some corporate functionaries might be giving some money to the Clinton Foundation? What party do think corporate diversity officers vote for?
January 6th, 2016 at 3:29AM
Oops. the first “Any” should have been “And”
January 6th, 2016 at 2:48PM
I dunno. Everyone loves to point out the liberalism of the humanities and yet the schools and professors that get paid the most and get the most privilege — hello College of Business — have a whole lot of conservatives and Republicans in them. And I’m not quite sure why anyone would just wave away the facts of where Boards of Regents increasingly lean. Every Regent in the University of Texas system is a GOP appointee. And the Regents have tremendous power in the UT System, so yes, the argument that “academic is heavily Democrat” is, I’m afraid, an argument that’s going to require a little more than simply imperious assertion followed by haughtily dismissing any questioning of it.
As for the original post, as a track guy, I guess I’m pleased to see my sport getting some attention in the public trough. I wouldn’t mock the idea of there being money in track, especially in Oregon. But as always, the public will get virtually no return on its investment, and could far better utilize or invest or otherwise benefit from a 1% sales tax.