You entire post demonstrates a common thread running through the liberal philosophy. That the average American is too venal, stupid, selfish, or ignorant to do the right things the right way, but that somehow Hillary Clinton, handed the resources wrested from the private sector, will put the wealth in all the right places.

Given the history of government programs in all areas, including the space program, I have seen damn little evidence that this is the case. I could fill a page with examples of the private sector getting the job done while similar government efforts fall apart or cost far more.

Everything I've seen in my experience tells me that, in general, a dollar in the private sector will serve society better than that same dollar in the hands of a politician. This is, of course, discounting any philosophical arguments on property rights, which frankly, I find to be more important than the rather nebulous concept of "society" and its claims on my life and property.

I have found, when arguing these points, that "society" usually translates into something the arguer finds important, regardless of what a majority of their fellow citizens might think.

Just as an aside, the average liberal seems convinced down to their marrow that they are morally and intellectually superior to their opponents, and that the only reason the whole planet does not think as they do is because they haven't seen the light. Recommended reading: Thomas Sowell on "The Vision of the Anointed." If you don't want to read the book, try this speech.

The entire concept of wealth redistribution implies that the distributor has a better idea of what to do with that wealth than the person who produced it. Considering the intelligence and creativity of the wealth producers in America compared to the typical government representative, I don't see a lot of real evidence for that thesis either, but the advocates of such distribution must believe it in order to justify the action.