Exactly what percent of “the right” opposes public schooling?
The 1% is apolitical, neither right nor left. They just own the political and economic structures around the world. In the US, their bought-and-paid-for Red and Blue Punch and Judys provide the illusion of some political choice among the 99% as to the best way to increase their upward mobility. What a laugh.
Upward mobility? The 1% have no need of it. They “vote” against it with their money. Aloha
What percent, I couldn’t tell you – probably a minority – but the idea is definitely there. It’s a big part of the “school vouchers” movement. A lot of right-wingers really do not like public education and would vote to destroy it.
Kudos to Professor Flynn, for discovering that the population is getting smarter over time, not dumber, as these ‘reverse darwinian’ idiots were expecting. A brickbat to Professor Flynn for disregarding his own research, and spouting nonsense about how “New Zealand children could get dumber in three or four generations unless women with higher education started producing more babies.”
Could, not will; hasn’t this guy even heard of the Flynn Effect?
Pretty much all of it, given that they oppose public anything. These are the people who want to tear down all of the government except law enforcement, the military and the spy agencies.
Human Action writes:
> 34% of the population has a college degree.
No:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/p20-566.pdf
I’m not going to be as picky as I could be. “The population” would include all children, who of course don’t have college degrees. I presume you mean everyone over the age of 25. It’s 28%, actually.
Uh huh. And this cabal decided to “limit good education and the ability to think critically to their own and keep the 99% dumbed down and reproducing to provide personnel for domestic and military service”, while also setting up a public education system and widespread college educations. They sure are bad at the sinister goals you assign them.
And how does this work, exactly? When a guy gets drafted in the second round of the NBA draft, or a business owner’s income creeps above $400,000, do they get a packet in the mail outlining The Plan?
Ok. I didn’t invent the figure, I got it from here. But, 28%, 34%, makes no difference: it’s a lot higher than 1%.
I think I found the discrepancy: were you using Table 1, heading “Bachelor’s degree or more”, at 27.9%? If so, that neglects the 7.4% (of the adult population, yes) that holds associate’s degree, which brings it to 35.3%.
Please provide a cite to back that up or withdraw the claim.
Why don’t you produce a cite for your claim that they don’t oppose public works of all kinds? We just had a government shutdown by these people (which serves as a cite by itself). You’re trying to argue that water isn’t wet.
Even the more conservative right-wingers want education to be devolved to the local level.
The Right as it has made clear for decades wants virtually everything to be privatized and for profit, from education to prisons.
Because I never made that claim, that’s why.
IOW, you don’t have a cite because you just made it up. I thought so.
First of all, these folks are not the 1%; they are the 5%. us income distribution - Google Search(give it time to fully load). The real owners are the .1%. http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-individual-income-tax-data-0 we see that the top .1% first came into being in 1980. It was then they broke away from the 5% and the 1% as a “loose affiliation of … billionaires” unto themselves.
Me? I’m a 99.9%er.
Aloha
Per this:
So, that NBA player and that businessman are in the top 1%.
And yet, you consistently use the term “1%”.
Is there one table in particular that you’re referring to? None of those have entries for Top .1% until 2001.
No one has claimed that “they” don’t oppose public works of all kinds, so we start with a straw man.
The actual reference was to public schools. I live in a Republican district surrounded by Republican districts and I have never seen any movement, motion, or stray voiced thought by anyone that we should close down public schools and move to entirely privatized education. So we can move from “straw man” to “wierd conspiracy nonsense.”
The government shutdown was created by a rather small group of people on the fringes of the Right who used political maneuvering effectively to scare Boehner into allowing the shutdown when a majority of Republican Representatives were willing to avoid the shutdown. Your claim regarding “those people” is rather like claims that “Jews” control the economy or news media. It is a latent conspiracy theory that is based on personal vitriol unsupported by, (actually, contradicted by), facts.
This is probably a difficult concept for you but I changed my mind after doing some research.
Shakes head in wonder. :smack:
That’s my point. Shakes head in disbelief.
Aloha
You’re upset that I can’t read your mind?
How’s that? Obviously there were people in the top 0.1 percentile for income before 2001. There’s a top 0.1% for everything that can be measured. But if the data you linked to only separates out the top 0.1% starting in 2001, I was wondering what the source was for your claim that the income of the top 0.1% began to diverge sharply from the top 1% starting in 1980. Without data from 1980-present, how can I determine if you are correct or not?
Focus on the top 10% or even top 1% does misplace emphasis. In 2011 the top 0.1% earned about 10% of U.S. income. The top 0.01% earned about 5%.
I linked to a graph showing this before and commented:
This may help explain some of the right-wingers’ confusions. Their sentiment is to defend hard-working lawyers who may be making only a million dollars or so per year. “Left-wing” antipathy isn’t directed against hard-working lawyers so much as against the egregious inherited wealth of the Koch brothers and Walton siblings.
Perhaps someone else here can explain it to you. I’m done.
Aloha
ed perhaps septimus has