« The top one percent and Congress | Main | Bush's stock market projections overoptimistic »

February 27, 2005



I still wantto knwo "What constitutes the top one percent?" "What are the qualifications to be in the top one percent?"

Is it by income? Wealth? And if wealth is that real wealth? (as in land owned) Liquid wealth? (money on hand) Invested wealth? (stocks and such) or a combination of more than one of these or some other measure altogether?


The top one percent, as I understand, refers to net worth including all those elements of one's estate that would be included to determine one's net worth.

I think there have been interesting changes regarding which groups are said to belong to each party's base. democrat vs. republican used to be perceived as labor vs. management, the working class vs. their bosses, the "unwashed masses" vs. the old-money "elite". Now, the Republicans have managed to turn the conservative elite into an invisible, silent partner, guiding policy and funding frontmen who are able to convince a lot of working-class people that the republicans are a bunch of nascar-racin' good ol' boys. At the same time, they've successfully convinced the electorate that the existence of wealthy politicians in the democratic party means that the democrats should no longer be allowed to advocate for the working class.

That the republicans can still appeal to the so-called "christian right" based on sexual mores, while simultaneously engaging in all sorts of debauchery and sexual impropriety themselves, is another example of their awsome ability to sway public opinion by concealing the truth.

Here is one statistic that the republicans never seemed to mention is that the red states, who claim to oppose social programs and the taxes that fund them, use more of those programs and tax money than the blue states, while the blue states produce more of that tax revenue that the red states are using.

Your welcome, red states :)


This debate about the exact definition of the top one percent is kind of silly.

It doesn't really change anything if according to one defintion a person is in the top one percent, but according to another he's only in the top 1.3%. This has no impact on the significance of the fact that there's a financial elite that's vastly wealthier than the average American.


Maybe the reason that the republicans have been able to convice people that they are a bunch of nascar lovin' good ol' boys is because so many on the left side of the street disdain nascar and the red states lifestyles, i.e. going to church, hunting, fishing, eating red meat, calling a spade a spade and a fool a fool.


Kender, it's true that likes and dislikes vary, but that does not justify the deception.

That "going to church" thing is a myth, by the way. Lots of red-staters don't, lots of blue-staters do. It's just that blue-staters tend to keep it in more humble persective, while red-staters use it as an excuse to try to turn their religious dogma into law. Like the taliban.

Luke Lea

In this situation, and to deal with economic conservatives generally who "use" religious conservatives for their own selfish ends, I favor a more aggressive approach, as outlined in plank no. eight of the Born Again Democrat Platform:
. Bible in the Schools. We favor not just allowing but requiring the Bible to be studied in our public schools as an integral part of the history curriculum. We justify this on the grounds that the Bible is itself a history book, and a primary document of Western culture and civilization; it is from the pages of the Bible that our secular ideals of freedom, justice, and equality are historically derived. This book is the source of the Western idea of human progress, and of the faith that enabled our ancestors – at terrible sacrifice – to build a civilization like none ever seen before. These are things all children need to learn in school. The Supreme Court has already ruled that such an approach would be constitutional, and we need to take them up on it.

See my FAQs and the two blogs starting with "Is it the Religious Right -- or the Religious Wrong" for more details. I plan to blog more on this topic next week.

The comments to this entry are closed.