158 families donated almost half of the total money in the Presidental campaigns

[Fanatical Meat]

So then treat the symptom of donations to politicians? If you were serious about that being the problem then the easy solution is to ban TV ads and thus the need for huge campaign war chests. But this isn't actually about campaign donations is it?

Think twice about this. News companies will take the most interesting candidate to interview at the peak times.
Also don't forget the liberal media and stuff.

 

[blankslate]

So then treat the symptom of donations to politicians? If you were serious about that being the problem then the easy solution is to ban TV ads and thus the need for huge campaign war chests. But this isn't actually about campaign donations is it?

You almost hit the mark it's about campaign financing. Don't ban ads ban exceptionally large donations from individuals or superPacs. Then set aside public funding for campaigns. Keep the politicians from being bought by big funders.


....

 

[michal1980]

Do you really think they are paying income tax rates?? LOL

the top 1% pay over 45% of income taxes

 

[fskimospy]

the top 1% pay over 45% of income taxes

Maybe you should compare % of total taxes paid to % of total income. I bet that would be a lot more interesting:

So, you were saying?

 

[BxgJ]

the top 1% pay over 45% of income taxes

You realize we aren't talking about the top 1% ? 158 families is a small fraction of that number, and are likely at or near the top of that group.

 

[soundforbjt]

the top 1% pay over 45% of income taxes

You think there are 3 million people in those 158 families?

And pay half the income taxes.

 

[glenn1]

You almost hit the mark it's about campaign financing. Don't ban ads ban exceptionally large donations from individuals or superPacs. Then set aside public funding for campaigns. Keep the politicians from being bought by big funders.

....

You are being lazy and assuming without examining the merits of your ideas that they're better than the ideas those rich people have. Maybe you should stop presuming the only reason why politicians do what they do is because some scary rich person donates to their campaign.

 

[sm625]

So much money being donated by so few people is a good thing because it forces the average person to realize that the country is for sale. There can be no delusions about it. If you want someone who represents you then the very first thing you have to do is stop voting for anyone who takes that money. Period. End of story. If they're raising huge political war chests, then they are the enemy, first and foremost. It doesnt matter what their politics are, you assume its all bullshit unless the money is raised organically. And besides, it doesnt take money to win a campaign. It doesnt take money to post a series of articles and lectures and do interviews. It only takes money to dump a load of crap onto people and win by sheer volume of propaganda. That is the broken paradigm that needs to be fixed and can only be fixed when the people decide to make civics a priority.

I envision a future where candidates engage in daily debates with their rivals, and the viewers and readers score each session and after 3-6 months a clear winner emerges. Our electoral system needs to be structured to where it is a 1-2 hour a day job tracking all your candidates and following and rating their back and forth action. And people need to get into this like they are into the meaningless nighttime tv that they waste their time on now. Until this happens it is always going to be about the money. The money is just a symbol of apathy. I guarantee you that when the apathy goes away, the money will too.

 

[fskimospy]

You are being lazy and assuming without examining the merits of your ideas that they're better than the ideas those rich people have. Maybe you should stop presuming the only reason why politicians do what they do is because some scary rich person donates to their campaign.

The research pretty clearly shows that politicians do what rich people want.

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

To quote the study's findings:

When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the policy preferences of rich people are just somehow better and that's why they are implemented? If so, what earthly basis is there for such an idea? Isn't it just vastly more likely that rich people pursue pro rich person policies regardless of their overall merit?

 

[Jhhnn]

Public IRS data isn't granular enough to break out top 158 families but top 0.1% of taxpayers make 8.8% of total AGI and pay 16.1% of total income taxes paid. They have as much right to "petition for redress of grievances" as anyone else.

True enough, I suppose. I'm having trouble figuring out what sort of legitimate grievance they might have against a system & govt that has made them multi-multi billionaires.

I have an even more difficult time understanding why some of the Wealthiest want to break the Govt while pretending they're not doing it, financing the Tea Party through what is basically a money laundering operation.

Maybe it's more about ego & power seeking, the power to inflict their will & their ideology on the rest of us.

 

[Ausm]

the top 1% pay over 45% of income taxes

Crack kills.....

 

[fskimospy]

True enough, I suppose. I'm having trouble figuring out what sort of legitimate grievance they might have against a system & govt that has made them multi-multi billionaires.

I have an even more difficult time understanding why some of the Wealthiest want to break the Govt while pretending they're not doing it, financing the Tea Party through what is basically a money laundering operation.

Maybe it's more about ego & power seeking, the power to inflict their will & their ideology on the rest of us.

While they certainly have the same rights of redress as other people, you'll notice conservatives always focus on what percentage of INCOME taxes they pay as compared to their percentage of income. This is highly misleading. When you look at the percentage of ALL taxes and fees they pay as compared to their percentage of income it's pretty much in line with everyone else.

 

[blankslate]

You are being lazy and assuming without examining the merits of your ideas that they're better than the ideas those rich people have. Maybe you should stop presuming the only reason why politicians do what they do is because some scary rich person donates to their campaign.

You're being lazy and not even considering if all that campaign cash influences the votes of the politicians. Or maybe you actually want a country where the richer a person is the more votes they have effectively. /shrug



....

 

[Jhhnn]

While they certainly have the same rights of redress as other people, you'll notice conservatives always focus on what percentage of INCOME taxes they pay as compared to their percentage of income. This is highly misleading. When you look at the percentage of ALL taxes and fees they pay as compared to their percentage of income it's pretty much in line with everyone else.

Conservatives fail to grasp what it means to have billions in earning assets and hundreds of millions in income. It means that the desire for more is a desire for power, not money.

It's the power to promulgate ideology not necessarily to the advantage of most Americans & the power to bend Democracy to their will.

 

[Jeff7]

Mmmm, plutocracy.
I was going to say that campaign finance reform will never happen because of this corruption of a democratic government, but I guess it has. Now we have anonymous superPACs. Dandy.

Conservatives fail to grasp what it means to have billions in earning assets and hundreds of millions in income. It means that the desire for more is a desire for power, not money.

It's the power to promulgate ideology not necessarily to the advantage of most Americans & the power to bend Democracy to their will.

People in general have a tough time with numbers bigger than a thousand.
A billion? Like, a thousand thousand thousand? Some people out there don't believe that any one person has anywhere close to that much money. The wealthiest could drop a million dollars on something like a regular middle-class person would buy a six-pack of beer. Lose 90% of your money in the stock market and still be really goddamn rich.

To some people, this idea of that kind of money is absolutely impossible, so they think it's a lie or an extreme exaggeration, and there's just no way around it.

It means that the desire for more is a desire for power, not money.

The thought crossed my mind on the drive home. (Driving is really dull....not a lot else to occupy my mind.) What other point is there except power? How many private yachts and jets can you really practically need? What else are you looking for? Is it just another manifestation of the ancient instinct to accumulate more dick-waving points?

 

[Sonikku]

What other point is there except power? How many private yachts and jets can you really practically need?

Enough to park mah boat into my other boat.

 

[nickqt]

Speech is money, and corporations are people now, so it has to be good.

 

[Jaskalas]

But this isn't actually about campaign donations is it?

Those donations are obviously not for our benefit.
That's the problem.

400 people are worth more than 150 million people. That's a problem in terms of buying politicians.

 

[Slew Foot]

the top 1% pay over 45% of income taxes

i could have sworn that the top 1% was ~380k just year or so ago.

 

[shady28]

What I love about this report is - those families just blew $175 million and thus far have *almost* nothing to show for it.

Of the 4 front runners Clinton, Trump, Sanders, and Carson, only Clinton has been a major beneficiary of superPACs and ultra-rich donors.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...inancial-support-many-stragglers-not-so-much/


http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/election-2016-campaign-money-race.html

88% of Sanders campaign money is from contributions of $200 or less, 74% of Carsons campaign falls in that category, and 72% of Trumps. Those are the top 3 that the little guy is donating to.

Jeb Bush raised 133.3M so far, and Hillary is #2 at 97.8M. Neither of them is much supported by the 'little guy', but they have the most money.

Clinton spent the most in the quarter on the campaign - 25.8 million, well over double what the 2nd highest spender Jeb Bush spent and almost 6x the third place spender Trump spent.

 

[glenn1]

Are you seriously trying to argue that the policy preferences of rich people are just somehow better and that's why they are implemented? If so, what earthly basis is there for such an idea? Isn't it just vastly more likely that rich people pursue pro rich person policies regardless of their overall merit?

Let's do a thought experiment then - you're a politician trying to fix a given problem. For sake of argument we'll stipulate it's a progressive politics favorite and say it's income inequality and lack of well-paying jobs for middle class workers. First the politician listens to people like Eskimospy and other class warriors and does what you ask - raise tax rates for the 1% or 10% significantly and use it to fund social welfare problems. That satisfies your need to "get the rich" but still doesn't fix the problem of how to generate job growth - who do you think he's going to speak with to figure this out? The 90% don't hire people, so he's going to talk to the same rich person you hate to see what sort of workers he's looking to hire. And he'll say he's looking for independently motivated problem solvers. How does any of the same failed progressive policies of the last 60 years help develop those workers? You think the politician is going to just drop yet more money into the same failing school systems where urban districts graduate kids who are illiterate? Add another "work training program" to the 293 the federal government already runs?

 

[theeedude]

So nice of them. I am sure they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and don't expect anything in return. I am further comforted by the recent discovery by our Supreme Court that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”
They are just "speakers."

 

[WHAMPOM]

is this a good thing? Is this a bad thing? Why?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/10/158-families-dominate-campaign-contributions.html

ol-i-gar-chy?

 

[Jhhnn]

Let's do a thought experiment then - you're a politician trying to fix a given problem. For sake of argument we'll stipulate it's a progressive politics favorite and say it's income inequality and lack of well-paying jobs for middle class workers. First the politician listens to people like Eskimospy and other class warriors and does what you ask - raise tax rates for the 1% or 10% significantly and use it to fund social welfare problems. That satisfies your need to "get the rich" but still doesn't fix the problem of how to generate job growth - who do you think he's going to speak with to figure this out? The 90% don't hire people, so he's going to talk to the same rich person you hate to see what sort of workers he's looking to hire. And he'll say he's looking for independently motivated problem solvers. How does any of the same failed progressive policies of the last 60 years help develop those workers? You think the politician is going to just drop yet more money into the same failing school systems where urban districts graduate kids who are illiterate? Add another "work training program" to the 293 the federal government already runs?

Pining for the jobs that American Capitalists have automated & shipped offshore won't bring them back, regardless of the attributes you assign to them or the Job Creators.

The simple truth is that American Capitalism no longer requires nearly as many workers per capita regardless of skill levels. It's not really American anymore, either, but rather multinational with ownership & management feeling no real allegiance to this country at all.

That's what 40 years of right wing propaganda have served to justify, the notion that corporations are not responsible to any country but rather to the stockholders exclusively. It's perfectly justifiable for them to automate & offshore jobs if there's the slightest chance for higher profits, regardless of the cumulative effects on our society.

What happens is that the normal distributional effects of employment break down and the concentrating effects of investment build until we arrive at an honest need to distribute goods & services through some mechanisms other than working for a living.

The very success of financialized Capitalism dictates that we must do so if we're to avoid greater impoverishment of the population & the social upheavals accompanying it.

What would you suggest?

 

[trenchfoot]

Among other things, at some certain point in our future, the working class is going to have to make more income from becoming stockholders and investing their earnings rather than the hourly wages they earn to upgrade or maintain the lifestyles they seek.

The problem with that is the investment game is rigged.

What's so funny in that regard are those friends of mine who invest in apps that are supposed to miraculously level the playing field with all of those ivy league insiders that legally influence the market to their advantage. But its those same ivy league chaps or their associates that develop those apps and exploit the end users' use of them.