In an earlier post, I cited a New York Times article saying that 158 families had contributed about half of the money raised thus far for the 2016 presidential campaign. 138 support Republicans. 20 support Democrats.
I asked readers if anyone was willing to calculate what % of American families these 158 are.
I got similar responses.
“Diane, I did the math and the 158 families you mentioned comprise 0.000130321% of the population of the U.S. I guess we can call them the “10 thousandth percenters.”
“There are about 115 million families in the US. So these 178 families are roughly one-and-a-half out of a million. Wow. Not the one percent. But one-and-a-half of a percent of a percent of a percent.” –G.F. Brandenburg
“To answer the question at the beginning of Diane’s post, if the NY Times is correct that there are 120 million households, then the 158 families represent “The 0.0013166%”.
–P. Garrity
“Diane, I did the math and the 158 families you mentioned comprise 0.000130321% of the population of the U.S. I guess we can call them the “10 thousandth percenters.”–Michael
All these comments appear following the post.
So forget about the 1%. Think instead of the ten-thousandth of 1%. If the people turn out to vote, we can take back our government. We can have a Supreme Couurt that overturns Citizens United (which allows plutocrats to buy elections), a Supreme Court that does not threaten the rights of working people, and a Congress that writes a tax code to reduce income inequality and wealth inequality.
The key to change: Vote. Get your neighbors to vote. This is what really terrifies the ten-thousandth of 1%: A large turnout of informed voters. The 99.999% have power if they use it.

I think that the key to this is if INFORMED voters turn out to vote, then perhaps We, the informed People, might be able to take back our government.
As it stands today, too many of even normally educated voters do not understand, nor bother to study, the issues. This gives the corporatists and others who wish to use the process for their own gain, the ability to advertise lies in 10 second sound bites. It will take a paradigm shift to make this change for the better.
LikeLike
Complacency will give the reins to the plutocrats, and voting will give people the best chance of having a voice. We also need candidates that people feel they can trust. After my experience with Obama, I am feeling a bit cynical about the whole process, but I will still show up and let my vote count, and I urge others do the same.
LikeLike
They (158 families) pay for people to advertise against the People. They pay for people to blog (EducationPost) and tweet against the People. The People, however, are not as dumb as They think. We People see through them. We, most of us, know the difference between grass and AstroTurf. We skip and fast forward the commercials. We read the People’s real blogs and tweets. It will take time to overturn Citizens United, but it will happen. We will show Them They cannot buy Us. They will feel the Bern, even the Donald, if not now, soon enough. One opt out at a time, step by step… Keep trucking.
LikeLike
I just saw a TV program, CNN, with a profile on Bernie Sanders wife, who is ten years younger and serves as one of his policy advisors. The program indicated that if he were to be elected her main interest would be K-12 education.
that strikes me as an opportunity to learn more about her views. Vermont may not be a model for the rest of the nation, but last I checked, it has figured out how to deal with towns that have no public schools, choice without chartering.
The point is to see if he and other candidates will speak more about K-12 education and put up some ideas that might make news. Right now, there is not much there at all, except for the union endorsements of Hillary—a mistake in my opinion.
Apart from this observation this post offers a case for informed voting in large numbers about the small numbers seeking to buy elections…. and some bumper stickers, t-shirts and caps with variations on potentially collectable political memorabilia.
LikeLike
And that was exactly the cry of communism, “reduce income inequality and wealth inequality.”
Who is going to make the decision when someone is too rich? Too poor? The government? Really?
Do you really want the government deciding how much “wealth” is enough?
So if I don’t want to work, the government will give me money? If you have a doctorate and I barely finished fifth grade, you should not make more money than I do?
I remember this balony about “everybody is a winner.” So why even bother trying. The loser gets the same reward as the winner. The winner spent hours everyday training, the loser just sat around. You give them the same reward?
I’ll bring this to my superintendent tomorrow, and tell him the district owes me the same paycheck he gets.
You may say this is ridiculous (At least I hope you would!). But this is the logical conclusion of what you advocate.
You can say what you want about the Supreme Court decision about the use and source of funding – but it was a logical result from declaring that burning the flag is protected speech. Or that pornography should be protected under the First amendment.
Watch what you wish for. Think about the logical repercussions.
BTW, when can I expect my check??
LikeLike
The cry of communism was just a bit more radical than that. Try “abolition of private property”. That’s more like the cry of communism.
LikeLike
Sanders is a socialist, not a communist.
LikeLike
Wealth is also measured in property, not just coins and bills.
LikeLike
I remember not that long ago when some, woman I believe, yelled out something about hating socialism
but
don’t take away my Social Security and medicare.
LikeLike
The government already is deciding how much wealth is enough – as much as can be redirected to the 1%ers as possible. The system is rigged with risk socialized, and rewards privatized. Your red scare fear tactic is wearing thin as relic of the 50’s, falling on deaf ears of millennial and younger generations. The middle class is working harder for less real income and eroding benefits. College is more unaffordable than ever. Young people see owning a home and a future retirement as less likely – crushed by debt and low wage jobs. The Kasich solution of “just get over it” or the Bush solution of “work harder” is fueling a rising anger towards those that pontificate “free markets” as the live on trust funds and Congressional perks.
Republicans run most states, all of Congress, the Supreme Court, nearly every media outlet, corporations, the military, finance – yet government and the economy is completely dysfunctional. The GOP is a failure, unable to govern and find solutions that give true, working Americans a fair and honest way of life. Perhaps it is time for some ballot box accountability.
LikeLike
I think you have described what is wrong with our system in a nutshell, “The system is rigged with risk socialized, and rewards privatized.” Of course, this rigged system only applies to the 1%; the rest of us have to live with our own bad choices, and absorb the missteps of the 1%. This seems to explain much of what I understand about the TPP.
LikeLike
I fully accept that income inequality will always exist. But here’s my issue: it isn’t a democracy if so few have so much influence over the government.
I don’t know if it’s an accurate quote or not, but I believe Warren Buffett once said something to the effect that wealthy people have done a wonderful job of creating rules that ensure their continued wealth.
So while you create a strawman argument by insisting we’re promoting communism, I’d say that you are promoting an oligarchy or plutocracy. Neither is acceptable in a true democracy.
LikeLike
There are about ONE HUNDRED MILLION people in the country who have a vote. That seems, even with Common Core math, a bit more than 158 families, right?
So stop the complaining, state a cause, make it understandable, fair and go for it.
Don’t be fanatics on either side, be balanced and, more than anything else, be honest. Don’t make promises you can’t keep.
Don’t complain about what others do wrong, tell us what YOU will do different. Most of us already know why we don’t want to vote for the other person.
LikeLike
For anything to happen, “you” must be the plural second person pronoun. First, bring back freedom to assemble and strengthen the voice of Americans who actually work for a living.
LikeLike
Schelleken say “So stop the complaining, state a cause, make it understandable, fair and go for it.”
How does this “solution” prevents the 150 most deserving families from bribing the rest of the politicians? This is not a kingdom. Heck, even I, the king, may be bribable, so as long as the laws allow bribes or super rich families, we are on shaky grounds.
LikeLike
ONE HUNDRED million against 158 – It does not matter how much money these people have… All it takes is 159 votes…
LikeLike
Income inequality is more rampant during a stronger economy, from what I’ve read. So you are right, the bothersome part is the ability to control everything by those who have the most wealth. Mobility is more the issue that would be desirable (along with general quality of life); income inequality is better at third on that list.
Is it true, though, that a few families have controlled our country from way on back (I’m thinking of Rockerfellers and Vanderbilts and Roosevelts)? Is this really something new?
LikeLike
Think back further… Think back framers of the Constitution… not a pauper among them!
LikeLike
Schellkens, you missed the entire point. Unsurprising.
The point isn’t that people can’t vote. The point is that elected leaders are beholden to those who make campaign donations. And those families can dictate who survives the primary before the general election occurs. Here’s an example from my own state of Michigan:
The DeVos family really wanted right-to-work. They knew that the state legislature didn’t have the votes for it. So here’s what they did. The DeVos family told a handful of Republicans, who didn’t want to vote for RTW. that they would finance challengers in the primaries and unseat them from within. In a gerrymandering situation, that’s the real threat. In a state legislature election, that requires a simple investment.
So explain how that doesn’t influence both who our options are and what the winner will do in office. Go ahead.
Campaigns cost money. Grassroots movements are very difficult to maintain over the long haul. Because they cost money to maintain. And for those who are regular working folk, I don’t have the time in my schedule that Dick DeVos (among others) has. Sorry, but your simplistic view is, well, simple.
LikeLike
“The point isn’t that people can’t vote” You mean I gave up my Dutch citizenship for nothing???
LikeLike
“ONE HUNDRED million against 158 – It does not matter how much money these people have… All it takes is 159 votes…”
You keep repeating the same nonsense—and we explained why it’s nonsense.
Since you showed that you are an intelligent person, capable of understanding what we are saying, the only conclusion is that you are trolling.
LikeLike
I agree, but the facts do not influence many people these days.. They are wedded to their belief; that is why no compromise is ever possible. They will argue into the ground if they can. I write at a newssite, Oped News (OEN)
http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
and some new visitor-readers think it is a blog, so they try to engage the writers in conversations which are illogical rants… but they disappear soon, as the ediTors demand FACTS (WITH LINKS). MOREOVER,,since real conversation goes on there, as here, readers like yourself make it cleat that there is no patience for blowhards and verbal bullies, who have opinion sand rectal openings.
I often thing how people who read and comment here would love OEN.. as the daily newsletter the publisher puts out, links to the best of the articles and web posts that readers across the nation discover. I quicklink to Diane’s best posts, but I also post my favortie columnists and web links. Last week I posted The Daily Show segment when Trevor Noah pointed to Republican Hypocrisy.
You can find that link here…. a great page where ALL my posts appear.
http://www.opednews.com/author/quicklinks/author40790.html
You need to be a member, but signing up does not cost a thing or commit you to anything. YOu can request a daily newsletter. I fan certain people , like Rober Reich & Chris Hedges and Dan Geery, and the publisher Rob Kall, so when they publish a link or an article I can go to it and read, or comment. Sometimes, commentary can go on for days, like here…smart people speaking truth.
BUT, there is very little commentary on EDUCATION, which makes me cray, because sometimes hundreds of people will read a post on education, and not say a word… but they do comeback when I post…sooo…
bye
LikeLike
Beautifully constructed straw man fallacy!
LikeLike
We have tried it before in the thirties when Roosevelt instituted the New Deal. The aim was not income equality, nor is it now, but a system that did not leave the majority of the working class in poverty. The laws that protected us from the creation of too big to fail businesses and the accumulation of wealth by a small minority of the country have been decimated over the past four decades. It is time for a readjustment before we destroy the prosperity of our country.
LikeLike
Curious Schellekens about who you are and why you have joined this educators conversation? You seem to be regurgitating a quite reactionary perspective, and using name calling such as “communist” to make your points, rather like HUAC and McCarthy.
Citizens United is a far cry from other SCOTUS decisions, but is more comparable to Bush v. Gore in that is shows this wildly activist court, which claims however to be comprised of at least four “absolutists” lurched into creating new law from threads of a derogatory film about Hillary Clinton, and transformed that into a feast for the 1% to gobble up greedy legislators.
LikeLike
Once again, I have stated a number of times who I am and what I do, so I will not repeat that.
When someone thinks that “the government” needs to decide who is too rich or too poor, you end up with communism. You take away the freedom to follow dreams (were I to have a dream to be rich and powerful). You take away the drive to be successful, to strive to be the best in what you do. You have laid the groundwork for national mediocrity.
LikeLike
Do you really think those decisions aren’t being made by “government” every day through tax structure, not to mention plain old fees?
LikeLike
You really need to read Robert Reich’s new book SAVING CAPITALISM. It shows how there is no such thing as a free market – the government creates the market. It’s just a matter of how and in whose interest the government creates the market. Currently your government has decided that the rich are worthy of sucking up what used to belong to people more broadly and have created laws and regulations to steal from the poor and middle class with impunity. It’s not a matter of “redistributing” wealth through taxes – the markets already redistribute wealth upward on the front end. More taxes on the rich doesn’t solve the problem that they’re hoovering up all the wealth on the front end. Seriously, read the book.
LikeLike
Schellekens, at last you make your philosophy clear. You are for untrammelled capitalism. Despite a half-century of research showing that untrammelled free-market capitalism leads directly to elitism. Elitism = a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. We are fast approaching that situation in the USA thanks to the ‘untrammelling’ of free-market capitalism via legislation since 1980 untying every anti-trust, pro-destruction of common-good law we’d had onboard since the Great Depression. The only folks onboard with your philosophy are those who’ve been down so long that they can only imagine achieving the ‘American Dream’ via pumping their salary into the Lotto.
LikeLike
For some people, the only exercise they get is jumping to conclusions. It seems you are one of those.
I am not for “untrammeled” capitalism. I am against the government deciding what levels of wealth are “too much…” If I make a million a year, will that be okay with you? Five? Ten? Who decides?
The cry is for “Fair share…” Who defines “fair?” I think it is “fair” that Ross Perrot became a multi-millionaire. He started with about $ 1,000.00, worked 80+ hours a week, and built a company he was able to sell for 650 million. I think it is “fair” that Bill Gates has more money than God (Wait, so do I) or then he knows what to do with. He spends a lot of money on many worthwhile causes (Health programs in underdeveloped nations, for one). Money which otherwise would not be available!
But I also think it is “fair” that our current superintendent makes almost 200K a year – on top of a military retirement – and that I make less then 25% of that. I do not have either his headaches or his responsibilities, and I think those deserve the kind of money he is paid.
He pays his “fair share” in taxes – almost as much as I make (including benefits). I pay my “fair share” in taxes. Less than the superintendent – but still “fair.”
Did you think that 70 – 90% is a “fair share?” Which is what the percentages were before Kennedy/Johnson lowered them.
If you work 80 or more hours a week to make your business go, is it “fair” that the government takes 90 cents out of every dollar you make?
The current government can change the tax revenues really, really quick (upwardly) by reducing corporate taxes to 20%. Lots of companies will not see a reason to park their money overseas (Where they pay 25%, for example). And 20% of a dollar is still more than 0% – even under the Common Core Math curriculum…
I am for a balanced approach to taxes. I am for an SS payment based on a percentage of the total income (Not capped). I am for a reasonable tax on businesses, so they do not have to “escape” overseas. But I am also for a personal responsibility for my finances.
LikeLike
It’s a really tough nut to crack, though.
This is about how for-profit colleges are still getting millions and millions of federal dollars. They have been studying this in Congress for 10 years. 37 state attorneys general have sued or are suing. Millions of people have been brutally ripped off and have millions in debt they can’t discharge- and it just rolls on and on.
“In recent years, more than two dozen companies that run for-profit colleges have been investigated or sued by state prosecutors. To handle the load, 37 state attorneys general have teamed up to form a working group,. Together, the 152 schools under investigation received about $8.1 billion in federal student loan and grant payments last fiscal year, according to a detailed analysis by Mr. Miller for The New York Times, using data provided by the Education Department.”
37 state attorneys general. What do you need to stop this? How many prosecutors does it require to shut them down? Why is it allowed to continue?
LikeLike
“To worry about these consequences of extreme inequality has nothing to do with being envious of the rich and everything to do with the fear that rapidly growing top incomes are a threat to the wellbeing of everyone else.” – Angus Deaton, 2015 Nobel Prize in Economics
LikeLike
I have just been reading Howard Zinn’s “History is a Weapon”. Chapter 5 on the late 18th century and the War of Independence was quite an eye opener. Nothing has changed apart from the percentage, down from 3% to 1%, or the more brutal 0.0013% (suitably rounded!).
LikeLike
“Nothing has changed apart from the percentage, down from 3% to 1%, or the more brutal 0.0013% (suitably rounded!).”
Actually, you need to insert another 0 after the decimal point, so 0.0001%. 🙂
Speaking of history: this ratio—that 1 super rich (SR) family has power over 1 million families—would make the vast majority of the kings in history envious.
But we can go further: since the US has a great influence on the rest of the World, it’s not an exaggeration to say that 1 SR family has power over 1 billion families.
Now that should make even the Roman or Mongol emperors feel insecure about their legacy.
What probably makes these ancient rulers even more annoyed, as they observe us from below, is that while they constantly had fully justified nightmares about having their heads chopped off by friends, the worst punishment an SR family has to worry about is raised taxes.
I mean, can you guys promise that Bernie will see to it that Gates will be put behind bars and for the rest of his life he’d have to watch youtube videos explaining Common Core and VAM?
LikeLike
First, I would remind everyone about how much of this money is dispersed. We still have 15 Pub candidates and the money is being spent all over the place. The Dems are a lot more concentrated because they still have a silent primary and Hilary’s already won it. She has a good amount of money (and will get a lot more) and is presently laying in the weeds trying to figure out who to target with it.
Second, remember last time? Carl Rove’s bunch spent $300M and got absolutely bupkas for it. There isn’t any reason to think that the Pub Super Pacs have gotten any smarter about how to spend their money. The one advantage of having a campaign like Hilary’s that is largely driven by hard money is that you get to decide how to spend it and you have pros helping with that.
Third, and this is the hard part, Citizens United is a constitutional, not a statutory decision and it involves the 1st amendment. Even with a very different USSC it would be hard to craft a new election law that hits at the heart of the decision and would be upheld. It could happen, but the more likely case is a law like the DISCLOSE Act. That would slow down the big donors and with a slight shift on the Court would be upheld, but it wouldn’t stop them. The only way to stop big money is with a lot of small money. I’m tuning up for a couple of grand myself.
LikeLike
“…and Hilary’s already won it.”
Bovine excrement. Quit repeating the bought-and-paid-for media talking points. It’s already obvious Hillary is rapidly losing it – that’s why Randi and Lily felt the need to chip in with early AFT and NEA endorsements to try to save her from drowning (and hope that she would be suitably grateful).
LikeLike
It would help if you would google “silent primary”, then write. Hillary hasn’t won the nomination, but she has won the money battle already. It’s like Sun Tzu said, “Victorious warriors win first, then go to war.” As for Hillary “losing it”, I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean the nomination, you’re way wrong; check any set of polls you would like. If she was up against Liz Warren, it’d be a contest.
But I get the feeling that facts won’t make much difference in this argument.
LikeLike
At the Occupy the USDE event in April, 2013, Karen Lewis made the point that the plutocracy serves the oligarchy. If so, the Waltons and the Kochs (and the Gateses, even though they may not be backing candidates) belong to the oligarchy, and highly paid “nonprofit” CEOs and the like are part of the plutocracy that serves them.
Here’s a great post by Robert Reich explaining “The Billionaires’ Long Game.” They don’t mind if their candidates don’t win this time around:
http://robertreich.org/post/37752857908
LikeLike
Thanks, great vid—and many others there.
LikeLike
“There isn’t any reason to think that the Pub Super Pacs have gotten any smarter about how to spend their money. ”
They got very smart about how to spend their money and concentrated on winning state houses. By controlling the state apparatus, they are able to have more control over elections for Congress. They have been able to remap districts to favor the election of Republicans that will continue for years to come. Rachel Maddow did a segment that explains the brilliance of their strategy far better than I have. So while the Republicans do not look like they have a candidate who could win the Presidency at the moment, it would be really foolish to count them out. It is not just the Presidency that will be at stake.
LikeLike
2old2teach…They, the Super PACS members, not only learned from the past, but they also are focused on the baby steps of winning elections for school boards, and then the State Houses, ever onward to DC.. This is much the same game the John Birch Society played in the 1960s and 70s…but the difference is that now these cabals of carefully coordinated billionaires are increasing rapidly, beyond any time in recorded history, and they are storing their vast wealth in off shore and untraceable accounts…so none of their often ill gotten gains, as with Wall Street traders and banksters, goes into circulation for stimulus.
The only way for a Free Market to work is for money to continually circulate. These greed meisters however have found the magic lantern that allows them to redistribute all money/assets of the nation, upward….to their accounts in the Camins and in Switzerland.
LikeLike
You are correct about the money from billionaires flowing into local elections and even to school board races. ALEC has a baby version that will offer policyry recommendations to ALEC friendly local elected officials down to the level of ensuring that contracts for water and sewer lines can by-pass open and competitive bids.
LikeLike
And the Democrats have never politicized redistricting, right? O, I forgot: They are powerful enough to make the dead vote…
LikeLike
Of course they have! We are talking about balance here.
LikeLike
The balance is in these cases like history. The winner writes (or redistricts…)
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
“The None Percent”
A pale blue dot
In the blackest void
All we’ve got
For some greedy boys
LikeLike
and according to Forbes
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/
Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
LikeLike
My hope is that the masses will awaken and realize how serious this is!
LikeLike
By that time, I will be dead. And I will have been part of a generation who had shelter, food, medical care, a son and property because my 40 to 60 hour weeks and ten to twelve weeks of extra work, education, and recharging in order to spend myself physically for 180 days, were reimbursed adequately. I did not get rich as the truly rich claim.
When this standard of survival becomes impossible, as it did in the gilded age, then people might awake. Teacher.shortages might be the beginning. I have suggested that my son’s friend, a straight A student in high school who has some college classes under his belt, apply to substitute in Vegas. Maybe he can get a full teaching job, and earn a little more than as a department store clerk.
LikeLike