ADVERTISEMENT

The Oligarchy explained with pictures

naturalmwa

HB King
Feb 4, 2004
101,981
82,232
113
With little over a year to go until the 2016 election, just 158 families have spent nearly half of all money fueling the campaigns, according to data collected by the New York Times. They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns.

Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago. But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs.

Some of the largest donations came from donors whose backgrounds and occupations were difficult to determine from public records. A man named Chen Shu Te gave $500,000 to Right to Rise USA, a super PAC backing Mr. Bush, which told the Federal Election Commission that Mr. Chen lives in Hong Kong. But public records reveal almost nothing about him, or even if he is an American citizen. (Green card holders may contribute, but other foreign nationals may not.) Hundreds of thousands of dollars in other contributions came from limited liability corporations whose ownership is unclear. Among them is TH Holdings L.L.C., which shares a New York City office suite with Neuberger Berman, an investment management firm headed by a cousin of Mr. Bush’s. More than a dozen of the firm’s other employees or executives have given to Mr. Bush’s campaign or the super PAC, but under their own names.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html

White-House_Monopoly-Pieces_NY-Times_01-C.JPG

CQ99HPkWcAAKcs2.png



Mostly Backing Republicans
party-600.png

Republicans: 138
Democrats: 20

Mainly in Finance
industry-945.png

Finance: 64
Energy and natural resources: 17
Real estate and construction: 15
Media and entertainment: 12
Health: 12
Technology: 10
Transportation: 9
Retail and manufacturing: 6
Food, beverage, agriculture: 5
Insurance: 3
Other: 5

Tend to Be Self-Made
old-new-600.png

Self-made wealth: 119
Inherited wealth: 37
 
Last edited:
Self made wealth is usually always on the Rep's side - which is why some get pissed that all the Left wants to do is take their money and give it away.
 
And you dont think the bilderbergs and illuminati installed obama? Suddenly now they magically exist but in 2008 it was crazy and a conspiracy theory, then,but now they do exist? So i guess i was right all along
 
And you dont think the bilderbergs and illuminati installed obama? Suddenly now they magically exist but in 2008 it was crazy and a conspiracy theory, then,but now they do exist? So i guess i was right all along
Did you read any of it or did you just look at the pictures? It wasn't magic, but it was sudden in 2010 with the Citizens United SCOTUS decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Self made wealth is usually always on the Rep's side - which is why some get pissed that all the Left wants to do is take their money and give it away.
Fair point. And now the rest of us are getting a little pissed that all the right wants to do is take away our votes and hoard all the influence for themselves.
 
I would argue that this is a little bit misleading.

Reason I say that is that you are talking about people who have provided the early money for campaigns.

Rich people have money to blow to support their favorite primary candidate and then support the party candidate later on.

The rest of us likely wait for the party's candidate to come out. Heck very few people even show up to vote in the primaries anyways.

No doubt they still have a great amount of influence on the campaigns regardless, however I think since we are only looking at early money it is misleading as to the amount of influence they have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Lickliter
I would argue that this is a little bit misleading.

Reason I say that is that you are talking about people who have provided the early money for campaigns.

Rich people have money to blow to support their favorite primary candidate and then support the party candidate later on.

The rest of us likely wait for the party's candidate to come out. Heck very few people even show up to vote in the primaries anyways.

No doubt they still have a great amount of influence on the campaigns regardless, however I think since we are only looking at early money it is misleading as to the amount of influence they have.

I understand your point, but think it actually cuts the other way. The early money and early decisions dictate what the entire population discusses later. "The rest of us" might ultimately give money to the party candidate, but the ability of the big money to dictate who that is has a profound impact. Our choices are limited, in effect, by the early money.
 
With little over a year to go until the 2016 election, just 158 families have spent nearly half of all money fueling the campaigns, according to data collected by the New York Times. They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns.

Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago. But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs.

Some of the largest donations came from donors whose backgrounds and occupations were difficult to determine from public records. A man named Chen Shu Te gave $500,000 to Right to Rise USA, a super PAC backing Mr. Bush, which told the Federal Election Commission that Mr. Chen lives in Hong Kong. But public records reveal almost nothing about him, or even if he is an American citizen. (Green card holders may contribute, but other foreign nationals may not.) Hundreds of thousands of dollars in other contributions came from limited liability corporations whose ownership is unclear. Among them is TH Holdings L.L.C., which shares a New York City office suite with Neuberger Berman, an investment management firm headed by a cousin of Mr. Bush’s. More than a dozen of the firm’s other employees or executives have given to Mr. Bush’s campaign or the super PAC, but under their own names.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html

White-House_Monopoly-Pieces_NY-Times_01-C.JPG

CQ99HPkWcAAKcs2.png



Mostly Backing Republicans
party-600.png

Republicans: 138
Democrats: 20

Mainly in Finance
industry-945.png

Finance: 64
Energy and natural resources: 17
Real estate and construction: 15
Media and entertainment: 12
Health: 12
Technology: 10
Transportation: 9
Retail and manufacturing: 6
Food, beverage, agriculture: 5
Insurance: 3
Other: 5

Tend to Be Self-Made
old-new-600.png

Self-made wealth: 119
Inherited wealth: 37

#winning
 
Fair point. And now the rest of us are getting a little pissed that all the right wants to do is take away our votes and hoard all the influence for themselves.
Maybe take a page from the Right and make your own money? Votes are taken by both parties, please.
 
Yes, and the right wing plutocracy marches on.

With little over a year to go until the 2016 election, just 158 families have spent nearly half of all money fueling the campaigns, according to data collected by the New York Times. They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns.

Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago. But regardless of industry, the families investing the most in presidential politics overwhelmingly lean right, contributing tens of millions of dollars to support Republican candidates who have pledged to pare regulations; cut taxes on income, capital gains and inheritances; and shrink entitlement programs.

Some of the largest donations came from donors whose backgrounds and occupations were difficult to determine from public records. A man named Chen Shu Te gave $500,000 to Right to Rise USA, a super PAC backing Mr. Bush, which told the Federal Election Commission that Mr. Chen lives in Hong Kong. But public records reveal almost nothing about him, or even if he is an American citizen. (Green card holders may contribute, but other foreign nationals may not.) Hundreds of thousands of dollars in other contributions came from limited liability corporations whose ownership is unclear. Among them is TH Holdings L.L.C., which shares a New York City office suite with Neuberger Berman, an investment management firm headed by a cousin of Mr. Bush’s. More than a dozen of the firm’s other employees or executives have given to Mr. Bush’s campaign or the super PAC, but under their own names.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/us/politics/wealthy-families-presidential-candidates.html

White-House_Monopoly-Pieces_NY-Times_01-C.JPG

CQ99HPkWcAAKcs2.png



Mostly Backing Republicans
party-600.png

Republicans: 138
Democrats: 20

Mainly in Finance
industry-945.png

Finance: 64
Energy and natural resources: 17
Real estate and construction: 15
Media and entertainment: 12
Health: 12
Technology: 10
Transportation: 9
Retail and manufacturing: 6
Food, beverage, agriculture: 5
Insurance: 3
Other: 5

Tend to Be Self-Made
old-new-600.png

Self-made wealth: 119
Inherited wealth: 37
 
I understand your point, but think it actually cuts the other way. The early money and early decisions dictate what the entire population discusses later. "The rest of us" might ultimately give money to the party candidate, but the ability of the big money to dictate who that is has a profound impact. Our choices are limited, in effect, by the early money.

Gosh now you must know what it feels like to be in a state that isn't one of the first 5 to hold a primary election.

I get what you are saying but at least you guys get to vote in a presidential primary and have that vote count. I can show up to a primary if I want (and I have to select a nominee for House and Senate and Governor back when I still identified with a political party.)

So for me I'm quite used to the primary decisions being made for me when it comes to president. Honestly that is like perhaps the #1 thing I wish we would change about our elections. I'm sure you guys see too much of the candidates and their primary ads in Iowa and are probably sick of them. But here in Indiana if we where not watching the news we wouldn't even know who was running, because they don't show up here nor do they buy ads here until after they have the nomination.

The sad thing is that it's pretty much that way in most of the country. We stand on the sidelines while Iowa, New Hampshire and about a half dozen other states decide who's on the general election ballot.
 
Fair point. And now the rest of us are getting a little pissed that all the right wants to do is take away our votes and hoard all the influence for themselves.

I'd like to know exactly how these 158 families will steal all the votes and use them to elect their guy (or woman)?
 
Campaign ads.
If the vote can be stolen by campaign ads then it must also be able to be stolen by the media.

I think campaign spending will probably be somewhere along the lines it was during the last election. Which was pretty even but favored Obama.
 
So let me get this straight suddenly the scotus legalized criminal campaign finance fraud in 2010, but in 2000 the scotus new world order gave the office to bush over algore who really won, so they did that illegally. Then the new world order types gave Obama the office over hillary in chantilly va at bilderberg behind the scenes illegally, then in 2010 they legalize it, then in 2012 the koch brothers and the scotus and new world oligarchy can not get their guy romney in, but suddenly with tv ads they shall get jeb? Ok
 
Last edited:
If the vote can be stolen by campaign ads then it must also be able to be stolen by the media.

I think campaign spending will probably be somewhere along the lines it was during the last election. Which was pretty even but favored Obama.
That's not the important distinction. Don't take your eyes off the top of the hill.
CQ99HPkWcAAKcs2.png
 
That's not the important distinction. Don't take your eyes off the top of the hill.
CQ99HPkWcAAKcs2.png
Any idea on how many families provided the rest? It is not as if you had 158 and then the other 119,000,842 giving the rest. Just guessing that the vast majority of household have not given any.

I am pretty sure this article would not have made the NY Times if it was Democrats leading in the top 158.
 
Any idea on how many families provided the rest? It is not as if you had 158 and then the other 119,000,842 giving the rest. Just guessing that the vast majority of household have not given any.

I am pretty sure this article would not have made the NY Times if it was Democrats leading in the top 158.
If the elite ever stop being Rs we will have experienced a major political shift. Rs have been the party of the big business 1% for generations.
 
Any idea on how many families provided the rest? It is not as if you had 158 and then the other 119,000,842 giving the rest. Just guessing that the vast majority of household have not given any.

I am pretty sure this article would not have made the NY Times if it was Democrats leading in the top 158.

I'm far more curious to know how the 'families' contributions (individual wealth) compares with corporate donations/funding. How would that stack up?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
If the elite ever stop being Rs we will have experienced a major political shift. Rs have been the party of the big business 1% for generations.
I hear you. Where I think you guys fail to apply some blame is with the Democrats. There have been plenty of Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years and there has been times with some being very recently where they controlled the government and yet still the middle class has taken a beating. TPP and NAFTA are being pushed and/or signed off by Demcrats.

The decline of the middle class belongs to both parties the 1% has members that belong to both parties.

Our country would benefit greatly from a 3rd party that was fiscally and socially moderate on the issues. Give this party 20% of the vote an the seats in Congress and we could make great progress.
 
I hear you. Where I think you guys fail to apply some blame is with the Democrats. There have been plenty of Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years and there has been times with some being very recently where they controlled the government and yet still the middle class has taken a beating. TPP and NAFTA are being pushed and/or signed off by Demcrats.

The decline of the middle class belongs to both parties the 1% has members that belong to both parties.

Our country would benefit greatly from a 3rd party that was fiscally and socially moderate on the issues. Give this party 20% of the vote an the seats in Congress and we could make great progress.
I think I disagree on a number of points. First I think liberals do blame conservative policy planks like NAFTA and TPP on Ds who support them. Its part of the reason Sanders has a following. But there isn't an alternative in the R ranks who opposes this, so there is little to be gained about bitching about it non stop to conservatives who support the same trade policy.

I know its fashionable to think that the D base is moving to the left or is the mirror image of the radical right that controls the R party today. But that just isn't true IMO. In fact as the R base drags its party right, they are creating room for the Ds to do that same. The D party is the party of moderation. There isn't a liberal party any longer. On Trade, labor, tax and industrial policy the Ds of today are as conservative as Rs a generation ago. Those are the policies that really matter. Sure they are more liberal on gays, but so is everyone. On every other social policy they are more conservative then they were a generation ago. Abortion, welfare, environment all are to the right of what they were in the 70's or 80's. Rs may not be happy, but conservatives should be ecstatic with the direction the nation is going.

I don't think we need another party in the middle. I think we need a real liberal party. What made the middle class in America? It was primarily a product of massive government redistribution at the end of WWII. The GI bill paid to train millions of workers and the Federal Housing Administration paid to build the suburbs. Add to that a protectionist trade environment and the rest of the world unable to produce and you got the modern middle class. There is nothing natural about it. The middle class is nearly entirely the result of government policy. Who champions this sort of policy today? Only liberals like Sanders and Trump. Rs hate it and Ds see political advantage in being just to the right of the R crazy train.

Finally no 3rd party will ever exist for long in our winner take all system. If you want more than 2 parties you will need a new constitution. And that explains why, despite strong differences, libs stay with the Ds and cons stay with the Rs. There is no practical alternative but to work within the system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
What confuses you? The elite silver spoon fed guy was an R and lost to the common man populist who was a D. It went exactly as my theory would predict.
no, you are saying 158 families pick the elite bankster wall st guy, except they picked barak in 2012. he didn't win anything, he was installed by banksters and elite and bilderbergs. but this article says 158 families pick the wall st 1% guy every time. I guess except when they pick the communist 1% black guy. I guess there's that.
 
no, you are saying 158 families pick the elite bankster wall st guy, except they picked barak in 2012. he didn't win anything, he was installed by banksters and elite and bilderbergs. but this article says 158 families pick the wall st 1% guy every time. I guess except when they pick the communist 1% black guy. I guess there's that.
You are mistaken again. Most superpac money went to cons in 2012 too.
https://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2012&chrt=V&type=S
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...ol-80-percent-of-super-pac-money-who-are-they
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT