Is is true that the control of the American Government is primarily

[ladjf]

being controlled by individuals who are among the top 2% wage earners?

If so, about how many among that 2.3 million would be actively using their wealth and time to significantly influence U.S. politics? Without data, we can only guess. For the sake of argument, lets estimate that 25% of the rich are putting big money into politics. That would be 575,000 Americans or about 0.002% of the entire population.

How much money would that 0.002% group have and what would be the net worth of the other .998%?

I'm not a statistician. But, to me it is obvious that the wealth of the controlling .002% would be no where close to the wealth of the rest of the Country. How could .002% outspend .998%?

Answer: The politically Active Rich have far greater amount of discretionary funds than the lower income group. The solution to that problem for the lower earning group would be to make many more individual contributions, but at a much lower level per family. (That was done by the supporters of Obama in the last campaign.)

The Active Rich are highly organized and experienced at influencing politics. With their money and organizational skills they largely bought and paid for the U.S. Media as well as many, if not most, politicians of both political parties.

With their media control they were able to put into place an ongoing barrage upon the heads of innocent Americans who are defenseless against the propaganda professionals of the media and among the crooked politicians. They have been able to convince enough Americans that lies are the truth.

Further, they have been able to hijack religious groups, knowing that their fundamental religious background has prepared them to be rather easily led. Then, there is the ever present racial biases, inflamed all the more by the fact that the current President isn't a Caucasian.

In the current situation, what possible moves could be made by the lower income group, the group that is largely sliding headlong toward slavery and poverty, to reverse this terribly destructive trend?

#1 (And the main purpose of this OP) The Lower Income Group must realize that they have vastly more money and manpower than the Active Rich and therefore have a real potential to turn this around. Currently, it is their lack of faith in this possibility that leads to the defeating apathy we now see.

#2. Since the media are whore corporations that will say whatever their clients pay them to say, the Lower Income Group (LIG) can pay the media to spread their message so as to counter the falsehoods of the Active Rich (AR).

#3. The LIG must raise their propaganda skills to that of the AR, but, without using falsehoods. Since justice is on the side of the LIG, the truth is their best propaganda.

#4. The LIG will need to select its leaders using objective valid criteria.(The most difficult task)

I have just hit the top highlights of my idea about restoring true Democratic Government to America.

Obviously, we will ultimately need great books on this topic to guide us, books written by brilliant scholars such as Robert Reich and others. My hope is that some of my friends here on DU will read this post and constructively expand upon it. Help me push this ball down the road.

[Angry Dragon]

1. LIG has more people but not more money

[ladjf]

2. As I said, I'm not a statistician and I haven't checked the figures.

But, I don't recall any report that said that the top 0.002% of Americans have more wealth than the remaining 99%.

I'll research that point and let you know what I find.

[napi21]

6. They don't, but they DO have more DISPOSABLE INCOME than

most of the rest. Remember that a lot of that money is pooled by Corporations into a pak that then bundles the $$ and gives it to the politicians who will push THEIR issues. Also, MOST people do not contribute to politicians. I'm 67 yo and th FIRST TIME I ever contributed to any politician was oward Dean in 2000. He really got me interested in poliitics and I have sent what I could to those candidates who I really wanted to see get elected, and even sometimes to groups like Move(N & DFA, but all my life I never had any friends who contributed to anything political and I kow we're not the exception, but rather the normal.

[ladjf]

8. We did the same as you in 2000. It almost worked too.

Dean got derailed almost the second when he stated publicly that he was going to try to limit the power of the media to influence the elections. He was run out of the race by unscrupulous moves. His fund raising campaign was the blue print that won it for Obama.

They say that alcoholics can't recover until they've hit "rock bottom".

I think that America is addicted to allowing media to control their thinking. They tend to believe their pet news sources without questioning. Well, we've just about hit rock bottom. If Americans are addicted to propaganda, it's time for them to wake up and start looking for politicians that are working on their behalf.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Dean 2000? Or 2004?

I don't recall him running in 2000.

[OHdem10]

3. Bernie Sanders had a chart which showed that the top 2%

actually have a humongous amount. Add the top 2and 3%
they have more money than the whole 98%.

In the 98% The average white American has a net worth of about
87, K . The Average Black American about 6K and the average
Latino about 8 K. This means assets not your salary.

This shift is startling.

[ladjf]

4. What was the average among the top 1%?

There are about 110,000,000 tax paying families in America.

I'll see if I can clarify this wealth situation.

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth,..."

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

If these figures are anywhere close to accurate the remaining 99% would own about 63% of the wealth.

My theory is that far less that 1% of the rich Americans are actually involved in big influence work.
In that case, their money would be less that the 34% shown above.

[TheKentuckian]

5. The top 20% are plenty of a match for the remainder in both wealth and income.

Most Americans certainly live under the 75k a year level, regardless of location.

The monopoly money is in the top half percent or so but the whole lot can handle the fraction in question.

For most of us it is a gimmick, a crappy bribe to support our own funeral.

[ladjf]

7. You are correct , as usual. My theory is that only a fraction of the

top 1% are actually spending big money to influence the politics. If the members of the lower income group could get consolidated into some sort of political partnership, they could get enough money like Obama did in the 2008 election.

Anyway, we need to do something and we can't keep doing what we've been doing because that isn't working.

The Republican and Big Business propaganda machine is in almost total control.

We've got the INTERNET and truth on our side. Somewhere in that equation is a way to take the power away from the oligarchy and put it into the hands of the majority of Americans. I believe that call that a Democracy, government by the majority.

We've got some smart people on our side but we don't seem to be following them.

We've got some heroes on our side but not enough of them.

Whatever is causing most of the money to keep flowing into the same greedy pots has got to stop.

[AndyTiedye]

9. Except that Thanks to the Supreme Court, the Repiggies Have Unlimited Access to CORPORATE Money Now

The USSC made the "Citizens United" ruling to ensure that nothing like the 2008 election could ever happen again.

Now the Repiggies have unlimited access to corporate money, even foreign money.