[ SECRET POST #3752 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3752 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 16 secrets from Secret Submission Post #536.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

It is still a small number when compared to the other 99% who are not there. And while the 1% doesn't do consist of all billionaires, "Those sources showed that in 2009, the top 1% of tax payers reported $344,000 in annual income. That figure would be slightly higher because income held in tax-advantaged retirement plans or other structures wouldn’t be included." http://www.joshuakennon.com/how-much-money-does-it-take-to-be-in-the-top-1-of-wealth-and-net-worth-in-the-united-states/ "The Times had estimated the threshold for being in the top 1 percent in household income at about $380,000, 7.5 times median household income, using census data from 2008 through 2010. But for net worth, the 1 percent threshold for net worth in the Fed data was nearly $8.4 million, or 69 times the median household’s net holdings of $121,000." https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/economix/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/?referer=
That is still a pretty substantial amount of money imo. Especially compared to how little the people on the bottom earn and have as assets.

And if you look at the world, where 1% equates to even more people, that 1% controls half the world's wealth, which is rather ridiculous, even if they are not all billionaires. https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2015/10/14/1-percent-global-wealth-credit-suisse/%3Fsource%3Ddam

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

I'm talking about campaign finance reform not income inequality
Everybody is missing the part where the post is about when people use 1% to talk about political influence
People who make 380000/yr arent buying elections

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
They aren't buying elections, but they buy a hell of a lot more influence. Not just because of direct contributions, but also because they often have influential people to lobby on their behalf. Like doctors definitely have lobby group power, for example.

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

Doctors can have lobbying power
But doctors are not what people are talking about when they say the 1% are buying elections, it is the billionaires and multimillionaire corporations
My pedant gripe is not about the sentiment. It is about the accuracy of saying 3 million people are doing something when they are talking about 1/10 of 1/100 of that

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
It's what I mean when I say it. When I talk about the 1% (which granted I much more do in terms of income inequality rather than buying elections), I don't mean just the billionaires. I mean people like the doctor parent of one of my students who literally couldn't fathom why I wouldn't consider Lasik surgery ("it's only a few thousand, and you could get a loan for it") when I was sraping by with barely enough to eat. He was a kind enough person, I guess, but he was much more concerned with tax breaks and Christian morality and things that would help him instead of considering what others might need.

My uncle is filthy rich. He is on the Forbes list of richest people. He has close ties to Trump and was given benefits after the election based on what he did during the election. When you (with the .001% caveat) are talking about the kind of people who could buy politics, he is one. Yet I think he was much less influential in Trump's election than the rich who wanted their taxes reduced. I think he was much less influential than lobbying groups, like the insurance lobbyists. I think he was much less influential than the well-to-do white Christians who want to "make America great again." I also think he was much less influential than the small-minded fearful middle America voters, but that has little to do with buying influence and more preying on people's fears.

I really think businesses and lobbyists and even a larger group to pander to like the actual 1% have much more sway than any few people, even if they are billionaires.

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

respectfully disagree
I cannot imagine the 'actual 1%" of, remember, 3 million people, is the antitax monolith like you make them out to be due to sheer size of population location occupation and all the differentiating factors
dont forget there are plenty, plenty of 1 percenters on the democrats side and plenty openly want to raise taxes to get universal healthcare if sanders campaign showed anything

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

and again no group of them even 30 or 40 of them is going to have the mass cash to hire a firm and run blitzes of attack ads like a single koch brother can all over a state

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
Yes, there are plenty of 1%ers who are Democrats. No group is a monolith; I'm talking about trends. My uncle was actually a Democrat until Trump, as he has personal ties to him. (And think about celebrities who tend to be Democrats and can balance out at least a little of the pro-business millionaires.)

And yes, no single individual can run tons of attack ads, but that is what groups are for. And 100k 1%ers donating to a group that runs attack ads is going to have way more impact than 100k of the bottom 10% who likely can't donate anything.

I'm not saying anyone one individual of the 1% can buy an election or swing the tide of an election. I'm saying that as a group they have way more political influence than the bottom, let's say, 50% of the country.

Re: Random pedantic gripe

[(Anonymous)]

for posting in a thread about pedantry you are streeeeetching the definition of what I am saying
99 percent of 1 percenters do not buy elections and do not buy politics. you literally said one individual of the 1 percent cannot buy an election. that is the same thing i am saying
the people I have a gripe with arent saying that small business owners have more sway in politics than a homeless person. by saying the 1 percent buy elections they are saying that small business owners, as a category of person, buy elections and politics and are in the same category as koch and that is untrue and inaccurate
if they said what you are saying i would not disagree. but they are not saying that. hence pedantic griping.