Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy

1% does not control 90% of wealth. It's difficult to give an exact number but most estimates give a figure around ~33% to 40% of the US's wealth is controlled by the top 1%. I don't even think the top 10% control 90% of the wealth.

And it doesn' t matter if 1%/90% was a fact which it isn't. These communist leeches want 100% of the money ALREADY EARNED split up among the commies. Fuck them. And I, myself live literally from SS check to SS check.
 
The Republicrats have sold their souls to the corporate elite. Funny how the progs who whine and snivel about the Repubs can't see it in their own party. Here's a clue for you dimwits, it's BOTH PARTIES DOING IT!

Wake the hell up!

Certainly the Dems colluded but it was the Republican agenda that enriched the 1% while impoverishing and disenfranchising the middle class.








Bullshit. In 1932 2% of the population controlled 76% of this nations wealth. Democrats took over both houses of Congress, and held them for 40 continuous years. They also held the presidency for a significant amount of that time as well. The net result of 40 years of ABSOLUTE Democrat control was 1% controls 90% now.

So, you tell me, who were the Dems working for? Because it clearly wasn't the middle class.

1% does not control 90% of wealth. It's difficult to give an exact number but most estimates give a figure around ~33% to 40% of the US's wealth is controlled by the top 1%. I don't even think the top 10% control 90% of the wealth.





According to a report that Clinton had commissioned when he was first elected, and that was read into the Congressional Record, they do. They just hide it well, and the MSM has no intent on reporting the facts as they are owned by the one percenters.

I'd question the validity of a report that came out in the early 90's saying the 1% own 90% of wealth when wealth inequality has only gotten much, much worse since then (particularly the last 10 years).

If that were true there'd be almost nothing left for the other 99% by now, just saying.
 
According to a report that Clinton had commissioned when he was first elected, and that was read into the Congressional Record, they do. They just hide it well, and the MSM has no intent on reporting the facts as they are owned by the one percenters.

And ironic that CLINTON is one of the 1 percenters.
 
Remember the Rockefellers? DuPonts? Astors? Fords? Durants? Gettys? Hunts? Vanderbilts? Goulds? No of course you don't.....

There is a big difference between running a railroad and owning politicians. There is a big difference between capitalism and oligarchism. You have gotten yourself confused.

I happen to be reading a massive biography of Vanderbilt right now.

Do you know how much money Cornelius Vanderbilt donated to political campaigns?

I bet you have no idea. He didn't spend a dime on political campaigns.

Do you know how much effort he spent tilting the legislative playing field to his favor?

I bet you have no idea. He didn't write any legislation and get someone in Congress to sponsor it. Which is what modern day oligarchs are doing.
 
Last edited:
The Republicrats have sold their souls to the corporate elite. Funny how the progs who whine and snivel about the Repubs can't see it in their own party. Here's a clue for you dimwits, it's BOTH PARTIES DOING IT!

Wake the hell up!

Certainly the Dems colluded but it was the Republican agenda that enriched the 1% while impoverishing and disenfranchising the middle class.








Bullshit. In 1932 2% of the population controlled 76% of this nations wealth. Democrats took over both houses of Congress, and held them for 40 continuous years. They also held the presidency for a significant amount of that time as well. The net result of 40 years of ABSOLUTE Democrat control was 1% controls 90% now.

So, you tell me, who were the Dems working for? Because it clearly wasn't the middle class.

1% does not control 90% of wealth. It's difficult to give an exact number but most estimates give a figure around ~33% to 40% of the US's wealth is controlled by the top 1%. I don't even think the top 10% control 90% of the wealth.





According to a report that Clinton had commissioned when he was first elected, and that was read into the Congressional Record, they do. They just hide it well, and the MSM has no intent on reporting the facts as they are owned by the one percenters.

I'd question the validity of a report that came out in the early 90's saying the 1% own 90% of wealth when wealth inequality has only gotten much, much worse since then (particularly the last 10 years).

If that were true there'd be almost nothing left for the other 99% by now, just saying.





The operative word is "control". They might not "own" the property, but they control its output.
 
I was just watching Glenn Beck on Fox (he's off sick today) but the show goes on. They've got some economists on today talking about derivatives. The four largest banks in America now hold $390 trillion (that's TRILLION...that's $390 TRILLION!!!) in derivatives. That's 93% of all the derivatives that exist globally. To say that accumulating that kind of debt is risky, is to delve into the realm of straightjackets and the hysterically laughable. But there's a Catch-22. Accumulating that kind of debt also makes these banks "too big to fail." Guess whose money will prop them up they start to tumble?

FYI We aren't yet familiar with this word because we don't hear it that much in the popular culture, but we're going to: quadrillion. That's 10 to the 15th power. It's a thousand trillion. Can you even think in terms of 1000 trillion dollars? I can't.
 
Of course it isn't a democracy.Many aspects of it resemble that of a true plutocracy... look it up. What scares the 1 percent is there are more middle class and poor than rich... and if they ever all wake up and vote the same way.... whoa. tRICKLE DOWN WORKS FOR NOBODY BUT THE TOP.
 
Considering we are a Republic and not a democracy, I think the people at Princeton need to educate themselves. Ironic isn't it?
 
Remember the Rockefellers? DuPonts? Astors? Fords? Durants? Gettys? Hunts? Vanderbilts? Goulds? No of course you don't.....

Do you know how much money Cornelius Vanderbilt donated to political campaigns?

I bet you have no idea.

You would win because I don't give a flying shit. But those people above did bring the USofA to prominence in world trade and protection.
 
I was just watching Glenn Beck on Fox (he's off sick today) but the show goes on. They've got some economists on today talking about derivatives. The four largest banks in America now hold $390 trillion (that's TRILLION...that's $390 TRILLION!!!) in derivatives. That's 93% of all the derivatives that exist globally. To say that accumulating that kind of debt is risky, is to delve into the realm of straightjackets and the hysterically laughable. But there's a Catch-22. Accumulating that kind of debt also makes these banks "too big to fail." Guess whose money will prop them up they start to tumble?

FYI We aren't yet familiar with this word because we don't hear it that much in the popular culture, but we're going to: quadrillion. That's 10 to the 15th power. It's a thousand trillion. Can you even think in terms of 1000 trillion dollars?

Yes that's how many light years to "earth's twin planet" in the news today.
 
Considering we are a Republic and not a democracy, I think the people at Princeton need to educate themselves. Ironic isn't it?

"Democracy" and "A Republic" are not mutually exclusive.

All a Republic means is that we have no ruling monarch of any kind.

"Democracy" can mean either direct democracies, which states sometimes practice, or that government leaders are held to democratic accountability via votes.
 
Remember the Rockefellers? DuPonts? Astors? Fords? Durants? Gettys? Hunts? Vanderbilts? Goulds? No of course you don't.....

Do you know how much money Cornelius Vanderbilt donated to political campaigns?

I bet you have no idea.

You would win because I don't give a flying shit. But those people above did bring the USofA to prominence in world trade and protection.
You don't give a shit? Then you admit your argument was completely invalid!

The Astors and Goulds and Vanderbilts would be absolutely disgusted with the oligarchs of today. So your apologia for those oligarchs by tossing out non sequiturs about Astors and Goulds and Vanderbilts is just one giant smokescreen for the benefit of those who are stealing you blind.

What a nice obedient useful idiot rube you are!
 
Considering we are a Republic and not a democracy, I think the people at Princeton need to educate themselves. Ironic isn't it?

"Democracy" and "A Republic" are not mutually exclusive.

All a Republic means is that we have no ruling monarch of any kind.

"Democracy" can mean either direct democracies, which states sometimes practice, or that government leaders are held to democratic accountability via votes.

Or at least we shouldn't. But Obola has single handedly taken care of that.
 
The frauds on Wall Street are not "builders of America", Porker. They are the destroyers of capitalism.
 
Actually ... America is more of a "Democracy" than it ever has been. Why? Because she was never a Democracy in the first place. America is a Constitutional Republic. The idiots at Princeton are, well, misinformed or dumbasses.
 
Actually ... America is more of a "Democracy" than it ever has been. Why? Because she was never a Democracy in the first place. America is a Constitutional Republic. The idiots at Princeton are, well, misinformed or dumbasses.

Yeah, why should we even bother voting anymore....just have Obama name all the members of congress as he wants. We're not a democracy afterall.
 
The 1 percent control everything and don't want anyone else to get ahead. Pretty easy to see. We don't resemble anything of a democracy. Call it a corprotocracy...unfortunately.
 
The Republicrats have sold their souls to the corporate elite. Funny how the progs who whine and snivel about the Repubs can't see it in their own party. Here's a clue for you dimwits, it's BOTH PARTIES DOING IT!

Wake the hell up!

Certainly the Dems colluded but it was the Republican agenda that enriched the 1% while impoverishing and disenfranchising the middle class.








Bullshit. In 1932 2% of the population controlled 76% of this nations wealth. Democrats took over both houses of Congress, and held them for 40 continuous years. They also held the presidency for a significant amount of that time as well. The net result of 40 years of ABSOLUTE Democrat control was 1% controls 90% now.

So, you tell me, who were the Dems working for? Because it clearly wasn't the middle class.

Lies, damn lies and statistics.

The Dems of that period are the Republicans of today.
 

Forum List

Back
Top