If you're on the right side of the political stage, vote for Donald Trump!
If you lean to the left of the political spectrum, vote for Bernie Sanders!
Believe it or not Trump and Sanders have much in common when compared to the "Establishment."
Both say what they want to say, not what some want to hear even if it rustles the Establishment feathers.
Neither Sanders or Trump are dependent on "Citizens United" money whereas the Establishment can not survive without begging and scraping on bended knee for a handout from the moguls they pander to; Democrat and Republican alike.
Trump has his own billion dollar piggy bank to dip into and Sanders is stampeding on the $3.00 per person money train mad up of everyone on Main Street America who have had more than enough, are "mad as hell,"and not willing to take it anymore.
Not since Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have Americans had this opportunity to clean up a political system that is morally bankrupt,barely functions and not even remotely resembles what was once know as a Democracy where opportunity, justice, and equality was available to all; rich and poor alike.
In it's present state the Establisment operates like a brothel where politicians are nothing more than political whores selling their favors to whoever walks in with a wad of cash to throw at them. Establishment politicians will say what they are told to say. Vote the way they are told to vote regardless if it is good or bad for our country or their constituents.
Take, for example healthcare in America. Even though they would go about it differently, both Trump and Sanders agree that no one should go without healthcare and people that need help should get it.
Both Trump and Sanders want to "make America great again" Different ideology? Yes! Different solutions? Yes! But, both agree the system is "rigged" and that, in it's present state, it is in a severe need of an overhaul. In short, America is broken and it's time Americans did something to fix it.
Excerpted from "The Political Origins of Inequality"
riches of our time, the world has never been so unequal or more unjust. A
century ago, at the time of the First World War, the richest 20% of the
world’s population earned eleven times more than the poorest 20%. By
the end of the twentieth century they earned seventy-four times as much.
Today, despite seven decades of international development, three
decades of the Washington Consensus, and a decade and a half of
Millennium Development Goals, our world is even more divided among the
haves, the have-nots, and—as President George W. Bush once quipped in an
after-dinner speech—the have-mores.
When it comes to wealth, rather than income, the picture is more extreme.
Globally, the richest 1% now own nearly half of all the world’s wealth.
The poorest 50% of the world, by contrast—fully 3 billion people—own
less than 1% of its wealth. Anyone with assets of more than $10,000 a
year is an exception to the global norm and is better off than 70% of
everyone else alive. Yet most of us are so preoccupied by the relative
few with more that we rarely stop to notice this. There is growing
awareness today of the consequences in rich countries of rising income
inequality: we know what it means to talk of the 1% there. But when it
comes to the much greater gaps between rich and poor the world over, we
confine ourselves still to talk of “global poverty.”
How often are we told that, if only we could see what life is like in a cramped slum
in Dhaka or on some scrabble of land in rural Chad, we would be moved to
help? But the problem is not one of our empathy. We are all familiar
with the shape of a human body in hunger. The details, like glass paper,
scarcely catch the imagination any more. It is not one of distance,
either. A growing number of the wealthiest people in this world live in
high-rise apartments that tower up and over the slums below—and they
know only too well that before all the “beautiful forevers” will be
lived a thousand impossible todays.
The problem, rather, is one of perspective, of what we choose not to see.
There is no shortage ofbooks telling us “why nations fail” or what “the bottom billion”
on this planet must do to succeed, no shortage of policy papers from the World
Bank or the International Monetary Fund saying much the same. But we
still have not properly confronted how the poverty and suffering of a
great many are connected to the wealth and privilege of a few.
Weare slow to admit that the problem is one not of poverty traps at the
bottom of the pyramid but of a great confinement of wealth at the top.
Total global wealth was estimated at $263 trillion in mid-2014, up from
$117 trillion in 2000. That was the same year that the world agreed to
bind itself to achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015 (with
the headline ambition of halving the proportion of people living on less
than $1.25 a day). Those goals end this year, in 2015, in many cases
not having been met. Meanwhile, global wealth keeps on growing: by 8.3%
from mid-2013 to mid-2014 alone.
There is a politics to this, but it is all too often ignored in a debate which to date
has preferred to focus on the economics of who has what. The primary purpose of
this book is to paint this wider political context back into the picture, since
our problems stem less from market forces than from the failed policies
behind them. If this is partly cause for despair, then it is also cause
for hope: our present predicaments are more amenable to change than we
are often encouraged to believe.
The game is completely rigged: The 1 percent has more than ever — and the system is too broken to deal with it