Princeton does study and concludes America is an Oligarchy not a Democracy

[Oldgamer]

This is their study and analysis if you have time to read it. I find it interesting.

Socionomics and American Politics Study

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is their study and analysis if you have time to read it. I find it interesting.

Socionomics and American Politics Study

Of course it's a Democracy. You can pick whoever the Democrats and Republicans say you can have.

 

[glenn1]

This is their study and analysis if you have time to read it. I find it interesting.

Socionomics and American Politics Study

Wow, who'd have ever thunk that a massive government spending trillions annually could become incenstuously enthralled to people who might financially benefit most from that spending. Especially because we'd be SOOOOOO much better off if politicians could wield the powers of government unchecked without any influence, I'm sure they'd use it exclusively for the benefit of the downtrodden and never for the benefit of themselves or their cronies.

 

[Zaap]

LOL!

It's a Republic.

 

[z1ggy]

Wow, who'd have ever thunk that a massive government spending trillions annually could become incenstuously enthralled to people who might financially benefit most from that spending. Especially because we'd be SOOOOOO much better off if politicians could wield the powers of government unchecked without any influence, I'm sure they'd use it exclusively for the benefit of the downtrodden and never for the benefit of themselves or their cronies.

Well put, haha. Pretty much what I would have said.

 

[HOSED]

Thom Hartmann has been preaching this on his show (The Big Picture) on the RT television network for some time, as well as on his radio show.
Let me guess the egg heads at Princeton will commission a study correlating food deserts and low academic achievement next. Or maybe playing football and a link to concussions. :'(

 

[1prophet]

This is their study and analysis if you have time to read it. I find it interesting.

Socionomics and American Politics Study

A day late and a dollar short, ask for a refund.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVbgeFgIBms

 

[theeedude]

They had to do a study for this?

 

[Zorkorist]

It is sick, however, and America as a whole has to wake up and realize that there is very little left of what made us a great nation.

-John

 

[Scotteq]

I Don't understand why people insist the USA is a Democracy when It's a representative Republic. Then again, schools stopped teaching Civics some time ago...

And yeah: While we the people can take consolation other places are far worse... The truth really is this country was bought and paid for a LONG time ago.

 

[fskimospy]

Wow, who'd have ever thunk that a massive government spending trillions annually could become incenstuously enthralled to people who might financially benefit most from that spending. Especially because we'd be SOOOOOO much better off if politicians could wield the powers of government unchecked without any influence, I'm sure they'd use it exclusively for the benefit of the downtrodden and never for the benefit of themselves or their cronies.

That's so true. The rich never dominated and massively exploited the lower classes before the era of big government.

Oh wait.

 

[shortylickens]

They had to do a study for this?

This is how intellectuals spend their time and money.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's so true. The rich never dominated and massively exploited the lower classes before the era of big government.

Oh wait.

Of course they did. This just confirms that a massive (and ever increasing) government doesn't help the citizens in terms of actually having a say in what goes on. Either way, the big money interests rule.

 

[dank69]

Of course they did. This just confirms that a massive (and ever increasing) government doesn't help the citizens in terms of actually having a say in what goes on. Either way, the big money interests rule.

Especially when one political party rules that money == speech.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Of course they did. This just confirms that a massive (and ever increasing) government doesn't help the citizens in terms of actually having a say in what goes on. Either way, the big money interests rule.

Very true, but eskimo prefers that the government run the show (as long as everyone in the government has a D after their name); even if the government is bought and paid for by special interests.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course they did. This just confirms that a massive (and ever increasing) government doesn't help the citizens in terms of actually having a say in what goes on. Either way, the big money interests rule.

Unless of course you took some time to look at all the other countries with large governments and their income inequality. I wonder what that would show.

 

[PokerGuy]

Especially when one political party rules that money == speech.

First, a political party can't "rule" anything. Second, money and power have always and will always go hand in hand. You can go ahead and believe the partisan drivel being fed to you to pretend that somehow one party is not on board with that status, I'm not that naive.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Especially when one political party rules that money == speech.

Both parties believe this. You're just a typical liberal fool that thinks that anything with a D after it is inherently virtuous.

 

[PokerGuy]

Unless of course you took some time to look at all the other countries with large governments and their income inequality. I wonder what that would show.

That would be interesting, if that were even a discussion point of this thread. Last I checked it wasn't about income inequality, and neither is the article linked. In fact, nowhere in the article is the word "inequality" even mentioned. Sheesh. The article talks about influence over public policy and which models might best describe the US.

Isn't there a big government worship group you should be attending right now?

 

[fskimospy]

Very true, but eskimo prefers that the government run the show (as long as everyone in the government has a D after their name); even if the government is bought and paid for by special interests.

What makes you come up with this nonsense?

 

[fskimospy]

That would be interesting, if that were even a discussion point of this thread. Last I checked it wasn't about income inequality, and neither is the article linked. In fact, nowhere in the article is the word "inequality" even mentioned. Sheesh. The article talks about influence over public policy and which models might best describe the US.

Isn't there a big government worship group you should be attending right now?

Lol. Look at who didn't read the paper.

 

[PokerGuy]

Lol. Look at who didn't read the paper.

You apparently. It is not about income inequality but about public policy and influence on it. Like I said, aren't you late for your daily government worship meeting?

 

[FerrelGeek]

What makes you come up with this nonsense?

That would be interesting, if that were even a discussion point of this thread. Last I checked it wasn't about income inequality, and neither is the article linked. In fact, nowhere in the article is the word "inequality" even mentioned. Sheesh. The article talks about influence over public policy and which models might best describe the US.

Isn't there a big government worship group you should be attending right now?

Obviously, I'm not the only one that thinks this way.

 

[JockoJohnson]

LOL!

It's a Republic.

^This.

 

[fskimospy]

You apparently. It is not about income inequality but about public policy and influence on it. Like I said, aren't you late for your daily government worship meeting?

You're just embarrassing yourself. It is about how economic elites exercise outsized influence on policy, the theoretical framework coming from their greater economic and business related resources, and their IV in the study was income percentile. Greater income inequality gives higher percentiles more separation from the median.

Everyone comments on an article without reading it sometimes, but it takes a true dumbass to try and say someone else hasn't when you haven't.