It’s from 2012 but it’s very good, and interactive.
If you live in a wealthy part of the country it is very likely that you are represented in Congress by a Democrat. Often a very “liberal” Democrat. Why is this?
The great disconnect continues. Those who are tapped into the (crony) financialized system have seen their stocks and bonds do well as the market has ridden a Federal Reserve created bubble. Those who do not have assets, or only real estate assets, (unless they have nice arable farmland) have fallen behind. It’s a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but the situation has been exacerbated by the central bank experiments of the last 6 years.
Look, at a net worth of $100 million the Clintons are not wealthy, they are legitimately rich. They are not the 1%, they are the 1% of the 1%. And surprise surprise, despite all the “have and have not” nonsense coming from Madam Clinton as of late, the Clintons intend on remaining in the 1% of the 1%.
Funny thing about those who rise on the shoulders of the proletariat. They always seem to enjoy being rich. Why is that?
It is interesting to hear (some) people praise Mr. Bernanke for having “saved” the United States and the world from Great Depression II. This praise is misplaced to say the least.
Senators are paid well, but they have significant expenses too. How Harry Reid has become such a rich man while in the Senate is a question worth exploring. The Washington Times is poking around..
There is some serious simple wisdom in the attached article.