The simple truth: The people with lots of money don't want leftist government.

[merrily]

The people with money control the media and a number of other things that the 99% don't control, which things are very useful in winning elections and controlling politicians.

Unless and until you find a way impact the prior two sentences, the transfer of wealth to the top 10% will continue.

[Proserpina]

1. If the Obscenely Wealthy didn't want a Leftist Government

(meaning one in which they pay taxes commensurate with their wealth, and live under majority rule) then they should have been supporting the New Deal, not tearing it down.

Alternatively, they could go buy a small nation, if they can find one of sufficient elevation, and leave us alone.

[merrily]

2. What good would leaving you alone do them?

Granted, the 90% don't have a hell of a lot left for the 1% to take, but the 1% seem to want the paltry remnants anyway.

[Proserpina]

3. Two words: French shave

[Fuddnik]

4. Ooooh! The newest model Oligarch Processor.

It slices, it dices........

[merrily]

33. Would an LOL! here be too macabre?

Let them eat gateau.



Or petit fours

[merrily]

7. How serious a threat does that seem to the likes of Gates, Koch, et al.?

[Proserpina]

12. More serious than a heart attack

[merrily]

16. When was the last time a rich person in the US died of a heart attack?

When was the last time a rich person in the US died because of a people's revolution?

[Proserpina]

21. Past performance is no indication of future

That's why black swan events happen

You can survive a heart attack, with medical treatment

[merrily]

23. ? Past performance is one of the strongest predictors of future behavior.

However, the question was how worried are rich people about a people's revolution. I don't think they are at all worried or their behavior would be very different..

I don't want to go too far down the road of heart attacks, because their correlation to a people's revolution is nil. However, since you brought them up...http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/guide/sudden-cardiac-death

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. I don't think they're too terribly worried about it, honestly.

[merrily]

17. I don't think so, either.

We haven't given them much reason to worry about anything much.

[JackInGreen]

15. Le Mssr GUILOTINE!

My favorite frenchman, oh sir. Come visit please?

[zeemike]

30. No there is a lot more for them to take.

There is the land itself. And there is lots of it owned in common in parks, and federal lands to be had.
Imagine what a feather in your cap it would be if your corporation owned the Grand Canyon.

It won't be over for them until we have feudalism, where the kings own all land and the peps live on it at their pleasure
t

[Doctor_J]

45. They already bought this one.

Why bother?

[tecelote]

5. Greed is not even hidden anymore.

They despise us.

From one angle we are only part of the equation when it comes to earning more money. The smaller part of the equation we can be, the better.

From another angle, every part of our lives are tied to their profits from birth to death.

They will even wage wars for profit now. They have no moral compass. They are craven.

We, as Americans, need to elect Bernie for the good of the whole world.

[merrily]

8. Of what use are morals to plutocrats?

[tecelote]

10. Good point.

Morals get in the way.

[Divernan]

9. Greed not even hidden on DU

There's one particularly obnoxious, nouveau riche, HRC booster who bragged repeatedly about how wealthy he was, that he drove a Ferrari, that he dined with rich and important Democrats, and finally how much he'd donated. He was pretty thoroughly schooled and embarrassed on that last topic and since then has dialed it way back re his personal wealth.

[stillwaiting]

14. I am positive I know who this is, and I have him on ignore. He is gross.

Wish he did not feel comfortable within the Democratic Party, but the fact he does says it all for the battle we have ahead of us.

Smug, self-satisfied, greedy assholes should not feel comfortable within the Democratic Party. And, I, for one, will do everything I can to not make them feel welcome.

[merrily]

18. Exactly. It's not wealth that is the issue, but greed.

[appalachiablue]

47. That one can't be missed, he's insufferable and not clever at all.

[Sherman A1]

20. Precisely

They have always despised the working class, it is just out in the open now.

[merrily]

24. In recent years, we've heard a fair amount of contempt

for the left from Democrats in politics.

[SmittynMo]

6. This may very well be our last opportunity

to start the "undoing" of what the 1% has corrupted and built over the past 50 years, with crooked politicians in their back pockets.

Let's take our democracy back!!!!!

[sulphurdunn]

29. It was never our democracy to take back,

not from its inception and not now. Our democracy has always been representative of the disagreements of the wealthy over how to best to protect and increase their wealth. The people have only served to add their weight to one side or the other. The only times I can think of that the rich were frightened of the people was at the end of WWI with the rise of the Soviet Union and the American socialist movement, again during the Great Depression, and later after WWII and the start of the Cold War. Most social progress in the 20th century was made in reaction to fear of Soviet Russia. Since its fall, Wall Street has feared nothing, least of all the American people.

[merrily]

34. I agree. Moreover, it's not democracy, nor was it ever intended to be.

Our form of government is a Republic, like Ancient Rome, not a democracy, like Ancient Greece. In the USA now, most citizens have a right to vote, but that is suffrage, which is a separate issue from which form of government we have. When the Constitution was adopted, only about 6% of those living in the newly constituted USA had a right to vote.

[LuvNewcastle]

11. That's generally the reason why there are Democrats

who prefer Clinton to Sanders -- they're economic conservatives. Some of them talk about how left economics isn't enough. What they really mean is that Bernie's economics are too far left for them. They usually won't mention that, though. There are a lot of economic conservatives on this board because there are a number of affluent people here.

[merrily]

19. Sanders' economic policies were radical in the US in 1902.

Just guessing there.

[LuvNewcastle]

22. They like the status quo.

If you're happy with the way things have been going economically, then Hillary is your candidate. She's being paid to make sure we don't see any serious changes on that front. Sanders is the candidate for people who are in trouble, which is most of the country. Anyone who is happy with the general trend of the economy since the 1980's should be supporting Hillary. If you don't see a future for yourself if things continue this way, Sanders is the candidate for you.

[daleanime]

31. Amen.....

[cantbeserious]

25. Know Thy Enemy - Oligarchs, Corporations, Banks And Their Media Minions And MIC Henchmen

eom

[merrily]

26. Yes, including their legislative enablers, aiders and abettors.

Remember, most of what has been done to the 90% has been done legally.

[oberliner]

27. That's not true

There are plenty of people with lots of money who are very much in support of the Bernie Sanders campaign.

[merrily]

32. You're mistaken. "Plenty of people" who control media and politicians are not for Sanders.

That should be self evident from results. Also, my OP is not limited to Sanders, even though, yes, this is the Sanders Group.

[oberliner]

40. That's not what I claimed

I claimed that there are plenty of wealthy people who support Sanders and there are.

For example:

Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak Tweets Support For Bernie Sanders

Steve Wozniak, the man who co-founded Apple with Steve Jobs and Ronald Wayne, appeared to tweet his support for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders early Tuesday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steve-wozniak-bernie-sanders_55e59df0e4b0c818f61904de

He has a net worth of about $100 million.

[merrily]

42. You claimed the OP is untrue. The OP is very short. It speaks of people who control media and pols.

One or two or even twenty are not "plenty of people, either.

BTW, why are posting in the Bernie Sanders Group? He is not your primary candidate.

[lostnfound]

35. Yes, and they are viewed as betrayers of their class

other members of their class frown on it

[merrily]

37. Who in the 1% has been backing Sanders?

[oberliner]

39. Steve Wozniak and Will Ferrell spring to mind

There are also a lot of other wealthy folks who support him across the entertainment industry, for instance.

[merrily]

41. controlling media and politicians?

[smokey nj]

43. Exceptions to the rule.

[Live and Learn]

28. K&R nt

[Turbineguy]

36. I've often wondered if

there were any French aristocrats who 1788 thought, "This may not end well"?

[merrily]

38. Sure. Same as here in 1776. Not only aristocrats, either.

[Doctor_J]

44. And the Clinton supporters

I doubt all of them are rich, but they really don't want uhc, strong public schools, free college tuition, strong unions, and Pentagon cuts. Between their right leaning politics and their strong conviction that we have to have a female president right now, they no longer think like democrats.

[merrily]

48. Some of the same people who condemned her the most soundly in 2008 now claim she just about

walks on water.

Somehow, I don't believe people authentically evolve that much in eight years.

[Doctor_J]

49. yes check out my sig. And then there is Steven

Very strange

[merrily]

50. LOL! I had not noticed your sig line before posting to you.

I don't know how strange it is, though. Obama was the chosen in 2008 and Hillary is the chosen in 2016.

[PowerToThePeople]

46. I got mine, F U.

grab a hold of your bootstraps, prole.

[merrily]

51. Ha, ha, joke's on you! My initials are not F U.

Oh.

Got it. Welfare is for the very rich. Austerity is for the rest of us. Every day is Festivus!