How the Super-Rich Control the U.S. Government

By Eric Zuesse

Global Research, November 06, 2022

The U.S. Government tries to hide how obscenely top-end the nation’s wealth-distribution is; but one remarkably clear presentation of it (the U.S. private-wealth distribution)  was the web-page from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that presented an “Overview” of “Distribution of Wealth” starting in “1989:Q3” and extending up till “2021:Q2”. (It will be presented even more clearly here, using their reported data.)

The following shows breakdowns of the wealth-quintiles — percentages of the wealth held by the nation’s households, all the way from the top fifth to the bottom fifth — in the “US$ Trillions” for each fifth — during the latter quarter (the “2021:Q2”), as is shown on that web-page:

  • Top 5th =Top 20% total $94.68T ($36.23T for top 1% + $58.45T for all of the next 19%)
  • 2nd 5th =Top 40%-Top 20%: $20.68T
  • 3rd 5th = Top 60%-Top 40%: $9.62T
  • 4th 5th = Top 80%-Top 60%: $5.41T
  • 5th 5th = Too 100%-Top 80%: $3.69T
  • 100% = $94.68T + $20.68T + $9.62T + $5.41T + $3.69T = $134.08T total.

Therefore: Top 20% = 70.6% of all wealth.

  • Top 40% = 86.0% of all wealth.
  • Top 60% = 93.2% of all wealth.
  • Top 80% = 97.2% of all wealth.
  • Top 100% = 100% of all wealth.
  • Additionally shown was the top 1%:
  • Top 1% (“99-100%”): $36.23T
  • Top 20% less that top 1%: $58.45T
  • So: the top 1% (the wealthiest 5% of the wealthiest 20%) held 38.3% of all the top fifth’s $94.68T.
  • Top 1% =  27% of all wealth.
  • (Bottom 1% wasn’t shown.)
  • Bottom 20% = 2.8% of all wealth.
  • Bottom 40% = 6.8%
  • Bottom 60% = 14.0%
  • Bottom 80% = 29.4%

Virtually all people who have the discretionary cash to be able to donate significantly to the politicians they favor are in the top fifth — the people who have 70.6% of all wealth. They dominate the nation’s political money. Almost all of the virtually bribes that fill political campaign-chests in America come from the richest 20% of Americans — and the top 1% contain all of the ‘king-makers.” And if you’re in the bottom 80% of wealth-holders in the U.S., you’re not represented, at all, in the U.S. Government.

The top 1% have vastly more, than rest of the top 20%, available to them to donate to their favored politicians, because these people — the top-one-percenters — hold the corporate board seats, and select the corporate executives who hire the congressional lobbyists to entertain and reward and hire the crucial congress-members so as to serve their corporations, and serve those top one-percenters who control all of those corporations. Included in these corporations are the ones that control all of the major, and most of the minor, news-media and that thereby shape the ‘knowledge’ and thus the views that most of the voters (in each Party) hold.

America has around a thousand billionaires, and they have control over so much discretionary cash as to be able to get Congress to not pass any bill that these super-rich oppose, and to pass many of the legislative bills that those super-rich want to become law. So, almost all of the thousand-or-so individuals who control the U.S. Government are billionaires. They especially control international corporations. Those few people dominate both Parties.

But they do it very much behind-the-scenes. In previous centuries, aristocrats were publicly known, by formal titles; but in today’s ‘democracies’, they are, instead, as hidden as they can be. They don’t want the public to know that the Government represents only them, because, otherwise, the Government’s saying that this or that foreign ‘dictatorship’ that poses no real threat to the national security of one’s own country, should be regime-changed, would have the citizens wonder, instead, “Isn’t it our nation’s regime that should be regime-changed first?” Any look at the ‘news’-media will make clear that they DON’T want THAT question to be in anybody’s mind. The message is instead always to regime-change the foreign leaders whom one’s own nation’s billionaires WANT to be regime-changed. That’s the way to get the public to be willing to fund (via their own taxes) the ‘Defense’ Department. Isn’t it un-‘patriotic’ to want to slash the spending on ‘defense’? Where did THAT idea come from?

*

This article was originally published on The Duran.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Eric Zuesse, Global Research, 2022

Continue ReadingHow the Super-Rich Control the U.S. Government

I would remind you that …

Chilcot is expected to announce a timetable soon.

I would remind you that

1. It is under the Inquires Act 2005 i.e. the government is decisive and in charge of everything. The government is in charge of everything.

2. I’ll get back to you

later ed: The I[E]nquires Act 2005 did away with anything near a public inquiry one month before 7 July 2005 which was then described as …

oh what was it now? a …

something diversion?

that would be a something diversion from

the official narrative …

an unnecessary investigation …

that …

didn’t

with the government version of Blair and Campbell & Co

which we know is so robust

and beyond any, any doubt

The official narrative is beyond reproach.

signed
Blair, Blair, Blunkett, Reid, Campbell & Co.

We did fuck up that the train they were on didn’t exist that day. But you’ve still got to believe us because we’re not lying, honest.

Would I lie to you?
Tony Blair

That’s it – a Ludicrous Diversion

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4454FA415EE50059

a … Ludicrous Diversion. An investigation would be ” a ludicrous diversion” …

ed: References to Tony Blair calling an investigation into the London bombings of 7 July 2005 “a ludicrous diversion” are disappearing.

ed: And I hate starting a sentence with and …

27/10/15 Re: Iraq War, Cameron and the Chilcot Inquiry

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/10/tony-blair-is-the-legal-net-tightening/

Sir Jeremy was Principal Private Secretary to Tony Blair from June 1999 to July 2003 and would thus have been party to every step of the scheming and untruths about the invasion and surely the plotting between Bush and Blair to attack, during their April 2002, three day meeting at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Subsequently Heywood stepped into the same position when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister after Blair’s resignation, a post he held between January 2008 and May 2010, so would also have been party to the plans for, and structure of, the Chilcot Inquiry into the war, which was set up by Brown. Thus those involved in the bloodbath and invasion, convened the Inquiry into the illegality.

Gordon Brown, as Blair’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote the cheques for the years of illegal UK bombings of Iraq and for the UK’s participation in “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (OIL.) He also wrote the cheques for Britain’s part in the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan.

According to Ministry of Defence figures, the total cost of UK military operation in Iraq, 2003-2009, was £8.4 Billion – ongoing since they are back bombing, with Special Forces in Northern Iraq – and it would be unsurprising if also elsewhere in the country, given Britain’s duplicitous track record. To 2013 the cost of UK operations in Afghanistan reached £37 Billion, also ongoing.

David Cameron, who voted to attack Iraq, told a news programme at the time: “You’ve got to do what you think right, even if it’s unpopular …”, near mirroring Blair’s “I know I’m right” of the same time. Cameron admires Blair, regarding him as a “mentor.” At every level of government past and present, there are vested interests in the truth on Iraq never coming out.

Continue ReadingI would remind you that …