To play devil's advocate, at least I can sympathize with those "money hungry warmongers". I mean, I can at least appreciate why a person today might think they have what it takes to rise up the ranks of a political apparatus such that once there they can influence the apparatus so that it sends a very substantial net-amount of wealth their way.

Rather then getting upset about how there are those out there today who think the above is achievable and also find it rather simple to keep "pulling it off", our time is probably better spent asking how it is that something like 99% of the population that ISN'T very well off and instead is struggling to get by seems to REPEATEDLY get duped into thinking the apparatus has been changed such that those in its highest positions of power aren't able to fairly effortlesssly gain great amounts of wealth at the expense of the masses.

In many ways I think the phrase, "Don't hate the player, hate the game" is oddly appropriate. I mean, if we the 99% keep faciliating the creation of a system where it's way better for a tiny minority then it is for a mass group, is there ever a point where you can fault a man for recognizing that's the arrangement the 99% are creating and he then chooses to go for that "way better minority"? Especially, what if it's the case that that same man would instead prefer a much different arrangement that doesn't produce such a two-tiered system and the problem for him on implementing it is simply that he's massively out-numbered by the inertia of many who keep asking for a two-tiered system? Is there every a point where it's reasonable for a man to go back to his wife and kids and say, "Sorry, I tried to go for a better system but the masses keep asking for a dumb one that's two-tiered, so that being the case, I'm sure as hell going to make sure I'm in the top tier if that's the system the masses want?"