I don’t have a problem with billionaires being billionaires, although I think they should be taxed in a way that makes them somewhat less rich billionaires and I don’t think they should be able to pass the lion’s share of their fortunes on to their children because that’s how you get an talentless aristocracy.
But I do have a problem with billionaires serving in Congress. Members of Congress represent somewhere between hundreds of thousands to millions of people, and only a handful of them are billionaires. I will vote against a billionaire in a primary for no other reason than that they are a billionaire.
Meh, better Steyer than a number of other candidates I can think of.
I’ll wait to see who the other candidates are. Billionaires shouldn’t exist by virtue of policy, as I previously stated. But I see no difference between them in the halls of power than pulling levers behind the scenes.
I don’t like that we have to ally with them as a matter of principle as it is…but this is the reality we live in.
two wrongs don’t make a right – they shouldn’t be pulling levers behind the scenes either – campaign finance reform etc
Add my vote to campaign finance reform – funny how the people never seem to get to vote on these things.
I’d also really like to hear how these billionaires could not scrape by on a mere $999 Million…
I agree, but that still isn’t a reason to reject a billionaire because he’s a billionaire. I would go straight at the issue: How do you feel about wealth inequality? What do you plan to do about it in the Senate? Do you think we should raise the top marginal rates? What about estate taxes? What about capital gains? I don’t know Tom Steyer’s position, but I do know that there are billionaires who think billionaires should pay higher taxes.
How about a billionaire that says no billionaires should exist?
If she can prove she really means it.
Tend to agree. Make Stoney’s billionaire status an issue, but give him the opening to argue in favor of those issues you list. And, beyond that CA race, I have a feeling having a billionaire or two on our side in office advocating for more income equality and a return to progressive tax rates may turn out to be quite helpful.
I also note the good old days when the “billionaires” of their time — FDR and JFK — or at least the “super wealthy” compared to the rest of us, ended up becoming the two best presidents of the 20th C, using public office never for private gain but for public good. Had there been some anti-millionaire law in place preventing them from holding office, we wouldn’t have benefitted from their greatness. And likely we would have had a few more Nixon and LBJ corrupt types who used public office in part for private wealth accumulation.
Difference — their wealthy families/or patriarch educated them for the privilege of holding public office for the benefit of the people and country and not themselves.
Wouldn’t have voted for John D. Rockefeller. Would have been open to voting for grandson Nelson for governor but probably not POTUS. Would have voted for his great-grandson Jay.
You can’t have campaign finance reform without violating the first amendment at this point.
It’s kind of like gun control at this stage: anything you want to do that might make a difference is going to violate the second amendment. The same goes for campaign finance. Nothing worth doing would pass constitutional muster.
I feel the tax code for the extremely rich should be from the 1950’s.
I also feel that if a corporation wants to leave. Then they should leave with very little for they used USA people, infrastructure to gain the riches.
The track record on super wealthy people buying their way to high elective office is poor. Even those that succeed such as Jon Corzine don’t fare well once in office. Most, such as Perot, Forbes, Koch, and Whitman, and Romney, lose. They really aren’t like the rest of us and don’t seem to know that.
That said, many (most?) of our seemingly intractable problems can be ameliorated if a political candidate speaks truthfully and authentically and can command enough of the “public square” to be heard far and wide. Unfortunately, vanity candidates have narrow, mostly self-serving, interests. So, other than Perot’s correct “giant sucking sound” and whatever it is that those in NYC valued about Bloomberg, nothing about them is remembered as they return to managing their fortunes and continuing to preen for another attempt to bamboozle their way to greater power and glory like Romney and Trump.
Well, there is Jay Rockefeller.
Different. He remained in WV after working there for VISTA. Then:
He at least worked his way up in WV politics and didn’t rely exclusively on his name and bank balance. He’s a wealthy man, but couldn’t possibly have coughed up what Meg Whitman or Bloomberg did in their last races.
And the difference between a billionaire and a candidate primarily funded by a billionaire is…??????
The billionaire candidate will definitely stay bought.