I loved your article (all your articles). Eat the Rich is a fav of mine. (Only dogs would eat the Orange Man, bless their hearts.) But could I get something off my chest, please? It's tangentially about the rich.
I'm 83 years old and have a very limited income. I've voted for Democrats since I first voted 60 years ago. Recently, I made a very small donation to a Texas politician, and was immediately pounced upon by every damn hopeful Democrat in the whole damn country. I've been the center of a colossal feeding frenzy. I'm officially on the Sucker List. (And, btw, I don't, and won't, have any more $ to give)
I understand the pressure of having to raise money for one’s own race, since there are no spending limits for donors. But, what about all those sitting millionaire Democrat. Why can't they get together and donate to the candidates?
Naive? Yes. Stupid? Yes. But thinking about all the money that politicians have amassed for themselves by “working for us” just really pisses me off. I don't know what the answer is, but I do think that what I believed so many years about the Congress being “the servants of the people” is pure hogwash.
Yes, I'll vote again. But it really chaps my butt to do it.
I totally agree. I donated to the Democratic Party once and am getting emails and texts to donate to someone in almost every state. I had to block them. I even told them why I wasn't going to give them any more money. I'll do my part to help a candidate, but not with money I can't afford to give. The amount a campaign costs has gotten out of sight, and in the end it's the message, not how much money that candidate came up with that usually gets the vote. Musk found that out the hard way a few times.
An excellent piece of history that will repeat itself, but those on the up side of the money now may not see coming. The poor will eat the rich, and they are beginning to get pretty hungry.
Tell the big spender in the white house. History does repeat itself. Taxing works. Ask Ike. And once you pay the tax, you don't get to decide how it's spent.
“How much can I get for these MAGA caps? How about these gold tennis shoes? How about for “Big Balls” autograph? Hey buddy, can you spare a dime? I’ve got taxes to pay and now I’m told they won’t accept Trump cryptocurrency.”
An entertaining and important piece! Here in our new Gilded Age we need to remember the many previous ones—and how they ended.
They can end—can be ended.
Trouble is the earlier ones weren’t ended enough. We haven’t found a lasting solution to the accumulation of vast outrageous fortunes.
Just one quibble: Our current iteration isn’t a Trump phenomenon. Yes, he’s an example and an enabler. But Obama and Clinton abetted it too. They throw their own grotesque self-congratulatory parties in the Hamptons or on the Vineyard. We haven’t had a government determined to rein in the Gilded Ones since the 1970s at least. Let’s not allow Trump’s more open vulgarity to cloud our eyes. The Schumers and Pelosis and Khannas and Abramses aren’t going to end this new era of obscene wealth any more than the Bushes or McConnells did. They like being invited to the balls too much. They’re all believers in the trickle-down lie.
Thanks to the Uniparty America is a turkey with two right wings. Or as Julius Nyerere more eloquently put it, “The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.”
The ludicrous concept behind “trickle down” economics was originally termed “horse and sparrow” — John Kenneth Galbraith described the concept as the belief that “if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows” …🤨
The Chinese had the right idea. The last emperor was made to work in the garden after being deposed. So any imagined inate superiority of the emperor was confronted by the reality of a unprepossessing little man.
I loved your article (all your articles). Eat the Rich is a fav of mine. (Only dogs would eat the Orange Man, bless their hearts.) But could I get something off my chest, please? It's tangentially about the rich.
I'm 83 years old and have a very limited income. I've voted for Democrats since I first voted 60 years ago. Recently, I made a very small donation to a Texas politician, and was immediately pounced upon by every damn hopeful Democrat in the whole damn country. I've been the center of a colossal feeding frenzy. I'm officially on the Sucker List. (And, btw, I don't, and won't, have any more $ to give)
I understand the pressure of having to raise money for one’s own race, since there are no spending limits for donors. But, what about all those sitting millionaire Democrat. Why can't they get together and donate to the candidates?
Naive? Yes. Stupid? Yes. But thinking about all the money that politicians have amassed for themselves by “working for us” just really pisses me off. I don't know what the answer is, but I do think that what I believed so many years about the Congress being “the servants of the people” is pure hogwash.
Yes, I'll vote again. But it really chaps my butt to do it.
Thanks for letting me get that off my chest
Same. Now there are some I will donate to, but generally not as a result of one of the 1001 texts I get per day.
I totally agree. I donated to the Democratic Party once and am getting emails and texts to donate to someone in almost every state. I had to block them. I even told them why I wasn't going to give them any more money. I'll do my part to help a candidate, but not with money I can't afford to give. The amount a campaign costs has gotten out of sight, and in the end it's the message, not how much money that candidate came up with that usually gets the vote. Musk found that out the hard way a few times.
I feel the exact same way, like the vultures are circling. I had hoped for something different, but unfortunately Politics is a dirty filthy game.
Thank you for this fantastic piece!
An excellent piece of history that will repeat itself, but those on the up side of the money now may not see coming. The poor will eat the rich, and they are beginning to get pretty hungry.
Tell the big spender in the white house. History does repeat itself. Taxing works. Ask Ike. And once you pay the tax, you don't get to decide how it's spent.
My little neurodivergent brain insisted on reading "upper fifth"as "upper _filth_.
“How much can I get for these MAGA caps? How about these gold tennis shoes? How about for “Big Balls” autograph? Hey buddy, can you spare a dime? I’ve got taxes to pay and now I’m told they won’t accept Trump cryptocurrency.”
Thank you for your diligence in your research! Your writing is trustworthy.
When are you going to publish your book of "treatises"? I will order early to boost sales.
I am so behind on publishing. Health has derailed me a bit but I am coming back strong...
Heal thyself first. We can wait.
I await more visits to basements.
An entertaining and important piece! Here in our new Gilded Age we need to remember the many previous ones—and how they ended.
They can end—can be ended.
Trouble is the earlier ones weren’t ended enough. We haven’t found a lasting solution to the accumulation of vast outrageous fortunes.
Just one quibble: Our current iteration isn’t a Trump phenomenon. Yes, he’s an example and an enabler. But Obama and Clinton abetted it too. They throw their own grotesque self-congratulatory parties in the Hamptons or on the Vineyard. We haven’t had a government determined to rein in the Gilded Ones since the 1970s at least. Let’s not allow Trump’s more open vulgarity to cloud our eyes. The Schumers and Pelosis and Khannas and Abramses aren’t going to end this new era of obscene wealth any more than the Bushes or McConnells did. They like being invited to the balls too much. They’re all believers in the trickle-down lie.
Sigh. I miss Carter's sweater.
Man, I sounded so pompous in my comment! Thanks for the cool reply
Thanks to the Uniparty America is a turkey with two right wings. Or as Julius Nyerere more eloquently put it, “The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.”
Cutting edge commentary...
The ludicrous concept behind “trickle down” economics was originally termed “horse and sparrow” — John Kenneth Galbraith described the concept as the belief that “if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass through to feed the sparrows” …🤨
I didn't know that! Very cool. I am going to use that fun fact somewhere.
Great piece. I've been thinking of the similarities between the Gilded Age and now. It doesn't end well for the rich.
Nicely done, Carlyn... thank you.
Perhaps there's something on my substack you will appreciate, if not enjoy. Happy 5th. There's still time.
The Chinese had the right idea. The last emperor was made to work in the garden after being deposed. So any imagined inate superiority of the emperor was confronted by the reality of a unprepossessing little man.
Damn! and they still have the audacity to serve us trickle down economics as the only viable and safe option. Guess we’ll never learn.