Even Robert Reich is Disappointing Me

[angrychair]

Apparently, despite speaking for decades on how billionaires are screwing everyone and ruining the economy and screwing over the little guy, Robert Reich has endorsed Tom Steyer for governor of California.

I could not be more disappointed to find out the guy is just a closeted billionaire bootlicker.

Very disappointed.

This endorsement seems sus to me…

Let’s get real: Tom Steyer built his fortune off private prison investments and fossil fuel money, then turned around and tried to buy political credibility with that same wealth. That’s a dealbreaker for me.

Why the flip flop?
@rbreich.bsky.social

— Christopher Webb (@cwebbonline.com) 2026-05-20T21:38:23.008Z

[FoxNewsSucks]

1. Yeah that sucks

but I will at least want to see his explanation for an endorsement of Steyer.

[Ocelot II]

2. Maybe he thinks he has the best chance of winning?

CA has a weird election system.

[FoxNewsSucks]

4. Yeah, that jungle primary is so fucking stupid.

Democrats need to get rid of it.

[Sequoia]

34. Sixty contenders on ballot for governor

[LSparkle]

3. He has ads running narrated by Jane Fonda ...

That initially surprised and disappointed me. Tonight I heard Sheldon Whitehouse sounding like he supports Steyer getting into the CA governors’ race. He contrasted Steyer’s efforts trying to fight the fossil fuel industry to Bozo’s hollow words today in his CNBC interview, implying that Steyer is a “good” rich guy as opposed to Bozo. I respect both Fonda and Whitehouse and now I’m really confused about Steyer.

I’m also angry at the stupid jungle primary CA is running — whoever thought this would be good for our state is crazy.

[angrychair]

5. I openly hate all billionaires

All billionaires. All of them. There is no such thing as an "ethical" billionaire. They are antithetical to free and fair society.
They are, by their very existence, destructive to our country: economically, politically and socially.

[Abolishinist]

9. I see, you openly HATE all billionaires.

I'm curious, why draw the line there?

So tell me, what about someone worth a mere $500 million? Do they get a pass? What is the practical difference between the two, one has $500 million more than the other?

Let's go lower, let's say $100 million.

Please tell me where you draw your hatred line. Thanks!

[angrychair]

10. It becomes more nuanced

As it goes below a billion.
Billionaires are easy because, as I already said, there are no ethical billionaires.

Then it comes down to how you made your $500 million. Was it being a hedge fund manager? Owning private prisons? Leasing warehouses to ice? Running sweat shops?

When the growth of your wealth is tied to the exploitation of people or the environment or politics, my hate for that grow linearly.

[FascismIsDeath]

44. No, it doesn't become more nuanced.

You just have a highly irrational point of view.

[Disaffected]

16. All of them?

How about Bezos' ex?

"MacKenzie Scott is one of the biggest names in philanthropy. The billionaire novelist, philanthropist, and ex-wife to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos has donated an eye-popping $26 billion since 2019."

https://fortune.com/article/mackenzie-scott-26-billion-donations-net-worth-amazon-shares/

[angrychair]

18. All billionaires.

No exceptions. Billionaires should not exist at all. Not one.
Even her. Short answer is that she may have given away billions but she is almost as wealthy now ($33 billion) as when she got her divorce settlement ($38)

[Sequoia]

35. What about Ebenezer Scrooge?

[Disaffected]

39. However, she is giving large portions away and,

she is still wealthy primarily because her Amazon stock keeps appreciating at a rapid rate.

As well, it is not a simple thing to just give away wealth, that's the easy part. The hard part is giving it away wisely and that takes some time and doing.

[angrychair]

43. Which is the whole purpose

Of creating a charitable foundation.
She can reduce her personal wealth to just hundreds of millions and funnel her earnings from Amazon straight to that foundation.

But she doesn't.

She continues to horde it.

Like all billionaires do.

They are all the same. They all value being wealthy, powerful and influential more than they value people.

[ColoringFool]

20. Here's The Thing: With Taxes, Govt Can Be---Can Be---Fair And.....

Equitable with how they are used.

With billionaires, the disbursement of personal wealth is always Noblesse Oblige. Or not.

So while MacKenzie might be one of the "good" billionaires, the MORE BASIC QUESTION is:

Why can we not tax properly and attempt to lessen the NEED for private charity?

"I have always depended on the kindness of strangers" is not how a democratic society should care for its citizens.

[Disaffected]

40. Agreed. nt

[Fiendish Thingy]

6. Yeah, I don't get it either

First, the cryptobros drop several million to buy Genius Act votes from Gallego and a dozen other Dem senators, now Steyer is getting endorsed by Old School Dems we long presumed to be progressives,

[angrychair]

7. I would argue

That, as a progressive, I will laugh in the face of anyone, claiming to be a progressive, that is also endorsing a billionaire for public office. Especially one that made their money as a hedge fund manager that invested heavily in private prisons.

[Fiendish Thingy]

8. Yeah, that's my rule too- no celebrities or billionaire candidates- ever, period. Nt

[TheProle]

11. seems only fair to provide his reasoning

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/tom-steyer-for-governor-of-california

[ColoringFool]

22. One Can Always Find A Reason When One Changes....

Clothing, spouses, or long-held beliefs.

[Cha]

26. TY, snippets from your link...

You may be thinking: a billionaire? Hear me out. Steyer is the only candidate with a plan to tax the wealthy and corporations to invest in public services.

Yes, the billionaire is the only candidate with a plan to tax billionaires.

Steyer is the only candidate who has said he’d vote for the billionaire wealth tax, and he’s also said we need to go even further. Under his revenue plan, he’d raise taxes on corporations and other billionaires to fund schools and healthcare.

Steyer understands that economic growth depends on a strong middle class, not trickle down nonsense.

On the issue of artificial intelligence, Steyer is the only candidate with a plan to tax Big Tech and share the gains with working people. Under Steyer’s plan, he will guarantee every worker impacted by AI has a good-paying job.

When it comes to single-payer healthcare, Steyer is also committed to making California a model for the rest of the nation.

But don’t take my word for it. Steyer’s progressive policies have won him the support of nurses, teachers, and other labor unions across the state. At the same time, PG&E, Chevron, and MAGA billionaires are spending millions against him.

We’ve had wealthy Democratic politicians before. FDR and JFK had tremendous fortunes, yet they enacted some of the most progressive policies in American history.

Meanwhile, the other candidates in the race for governor haven’t taken a stand on the billionaire wealth tax. Why? I fear it’s because they don’t want to upset the wealthy donors and corporations backing their campaigns. It’s that simple.

https://robertreich.substack.com/p/tom-steyer-for-governor-of-california

[CoopersDad]

12. I agree with Reich.

Becerra, while polling better and a comfortable fit for traditional mainstream Democratic Party standards, is too weak to take on the ever more powerful tech billionaires that Steyer professes he can and will.

We need to work differently and give serious thought to nontraditional candidates.

[angrychair]

13. All billionaires are scum

He is a hedge fund billionaire that made its wealth from private prisons.
Billionaires drown out the voices of normal people because their wealth makes sure they are the only voice heard.
Billionaires are destroying the country: financially, socially and politically.

[ColoringFool]

21. And Just The Term "Private Prisons" Should Be Anathema!! TOTALLY....

UNDEMOCRATIC IN EVERY SENSE!

[FHRRK1]

14. Feel free to flame me,.... but

If the race was tight between him and Becerra, I would likely vote for Steyer.

Does the billionairre status give me pause, yes. But the other candidates really sucked in the 2nd debate. Becerra being extra lame.

So to explain it to those outside of CA. The Governer doesn't have that much power. Propositions rule. The Dems have a Super Majority, so if the Gov. vetos anything (non Proposition) and then the Super Majority overrules.

So basically, anyone with an (R) can be of help to tRump to run scams. Unless Steyer is a tRump plant (not very likely) then there isn't anything he could do to impact us.

Anyway, holding on to my ballot until the last minute purely due to the race for Gov. Just need to elect someone with a D by his/her name.

I was hoping for two Dems to get to the final two. Looks like Hilton (R - Douchebag) has a top two spot locked down. So the only goal it to get one Dem to vote for and then we are good.

[Abolishinist]

17. It's a tough choice. And I missed the second debate, so there's that. I'll try to watch it.

First of all, I can't STAND Katie Porter. I've posted before that we attended a fundraiser for Katie, and in a brief 'private' moment with her she treated me like crap. So after that, and not knowing much about Becerra, I decided to support Steyer.

However, yesterday evening we attended a private fundraiser for Becerra, and I found him to be well spoken, with good ideas on how he would go forward if elected Governor. I know, in the end it's all politics, I have no delusion that any of them are really able to implement their plans, but he had a good story and came across as being sincere.

So at least for now, he's got my vote, but I'm still working on it.

[Cha]

24. Because WE're Dems for Democracy,

Not for fukcing PEDO Protectors.

We don't want fucking Fascists in charge of Blue California.

[Cha]

27. Nah. The PEDO, Homicidal Maniac in

the WH leads all the PEDOs in the World

Fucking Stupid Traitor Moron.

[MustLoveBeagles]

37. Looks like I missed a moron

[hunter]

15. My speculations:

* They know something we don't, true or not, but plausible to the "average" voter. (Sadly, many people believe what they see on TV and the media would hammer on it.)

* They are fearful of a Republican victory

* They think Steyer will be out of his element and won't do as much damage as a Republican Governor with a Republican staff would. A Republican governor's office would be staffed with the most disruptive deplorables the billionaires who own the Republican Party can buy and would probably be independent of the Trump circus making them more dangerous.

I'll hold off voting until the last day, as is my custom. My vote will be practical. Candidates with ideologies similar to my own are so far out there as to be unelectable.

[TBF]

33. That's the way I vote here in TX -

Currently TX shows as a democratic majority in "registered voters". Which in Texas means you've turned up for a primary and picked a side. We don't register any other way. So, this can change from year to year depending upon which primary you choose to vote in.

I look at the top-level candidates, especially, with an eye towards who can actually get out the vote and have a chance at winning. Purity aside, you have to actually get into office before you can do anything.

[betsuni]

19. Reich posted Steyer explaining "Why Tax Cuts for the Rich Are So Stupid" back in 2017.

Should also have "Why Helping Republicans by Purity Testing Allies and Turning Them Into Boogeymen Is So Stupid." Big problem with populism.

[Cha]

29. Oh yes, "the purity test", except

for a certain someone.

Mahalo, betsuni.

[Tim S]

28. FDR was a wealthy man who did right for the poor and disadvantaged.

Being wealthy doesn’t automatically make you bad (just “suspect” in my book).

[SSJVegeta]

30. This.

Steyer has proven he is the most progressive candidate. Being a billionaire doesnt automatically mean he wont follow through on doing the right thing.

[angrychair]

32. I think that is where the confusion

Comes when it comes to billionaires.

The issue with billionaires isn't that they will not, occasionally, do the right thing.

The problem with billionaires is they suck all the oxygen out of a room. No one else's opinion matters when a billionaire enters the metaphorical room.
A normal candidate, even in a race like this, may amass several million dollars to run their campaign but billionaires have unlimited funds.
Steyer, in this example, has outspent his nearest opponent by 24 to 1. He has spent over $200 million dollars trying to win the governor's race.

How, as a normal person, fund raising, are they to compete with that?

While some may genuinely come to the conclusion they like him as a candidate but how do we know it was actually because they are the better candidate or was it because of their money, their voice was the only one that people heard?

[SSJVegeta]

36. Your point is irrefutable. None the less Steyer is not just occasionally doing the right thing

He is on the right side of the issues entirely. Yes he has the resources to advertise thay point, but he has been consistent with that reality since he entered politics.

[angrychair]

38. To be fair

I'm not in California so my comments are academic.
I'm unwavering in my opinion of billionaires and no one will ever convince me that a billionaire hedge fund manager that made his wealth off private prisons, suddenly becomes a progressive that cares about people.

No hedge fund manager, current or former, is dropping $200+ million dollars without expecting an fat return on investment. The greed is hardwired into their brains.

[SSJVegeta]

42. I highly respect your stance. To be clear:

I dont so much think you are wrong, as much as I hope you are.

He has given us some indication that he is more than just trying to blend in as a progressive. Desite his capitalistic foundation, I think his donations have always been progressive and supporting democratic advancement.

[angrychair]

45. Also to be fair

Happy to be wrong. If he even does half the stuff he says that would be amazing.

I don't think I am going to be wrong.

As I said up thread about Mackenzie Scott, if a billionaire really wants to prove they have changed its rather easy, give up being a billionaire. Not on your death bed but while you are still living.

Reduce your personal wealth to just hundreds of millions (more than enough for a hundred lifetimes) put the rest into a charitable foundation and all future earnings go to that foundation.

It's not complicated. They could do that.

They never do.

[TBF]

31. A current example is JD Pritzker (gov of Illinois) -

there are always wealthy who see the game for what it is. Back in the day of Marx, it was Engels (his family was wealthy - owned textile plants).

People think they are voting for prom King ... personality & beers ... all that. And while that is no doubt a factor, those w/charima rise up, it is very enlightening to look at someone's past voting record to see what they really support.

[angrychair]

41. I'll believe a billionaire actually cares

When they willingly give up being a billionaire.
While there have been a couple, I remember a lady that gave all the billions she had to a university medical school, but not until it was the end of her life.
Why isn't hundreds of millions of dollars enough?

[ITAL]

46. There are some that almost have to be

Because a lot of the money is more theoretical than what they may actually have at their disposal on a day to day basis. For instance, the Rooney family owns the Pittsburgh Steelers and have for nearly 100 years. That was a great investment when they got the franchise back in the day for a couple of thousand bucks since it's worth about 7 billion now. They pay their star employees (the players) well and they have plenty of other folks on their payroll who come out pretty nicely too. I mean, maybe they could pay their janitors better, I don't know...but the point is they aren't hoarding money. The team is worth a ton because the NFL is a massive brand and they were lucky enough decades ago to get in on it. I'm not sure what they could do about that unless they sold their entire stake and then gave it away.

[angrychair]

47. That part

unless they sold their entire stake and then gave it away.

Or as an alternative, they could still continue to pay the players and staff well, still maintaining hundreds of millions in personal assets and then funnel all other earnings to a charitable foundation.

There is ALWAYS a way not to be a billionaire. 99.9% of the population of the world manages to do it every day.