The wealthy Americans we should worry about instead are the ones who implicitly won the election — those who take far more from America than they give back.
... the superrich who have gotten spectacularly richer over the last four decades while their fellow citizens either treaded water or lost ground.
The top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s pretax income in 2007 ...
... the dry accounting of what the cost[of "Bush tax cuts"] would add to the federal deficit. ... can we afford to borrow $700 billion?
Sometimes, Frank Rich can be a thoughtful writer. This particular article is a shoddy piece of work. Yes, I know that these snippets are taken out of their context, but pay attention to his words. There will be a test.
First, the title of his article, Who Will Stand Up to the Superrich?, implies that these deep pocket sumbitches are an affront to us all. I'm not in awe of, nor insulted by, their existence.
"...those who take far more from America than they give back..." and "...top 1 percent of American earners took in 23.5 percent of the nation’s...income..." imply that wealth in America is a static quantity, something to be chopped up and distributed, if only "we" had more "power" to seize their wealth. Ayn Rand noted that it is an American expression to "create wealth". Being rich is subjective. Today it's billionaires, but if "we" ever get that "power", perhaps tomorrow, you, Mr. Middle Class, might be "rich". Carpenter shudders at a glimpse of a possible future.
"...can we afford to borrow $700 billion?" How indeed will we finance this "tax cut"? What's implied here is that future earnings of the wealthy are already "our" property. Wrap your head around that one.