Daily Topics - Thursday March 4th 2010
Quote: “Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.” -- William E. Gladstone
Hour One - If going to college turns you liberal should we ban them? Dr. Richard Brake, Director of University Stewardship at The Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) www.isi.org
Hour Two - "A Cracking of the Heart" David Horowitz, Conservative Activist, Founder David Horowitz Freedom Center http://frontpagemag.com
Hour Three - Why do the right wing crazies think that Obamacare is going to kill them? Peter Ferrara www.theacru.org
Upcoming Events with Thom Hartmann:
Friday, March 19th, 6-8pm AM 1600 WWRL, Demos and the New York Law School Chapter of the American Constitution Society present an evening with Thom Hartmann on "When Corporations Became People" and his updated book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights"...event is at New York Law School Auditorium, 185 W Broadway, New York, NY...free tickets atwww.demos.org (click on events)
Comments
Why shouldn't Xe (Blackwater) and the RNC be connected? Blackwater was originally Cheney's baby.
@ Anjha
I also have several libertarian friends/acquaintances and they do tend to be highly intelligent. They are good people, but they also seem to be in some way sadly damaged by life in a way that leaves them with a dark and pessimistic opinion of the majority of humanity.
Keep smiling,
Ed in Redondo
(aka DancingBear)
Thom, you do have the right to speak on your own show and we would prefer to hear both sides not just the wrong guests side. Also if the repugnuts say health care reform will hurt the Democratic Party, we know it will help.
Peter didn't know his HSA is insured by FDIC? Isn't this a Big Government Program?
President Obama is a wishy-washy, piece of crap, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist. His voting record in both bodies he served in never should him to be anything but a wishy-washy, piece of crap, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist.
The issue is that a wishy-washy, piece of crap, just-right-of-the-middle-of-the-road, pro-corporatist was WAY better than the alternative.
sorry, but thom is simply dead wrong about obama NOT running as a liberal on crucial issues.
yes, he kept things as vague as possible on many, if not most, issues, but he specifically positoned himself as a liberal on some very crucial issues.
for instance:
he was against a mandate, specifically.
he said , specifically, that health care was a RIGHT and not a privilege.
he stated, specifically, that he was for a public option.
he stated that he would close gitmo within a year.
he stated that he would repeal dont ask, dont tell, not simply "work" to change the policy.
these are just a few examples.
there are many more, where he has simply broken his word.
plain and simple.
putting the blame on progressives is a matter of blaming the victim/voter for believing what obama specifically said in order to win votes.
no, we did not misremember.
i have a very good memory.
Richard,
Thanks for your dose of reality. (When I get pissed off with Obama and other wishy-washy Dems, I try to remember what life felt like --- all the paranoia, etc. --- under Bush. That brings me back in a hurry!)
@D.Silva: Welcome to Every Child Left Being until there is No Child Being Left
Obama is a centrist, just like HRC would have been if she'd won. He's no FDR but he's way better than Bush.
no question that obama is a centrist.
i was not a supporter, as i supported clinton because i believed that obama would run a white house that was a repeat of bill clinton's years.
while hillary's need for establishing her own identity made it less likely that she would simply return to a warmed over bill clinton 2.
but if you examine his statements, and especially his policy positions - which he constantly told people to do by directing them to his website - he specifically moved to the left in order to capture that element of the democratic party. he moved slightly back to the center during the general election, but he never moved away from those specific liberal positions.
to attempt to argue that he did not maintain those liberal positions is simply dishonest and contrary to history.
I just remember folk on this web-site being totally ticked off when I pointed out that the both HRC and Obama were getting way more corporate green on their knees than meat-puppet from the other major political Party . . . And the flack I took was was not about the socially-regressive, off-color nature of my comment . . .
I read with interest Mr. Horowitz's eulogy for his daughter. He states that he and his family were not aware of which of Sarah's illnesses caused her death, that they were shocked when informed of her death. My purpose is not to judge but as a person with a disability I have to wonder why Sarah did not communicate her condition to her family. Being "fiercely independent" doesn't mean that a person dies in isolation. It just strikes me as strange.
re: the gay-bashing legislator stopped for DWI: Im sure he'll say he was doing "research" into the "gay problem'.
PS Im no relation to the guy.
College teachers do not try influence students towards liberalism, but the culture in colleges does. I had considered myself a republican until I began my college education. Education seeks to open students minds and get them to see the world from a wider view. Ethics and psychology teach students to empathize and to consider situations that do not directly effect them.
College also exposes students to a wider variety of social classes. I met and became friends with people in college that my parents would have never let me associate with when I was in high school and they let me see situations directly from their point of view.
Tax protesters claim the income tax Amendment is invalid because Ohio wasn't a State until 1953, and President Taft wasn't a "natural born citizen" because he was born in Ohio.
Congress passed an enabling act in 1802 that allowed the territory to organize a government and become a state - which it did in 1803, but Congress never passed another act officially "admitting" Ohio. Previous states had been "admitted", but not all were "enabled", and after Ohio the enabling acts generally made it clear that admission was automatic. But there was never any doubt that the government and courts considered Ohio a proper state all along.
A controversy arose in the 20th century about the legitimacy of Ohio (mainly a Bircher obsession), but it was taken up by Congess who passed an act in 1953 *retroactively* admitting Ohio in 1803 to the Union during the Ohio Sesquicentennial - in fact, they maneuvered the timing to make it during 1953 rather than 1952 to commemorate the 150th birthday of the State. But that "admission" was all Kabuki Theatre, Ohio has been a state all along.
Has nothing changed since John Locke?
The congruence of conservatives, climate change-deniers and anti-Darwinists is all too true.
Then I found the website for the Tea Party in Albuquerque -
http://albuquerqueteaparty.com/
Are these ignorant, libertarian know-nothings everywhere?
Thom,
In Canada we have just had our latest budget brought down by our embattled neo-cons trying to hold onto power.
Funny, seems you have also been governed by a Conservative Minority Government. I hope both their days in power are numbered.
The budget is basically holding on hoping that our relatively good economic position with regulated banks etc. will allow enough growth to make them look good. They really just avoided doing anything that would get them turfed out right now. I don't trust them, we have a great phrase here; 'lack of confidence', but I will give them credit for one positive tax measure.
I haven't looked into it in detail and I'm sure the well heeled will have ways around it soon, but the new budget restricts some of the stock option loopholes for CEOs etc.
You can search 'Globeandmail' for 'Ottawa closes stock option tax loophole'
This is really just making it either a write-off for the company or a capital gains break for the CEO instead of both.. but it is a start and surprising from a Conservative Government..
It leads to something I have thought of for a long time for your system or ours.
Earned income gets treated differently for different people in our tax systems. Capital gains is treated differently, allowing the wealthy to pay lower taxe rates than the wage-earners.
Why not treat different sources of capital gains differently as well?
If you make money on the sale of your family home, fine. If you buy stocks and hold them a while before selling at a profit, sure.
If, however, you get stock options as a way to defer your income and flip them for an instant profit, maybe the tax rate should be more like what you would have paid for an actual salary.
I'm sure there would be cries of too much complexity but that will always be the case and along with realistic social security, medicare and other health-care contribution bythe higher income taxpayers, any steps would help.
So, what about a scale of taxes on capital gains?
Cheers,
Rick
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
It was mentioned that college educated people tend to be more liberal. I would also like to point out that liberals and those who are college educated tend to be less racist, less homophobic, less xenophobic, and more tolerant of other religions.
With regard to Thom's guest who was afraid of Obamacare, Thom tried to have a reasoned discussion with him. I think that this is a futile endeavor with conservatives, especially the proletariat. Instead we should resort to talking points like Alan Grayson's: "The Republican health care plan is don't get sick, or if you do get sick, die quickly."