Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
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.
I'm sorry... WHY aren't ALL of those funds being split amongst the people who were so severly HARMED by the exploitations? NONE of it should go to anyone but the people who were hared, lost their homes, suffered terribly at the hands of the bank, and are now paying payments to make up for their losses. What doesn't the government and the taxation have to do with the losses we suffered by so very many???
Nice video here
How much did CITI steal, 50 or more billion yet they only pay a $7 billion fine, looks like the cost of doing business isn't that high. Shouldn't the fine be all they stole plus an actual fine on top? With this there is no incentive to stop these practices and no one goes to jail. That what we get when Obama appoints a Wall Street lawyer as his AG, goes after pot smokers and poker players and lets Wall Street off with a very light slap on the wrist. Why couldn't we have Pap as AG?
Chuckle8
I don't follow economics at all to be honest. I have never found it particularly useful. My methodology is mathematical based and so far the bullish development has gone according to expectations. I can see the final high much closer to the end of this year rather than 2016. The 18,000-18,500 area should be about right. I can believe that the initial reaction lower (to 12K-13K) will not be considered a crash but there'll not be a new high from there. It seems more likely that the major decline, that will be called the crash, will occur in 2016.
Warren 2016 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is nothing more than the dreaded, "redistribution of wealth." We are actually taking working class people's properties, and taxpayer money (ie. working class people's money), and feeding it into a bunch of wealthy bankers without any checks and balances. (Pardon the pun.) This is a deliberate blatant con from the word go; and, when We the People become wise to it there is going to be hell to pay. Infinite greed raised to the level of maximum virtue at it's best. Oh, when the levee breaks from this overwhelming tide of greed...
YES YES BUT she should remain in SENATE not Presidential Election
If BIDEN runs , then he could say Warren for VP and she can then REFUSE it ............THAT would do a lot of good for Democratic Party ticket whoever Biden choses. after ;like O' Malley .
REGULAR folks Dems with good standing ..............back to Pre Clinton REAL DEMOCRATS
Yes, Yes, Yes!
If the Democratic Party could find support, a dozen people, with her heart for America, and serving Democracy, the republicans would disappear, and Voting rates would climb up through the roof.
AIW -- Thanks for the clarification. I meant every policy since 1981 plus Nixon's. That is, every policy except those passed by the Obama adminstration during the 13 weeks the dems were in power.
Pal -- Maybe Spain can have a violent revolution to scare Hillary in to doing the right thing.
I know, I know, very little hope.
AIW -- You should be asking who is interpreting it. Oh yeah, it is Sven.
Sven -- I agree the 97% has been debunked. Bill Maher has shown the number should be 99.6%.
This fact sounds a lot like the fact that there are death panels in the ACA.
Sven -- You did not counter my examples of how the industries that you say do not pay for their waste disposal do.
Since almost everyone on this blog disagrees with you, I think the burden of proof is in your court.
A boat load of money was spent to discredit Mann whose only sin was to plot the hockey stick. I think there is significant evidence that there is more money from the ancient sunlight guys. Of course, each of us just saying it doesn't prove much.
How can you say that? The aughts were the hottest decade on record. I think 2012 was the hottest year on record. Prof Mullen has shown a chart where the temp, as signal estimated from the "noisy" measuremenst, is continuously increasing. There are blips, years like 1998, where the temp is significantly lower, However, Prof Mullen shows how each of these events correlate to such things as decreasing solar activity.
I think if we can just quit using ancient sunlight are global capture of energy will go away or at least be acceptable (CO2 < 350).
Even if the burden of proof is in your court, here is a picture from my court:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-5rI01qK0m0w/U5WReqJGp-I/AAAAAAAANdw/I8eVTxsLofU/s1600/FIG1-2A.JPG
The methane level looks like a 10 sigma (sample standard deviation) event to me.
catman306: Yeah, I wondered why the Justice Department should receive $4 billion and the victims only $2.5 billion. Just a bunch of damn overpaid lawyers. And like you said...it will probably be used to spy on us.
All I can add is that there are two sets of justice. One type for the 99% of us, and the other is a slap on the wrist, a wag of the finger and/or some ridiculous fines that never matches the extent of the damage done. We need to VOTE out the rethugs and remember that while it would be nice to live in an Utopic America, we have only two parties. They are NOT the same but the toxic sludge of corruption has enveloped both parties and many of the Democrats are trying and have been trying to swim to the top of the cess pool. When one votes for a third or fourth party, etc. the vote you cast becomes a win to the republican side and they are ALL too extreme for this country's Democracy!
Will someone please follow the money that's going to the Justice Department? I feel certain some of it it will be used to fund neighborhood spy programs. (COPS, for example)
That makes the settlement a win/win.
Chuckle8: Nope! Not a chance! Unless violent revolution is at hand then they will be forced to.
And I don't believe FDR would have done the things he did unless it was so obvious to so many that the ruling elite of FDR's days, the über wealthy who crashed the stock markets, who made life so miserable to so many, were out of control and a massive revolution would be the only way to deal with it.
The country turning communist was a real threat in those days. The 1929 crash helped to solidify in many people's minds that old Karl Marx was right. The Russian Czars lost control to what eventually became communism..ie: state ownership and complete control wrested from the ruling elite of those days. Think: Dr. Zhivago forced to share his very large house with homeless vagrants.
Although there were those über capitalists, in FDR's day, who would rather have danced at the end of a rope by mob violence than give in, I think most, especially FDR, were looking for a way to save face and ease tensions. He knew that the upper classes, from which he came, had been reckless and way too greedy which is what caused the great crash of 1929. He knew the dangers of not having psychologically and physically fit and united citizenry that he could rally into battle..if need be. The wealthy, although they didn't know it then, needed the people to be willing to defend the ruling elite's wealth and power.
Things were brewing in Europe and Asia and it would not have served the wealthy in the US if the US was left as a militarily weak and disunited country. Some even had a lot invested in what happened in Europe and Asia. They needed gullible canon fodder to go and fight over there so that no fighting, and eventual confiscation of our ruling elite's properties, wouldn't happen over here.
I think a lot of problems stem from how literally we take our laws word-for-word, instead of going by the intent of the laws. It leads to a lot of nit-picking and exploiting, which most of time go completely against what the intent of the laws were for.
Banks and corporations know this and have been taking advantage of this for decades. They weasel in laws with good intent on the outside, but word it in a way that can be easily bent toward their benefit, and to the detriment of consumers and society.
Many of our laws are too old to even gather what the author's (if the author is even clearly known) original intent was. It's hard to decipher intent when we have a constitution that was written well over 200 years ago, but perhaps that is something a constitutional convention could help remedy.
Many of our current problems stem from our inability/unwillingness to do a simple extrapolation of trends. Three examples: We have pursued two recent wars which produced greater numbers and more severely injured survivors due to improved transportation and medical technologies. Nothing was done to prepare the VA for this predictable onslaught of highly compromised patients. Next, use of antibiotics in inappropriate ways has resulted in strains of resistant organisms. Little has been done to prepare for the predictable consequences just over the horizon. Finally, climate change. This last non-linear process has, I think, already passed a point of no return. Interesting that our species, while intelligent, wasn't smart enough to prevent our own extinction.
Willie, dear comrade, the key word is "supposedly".
So who is funding the IPCC; the fossil fuel industry, or some other polluting industries, or our bought-and-paid-for corporate fascist government, or all of the above? - AIW
I'm not a scientist. I follow the money! Nothing scientific about that, but it's amazingly reliable. I really don't care if you think references to shilling are "lazy"; that is simply your opinion. And that's all I have to say about it.
Mr. Mills, I'm not begrudging you your right to participate in this forum. I'm just saying that if you think you can convince us that global warming is not human-caused, you're wasting your time. - AIW
All they said above PLUS bring back the Sherman Anti-Trust Act POWERFULLY! Break up these banks and let smaller credit unions and local banks thrive in their communities instead of these McBanks serving us crap sandwiches.
@Aliceinwonderland
Then I would suggest you mave misinterpreted what I have said.
You have also done nothing to address or counter any point I made.
I have made no attempt to minimise climate change - I have explicitly stated my understanding that the climate is changing. I do not deny anything. I merely state that the climate is not changing as a sole result of human influence and call BS on a number of ridiculous and clearly incorrect statements and contentions.
You may have listened to and read the works of climatologists, but have you read and listened to other scientists - other viewpoints? The growing number of qualified scientists in multiple fields (including meteorology and climatology) who are calling many of the pronouncements of pro CAGW climate scientists in to question? Such as that the predictions have all failed? That the models have all proven to be wrong?
Again, the paid fossil fuel shill is simply lazy amd has no place in open and civil discussion.
What do the opposite side have to gain? There is no corporate money lining the pockets of supporters of CAGW? Your username is strangely appropriate as you are clearly not resident on the same planet as the rest of us if you think so. The funding and financial incentives available for pro AGW research vastly outweighs the funding of sceptics. To claim otherwise is absurd.
Remain highly distrustful of claims to the contrary of your set of beliefs, and trust it's spokesmen by all means - but don't think for a second you are being anything other than selective in your beliefs and dismissive of counter arguments and evidence.
"I've come to the wrong forum"? That's mighty inviting and welcoming of you, but I find I learn far more by reading multiple views on multiple topics in order to advance my understanding. You should try it sometime.