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.
No. I was talking about the maximum-hours laws in other countries that I've heard Thom talk about, like it's a good thing. I think labor unions are good things, under condition: You shouldn't be forced to join or pay dues just to work at a place. But if you WANT to join, you should be able to.
I've heard Rush say that a lot too - how lowering the tax rate actually increases the tax base. He never gives reasons for it, he just says that is what happened under Reagan. If I had to guess a reason, I'd bet it's psychological. Tax rate at 70%? Better hide my money. Tax rate at 30%? That sounds fair... So the money comes out of hiding, and tax revenues increase.
That's just my guess though.
And, since there's no where else to say this: What are they thinking moving Thom's show to Rush's time?!? I can't be the only one who would like to listen to both - the number one Conservative and the number one Progressive shows. I liked my lunches with Rush and afternoon drives with Thom. Was Ed Shultz that bad in that time slot?
I'm stating an opinion that the college funding model isn't going back to a "government pays most of it" model. It's an opinion - no need for statistics. But I base my opinion on human nature. You have 30 years of people who had to pay for college mostly by themselves, and trillions of people in debt over it. Do you think they are going to support giving their future workforce competitors an almost-free ride in college? You wouldn't just have to wipe out the outstanding college loan debt, but also come up with some way to pay back those people who paid off their college loans already.
Or maybe I'm just in a bad mood at the moment, and that's why I think most people wouldn't go for that.
Also, assuming those wars didn't happen, and that money was saved, do you think it would have made its way into the higher education system? Maybe a little, but not much.
Thom What I don't know is the why. The 'guilt' is dependent on this.
My son is 16 and his words, "Who would believe we weren't being spied on?!"
We're not idiots. As in, those of us who are alert. The mindless people that have there heads buried in their phones yet are so affended about all this, deserve the ire they feel. Saying that, they should shut there mouths because I don't want to hear about their uninteresting lives!
History oil companies like Exxon pay their employees very well with great benifits. Oil companies might be the only place left that does that. Maybe if they taxed all companies less the employees else where would do as well.
Oh and by the way it is a good thing that companies profit. Isn't that the idea?
Two things you reminded me of Thom:
1. Obama claims that GTMO stands for what we should not be doing, yet he continues to allow it to run to this day.
2. You mention what McCain would do if he were president. While I agree that he would almost certainly have bombed Iran and invaded syria, what most disturbed me is how easily we talk about presidents being able to wage war without the consent of congress! If Obama really wanted us to be more reserved in our actions against other countries that simply bring do more harm than good, he would work toward putting a restriction not just upon his own powers as president, but towards all future presidents.
Welfare queen liberals. Does that mean the $78 billion the big oil, gas, and coal companies get in government subsidies--although these companies are raking in huge profits--Exxon alone made $16 BILLION with a B in profits in just 3 months last year. Poor things. They do need that dough, don't they?
Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world. It boasts of having 1.2 million Americans on their payroll. Its reported annual profits are around $13 billion. So it’s safe to say since it is so big – and so ubiquitous – and so obviously successful – the government can now stop subsidizing it.
Forbes’ published an article in which it said that a single 300-person store in Wisconsin (as an example) costs taxpayers $904,542 a year because of subsidies the government must provide to make up for Walmart's low wages and lack of health care coverage.Now that's royalty welfare in style!
Dianhow, no one said anything when Bush was spending money because the economy was booming. When you spend a trillion a year more than you have and the economy sucks (one in five without work) that is a different story.
Yes you need more people making money so they can spend it but it counter acts when you borrow the money to create the jobs. You need private jobs to get ahead. What is your Gov. doing to to help with that? the sad answer is nothing.
Willie billioners don't care about how high themin wage is. High min wages hurt small business.
Corperate welfare do you mean like Solyndra?
Life was good when trickle up ruled. Money moved and so went the economy. Trickle down seemed like a good idea and also would have worked if corporations would have let the money flow instead of stuffing their pockets. Billionaires get testy when someone mentions raising the minimum wage. Granting raises is in essence what trickle down means. It's the plan all you rich farts wanted and now, when it's your turn to open the tap, you get all bitchy. Get with the program!! [ Your program. ]
Well stated.
Bush Cheney should have thought of all that with their un funded war- corp cut debt that they were leaving for our kids and 2008 global crash that necessitated TARP and yes more spending to dig us out of a deep depression. Was anyone worried about debt then ? I never heard it mentioned till Obama ! Once economy fully recovers US debt will be paid down as it has been in the past. if GOP will stop blocking stalling filibustering & defunding essentials that could help us do so. Econ 101 When people make more,they spend more which helps business's Then we all prosper not just the ' chosen few ' Cons, moderates and libs Unite to fight our common enemies To do otherwise is to be diverted from healing our country . WE have all been shamelessy manipulated by the powerful & well connected Critical thinking is the key .
REAL ' welfare queens 'are Corporations & Billionaires who receive huge tax cuts - loopholes.. subsides - co's who profiteereer on death & wars. US Bloated ' defense' dept wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars . Funding for education- disabled, vets , mentally ill gets deep cuts GOP fights contraception which leads to more abortions . GOP demands we privatize Social security so Wall St can gamble seniors money away while making huges fees doing so. So called welfare queens are a tiny percent of our budget but are played up by far right radicals who love to manipulate our thinking .Think Fox Hannity Rush Drudge Cantor Ryan Demint and 800 radio talk shows that spew mis information - 1/2 truths to millions each day .
Interesting you mention invading Mexico and Iraq. Mexico was invaded by the Spanish then America invaded the Spanish who called themselves Mexicans. Iraq invaded Kuwait before America moved in and liberated Kuwait as well. That doesn't make it right but you are trying to make it sound like these poor peacefull people where attacked doing nothing. I am sure Italy, France, Belgium, Holland, Great Britan, Sweden, Finland, Norway, all of Africa, etc etc are very happy with American exceptionalism or they would be speaking German right now.
Sherrie good for you. On this blog the left is always forcing its socialist ways on others. I guess its only ok if it is what they want. Oh by the way you now owe over $55,000 per person in Federal debt and depending on which state you live in you might have to add as much as $30,000 per person to that. I hope your grandchildren have lots of money.
Sherrie -- Does that mean you prefer the billionaires to determine your lifestyle?
AIW -- You can't say I am not making sense. Those are based on the facts that when raygun lowered the top tax rate on the top earners, those top earners paid 2 to 3 times more in taxes. Larry Beinhart on alternet provides what he thinks are the reasons for this. He is much better at explaining it than anything I could say. However, that will not keep me from saying something. The high tax rate motivates the high earners to keep there money in their businesses. As it turns out, taxes may be better at behaviour modification than raising revenue.
The California Primary Election is this Tuesday. Lots of judicial choices on the ballot but it's difficult to find any information about judges. I found 2 Right-Wing election guides and they were 100% consistent in their preferences for judges. I marked my ballot opposite of their choices. What other information is there to go by? THEN I got several mailers supposedly from Democratic groups. They endorsed all the right Democrats for high offices, the ones who will win in California anyway, BUT all their judicial endorsements were for ALL THE RIGHT-WING JUDGES. People fall for this kind of deception all the time. How do we wake people up and let them know they should NEVER trust campaign adds?
Chi Matt -- I need an interpretation or a definition.
.Are you saying when a labor union strikes for a 40 hour week, that represents the government saying people should not be allowed to do what they want?
Chi Matt -- Thank you for specifically, personally answering my questions in a reply a few blogs back. However, the one question I wanted answered the most you didn't answer. A related question, to the one I want answered the most, is about the metric you use. Can I assume, when you say home schooling, your school, and schools in which teachers are paid less do better, the metric used is the results of a standardrized test? The problem I find with that metric is, the only meaningful measure of education, IMO, is how much you improve the student. Unless you track the improvement from test to test, one cannot determine any measure of improvement. The LA school district tried to overcome this shortcoming in the standard metric by using a criterion called Value Added testing. One key result of using this new metric, that I remember, is that one of the schools that was doing the best via the standardrized testing metric wound up near the bottom. So, my question I want answered the most is "has a value added metric been applied to any of the schools you use as examples to measure how well they are doing"?
With regards to your 20 minutes to make a reply, I know the feeling. Often I think I have made quick reply until I look at my watch. Often, an hour has passed. For this short reply, it was even more than an hour.
Thanks, Marc. Your feedback is highly appreciated; ditto your perspective.
Please don't misunderstand me. Public education, even in its best days, had much room for improvement. But it is still the best option, serving the interests of more people than any kind of privatized education system ever will.
The way you've described the indoctrination practices in religious schools, it's not hard for me to understand the source of Palindromedary's hostility and anger towards religion in general. His own childhood ordeals with indoctrination sounded pretty bad. Must have been traumatic for him.
The thread where Matt & I were locking horns over this issue is the one titled "The End Of Choice", dated May 19th. Judging from this last post of yours, I think you could add valuable input to this discussion about education, should the spirit move you. However I'm done with it. I've said all I have to say on that topic, to no avail where Matt is concerned. I appreciate you reminding me of the vested interest he personally has in privatized education; makes it easier for me to take his asinine comments with a grain of salt. In light of how self-centered his outlook seems to be in general, I need only consider the source.
I sincerely want Matt to feel welcome on this forum. He has as much right to participate here as anyone. I don't want to see him driven away by those of us who abhor his views. Nevertheless, I do occasionally reach the saturation point with him and must distance myself, long enough to chill and calm down. That guy can really push my buttons.
Outside of global warming, I view privatization (i.e. fascism) as the greatest threat to our wellbeing, even our very survival. Earlier today, Thom had a guest on his show, a woman who had written a scary article about Detroit; specifically, how Detroit's politicians are paying off the debts of that bankrupted city. They're doing it by selling off everything, from Detroit's cultural/historical treasures right down to their utilities. Even their water is being privatized. Consequently all these poor folks in Detroit are having their water shut off. And this is freaking me out, because it's gonna spread like a virus. If this trend isn't nipped in the bud, we're all gonna wind up in the same boat, with our water sources held hostage. These private companies can charge whatever they want. Next thing we know, what has happened to healthcare in this country will be happening to our water systems. Suddenly people will find their access to water under threat. Just thinking about this, I can feel my blood pressure rising. Like Thom pointed out, we can't live long without water. The only thing we need more urgently to stay alive is air. When our water is monopolized by these privatizers, we are in deep, deep trouble.
I hope Thom makes this the focus of one of his introductory posts in the near future. I wish I could go more into detail about Detroit's crisis, but I was knee-deep in errands and unable to listen to that entire segment on his show. (SIGH)
For lack of a better phrase, I can't help but say, God help us all…. - Aliceinwonderland
That's fine, but at the same time, here within this country, we hard working income tax payers do not want the welfare queen liberals imposing their lifestyle on us by having us and our grandchildren pay for it. Fair?
Aliceinwonderland ~ Matt has a vested interest in private education. I went into it with an open mind. After having experienced both I can say with all certainty that I prefer public education. The resources are better, the attitudes are better, and the choices are better. Sure private schools would love to get their hands on public funds; but, what are they going to do with them? Do you realize that in a Catholic parochial school that Catholic religious education is mandatory? Do you realize that in a Catholic parochial school that attendance of mass is mandatory? From simply a Constitutional perspective that is the end of that argument. You cannot force feed spirituality into children. That is the job of the family, and the children themselves. Personally, I prefer to wait till they are adults and can make an informed decision. Anything else is indocronization and child abuse. I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to support child abuse. However, if some parents want to dig deep to inflict this kind of indoctrination on their own children they should be free to do it.
If a parochial school wants public funds they would have to surrender their entire agenda to adhere to public policies. That means religion has to include equal time for all world religions; and, be an elective instead of a mandatory course. That means that all references to any particular religion--such as statues, scriptures, masses, churches, even the name of the school has to also conform to that rule and be removed for a publicly sanctioned environment. That simply is never going to happen. If it did, the private school would completely lose its edge fast. As such the idea of school vouchers is dead in the water. The only way private and public schools can function effectively to their individual charters is through separate financing the way they do now.
Some people are so duped by their religious institutions that they fail to grasp the importance of the separation of church and state. If this is the type of citizen parochial schools produce I would submit to you that parochial schools also represent a grave threat to national security.
(PS Feel free to quote me on whatever blog you are arguing on. I don't have the time to look for it myself but would love to give a piece of my mind.)
Matt, this discussion is OVER. I'm not buying what you're selling. The word "republican" in that link tells me all I need to know. Have a nice day teaching your well-heeled, privileged, cherry-picked pupils! - AIW
Marc, that is the ultimate compliment to any athiest: an open mind! What keeps it open is simply accepting that I don't have all the answers; being okay with that, not knowing the unknowable...
I don't reckon Matt would share that assessment of me, however. On another topic, we've been duking it out over this issue of private vs. public education. I just finished telling him that discussion is over. We're never going to agree, and I see no point in hammering it out with him any longer. A colossal waste of time! - AIW
Here's an interesting article with statistics for public school districts in the Chicago area. Don't let the word "republican" in the link distract you:
http://www.chicagonow.com/windy-city-young-republicans/2012/04/chicago-p...
It shows what I've already said - Even compared to other public school districts, Chicago public schools spend about $3,000 more per student per year, and still have miserable results. How can you say underfunded schools are the cause of the problem, when schools with less funding still do better? Perhaps there are other issues to consider.
Aliceinwonderland ~ Thank you! That was very kind.
Isn't that the truth? Isn't that wonderful? Isn't variety the spice of life? I don't know how many times Jesus chastised his apostles for judging and condemning other religious leaders. I can only imagine what he might have said about the "Christian" influence in Native America. However, Jesus was so profoundly logical and consistent in his ways I can only imagine it would have been something like, 'You see those people and how they live? Do you not think that if it wasn't pleasing in the eye of God that they would be allowed to continue for so many generations? LEAVE THEM ALONE!'
It's not so hard to imagine. One of my favorite lyrics is from the song "St. Stephen" by the Grateful Dead. St. Stephen was the first Saint who began preaching right after Jesus was crucified--basically picking up right where Jesus left off. They killed him too. The lyric I like best is, "Can you answer? Yes I can! What would be the answer to THE ANSWER MAN?"
St. Stephen was a great example to everybody... Who needs the Church?
Thanks for listening. I've enjoyed the conversation very much. For an atheist you certainly have tolerance and an open mind.