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 knew about American dream but now I see there is something called Canadian dream. It is true that it is there. Canadian dream is real.
After all of "this" A-hole Paul Ryan wants to appease the Koch Brothers, reject the Bi-Partisan Health care bill, and start all over with a blank sheet of paper rather than agree to a compromise. In other words, he is saying Screw the Poor...
Aiceinwonderland ~ Yeah! You do make a good point. Kinda like a Tweety Bird trying to defend a Tom Cat. "Kitty wouldn't do dat. He my fwend! Him soo tweet".
JEEZ Robin & Marc... we're not saying all rich people are evil miserly bastards. Do you honestly believe these folks need you defending them? C'mon guys, lighten up! - AIW
Robindell ~ A very excellent point. Remember, even FDR, the author of the New Deal, was relatively rich too.
chuckle8 ~ Well said! I agree!
Aliceinwonderland ~ I'm not so sure I agree with either of you on this one. Thom should have elaborated in his discourse as to just what wealth constitutes as fostering ill social behavior. Remember, to you and I, $1M is a lot of money. However, it is small change to someone with $1B. Remember that the vast majority of wealthy elites who are causing austerity and so many of our other social ills have wealth well into the Billions of dollars. Before we judge as to the appropriate cut off perhaps we should look at who has what and exactly what they are doing with it first. After all, you don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water. For instance, the Kennedy family always had millions; yet, look at what they gave back with it.
Loren Bliss ~ Thanks for that brilliant song. It sure did stick a chord with me. (Pardon the pun) Right now I'm torn between cleaning out a house and helping my company "downsize." It sure did hit home. (Again, pardon the pun)
Another song that rings this bell is from John Fogerty, "Fortunate Son."
Fortunate Son, by John Fogerty (CCR) Video
"You're house kinda looks like a Rummage Sale." How true! How true!
Studies like this should be broadcasted!
Yeah Elio, I've heard Thom, Ed and Randi (not to mention various economists, along with some bloggers here) make those same points over and over and over, about the necessity for working people to be able to afford the products & services businesses provide in order for businesses to stay in business. (HELLO.) They might as well be arguing that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, or that we need air to breathe in order to stay alive. ("Duhh… really?!") They seem unwilling to acknowledge the important role workers play in the functioning of any economy. It's all part of this lame ideology the rulers & takers keep hammering at us from their ivory towers, to justify anti-labor policies, austerity, etc. and make us feel obsolete, powerless and irrelevant. Because when people are disempowered, they are less likely to fight back. - Aliceinwonderland
Now Kend this is where I think businesspeople are not so smart. You supply jobs ONLY when there is demand for your product. That demand comes from PEOPLE/WORKERS with MONEY in their pockets. Without that demand you need not supply anything to anyone and you might as well sign up for welfare or go work for someone else and let them treat you like crap.
You are waging war on the people who make your product and who buy it--the people YOU DEPEND ON FOR PROFIT. How do you not get that? Were you alseep in business class. I edited business textbooks for a living--took basic business classes in college. I know what's in them.
Business in the United States pays very little in taxes. It's all over the news and here on Thom's blog--are you not reading it? If you pay thousands in taxes in Canada, then good for you--I say that's something to brag about not bitch about.
Business people are like a bunch of whiney babies--they want everything handed to them; they don't want to pay taxes or overhead; they don't want competiton; they don't want risk; they want the government to give them subidies, low-interest loans, deregulate so they can profit without barriers. Guess what BUSINESS IS RISK AND HARDWORK--and if you cannot DEAL with these realities, you should not be a businessperson. Business is a CONTRIBUTION to society not a pocket-filler for the bloodsuckers, the ruthless, the greedy, and, perhaps, the stupid. Business is supposed to be about making a living and providing a living for others--it's not the "get rich scheme" you all seem to believe it is.
Yes, Alice it gets boring saying the same things over and over. All conservatives have the same illogical answers and not-thought-out-at-all phrases for every occasion. I've heard them all and can predict them with great accuracy that I think I could and perhaps will write a book on their tired and lame responses: Lame Conservative Answers for all Issues.
Chuck, don't you ever get tired of having to point out the same things over and over again, to the same people? Such as the simple necessity of paying workers enough to keep the economy functioning, via the goods and services they need just to function from day to day? And the idea that demand creates jobs; that without people having enough money to spend, businesses suffer along with the economy… Hardly sounds that mystifying to me. Yet for some reason Kend just doesn't seem to get it. Like his inability to comprehend the necessity of universal healthcare, along with the feasibility and advantages of such a system. Whether Kend fails to comprehend any of this out of willful ignorance or from genuine cognitive limitation, I think there comes a point where we'd be wise to back off and withdraw our efforts. I don't know about you, but I get awful tired of repeating these things. - AIW
Robindell, of course there are exceptions. No one is saying ALL rich folks are this or that; only that when examined and analyzed, patterns emerge, showing that wealthy people are, as a group, prone to certain devious, irresponsible behaviors more than less privileged, less pampered members of society. I think your interpretation of what's been said is a little shallow. Thom has simply pointed out how certain personality disorders are nurtured and encouraged by unearned wealth and overcompensation; also that this has been analyzed from some sort of data collected, such as (I would guess) personality testing and/or statistics. Since the oligarchs have claimed for years that it is poor folks who are the takers, the irresponsible ones, the devious ones ad nauseam, why is it not worthwhile to call attention to evidence that would refute these claims, exposing them for the lies that they are?
I think the bottom line here is that we'd much rather have a social/economic system where extremes of wealth and poverty don't exist, where we needn't rely on the generosity of a super rich class of people to support things like the arts, medical research and so on; where these things belong to something known as the commons, shared by all.
You seem to be criticizing Thom and other progressive talk show hosts for sounding depressed. Why shouldn't they be? In today's environment, there's plenty to get depressed about. I see no reason why being depressed or angry must somehow cancel out any potential for action. While it is hardly advantageous to be controlled by one's emotions above all else, emotions have their place. I get kinda tired of hearing progressives always accused of being "too emotional". Might as well accuse us of being "too human". - Alice IW
"Now we know that it was actually a complete lack of ethics that made them their fortunes, and that kept us from sharing in the prosperity.".....I've never heard a better argument for justification of returning to the pre Reagan tax rates.
Robindell, this discussion was about mergers and monopolies, I thought. It veered off to the topic of healthcare when "Ou812" (post #10), called single payer healthcare tantamount to a monopoly, which of course is sheer bunk. And check out my #23 post. That one further shows how we got sidetracked into healthcare.
Incidentally, I am familiar with this issue of debtor's prison, a phenomenon most prevalent in red (Republican) states incidentally. I read a great, in-depth article about it in The Nation, a couple issues back. It's horrifying. And like you, I believe a public discussion on this is way overdue.
However the larger grows the proportion of NPR's funding from corporations, the more conservative it gets, predictably. It's been a long while since I listened to NPR for this reason, so I can't offer any examples or details here. But I certainly noticed the difference, once it evolved to a certain point. Unfortunately in recent years, I've been very limited in how much I could afford to donate to NPR, and to other worthy endeavors. I'd guess there are enough progressives likewise strapped, budget-wise, to necessitate NPR seek funding elsewhere; especially after federal government funding got snatched by the oligarchs. But it is what it is. I'm not saying NPR no longer has worthwhile programming; it's just that there is so little genuinely progressive media anymore, compared to the corporatized media, that progressive voices are what I'm craving; that's what I gravitate towards.
Anyway, gotta run. Got an engagement... - Aliceinwonderland
Kend,
The fact is there are many people that are well endowed with money as well as integrity, but the issue is much more basic than that--people with fewer means don't have as much to "want", and when they do, the hits them like a brick, and, often enough the laws are made by people that create rules that make it impossible for some poor people live a rational life. A woman with liimited means many not be able to afford a babysitter for the times she has to see her caseworker, so she takes the kids along, Then too, in areas where thieft and larceny are more common, the babysitter may see things that she passes along to "friends", with the result of the woman's flat "gone missing". It happens--is she a "welfare queen" because takes a cab so she can get back home with three kids more quickly, instead of waiting for a bus?!
Heck, is a father of children from two women, one his ex, and the other, well . . . who loves his kids, all of them a lawbreaker when he sees, all of them each at different times, and supporting the ex, and the "mistress" In some societies it's quite acceptable, and even a social norm so that a man that doesn't take care of the children of "the other woman" is considered to have shirked his paternal responsibilites. Only in America we punish the women for taking money from the men that fathered their chldren, not just adding to their income, but fuliling their obligations to what they "brought intot he world".
This hectoring of people that try to get by on almost nothing is downright un-Judao-Christian.
What is true that you forget is the concept of Stewardhip, something that is expressed in some Christian Churches, and in Judasim, as well, the notion that reason we are granted "more" is to enable us to provide for those people that have "less" It is said that Andrew Carnegie lived on one tenth of his income, providing libraries, some of them currently being closed because the those erstwhile "stewards" and philanthropists imagine that what they "unearn" is theirs to enjoy.
It' isn't evil. if my understanding of Classic Christian thought it's a dealy sin--Avarice!
Robindell -- Why are you implying that Thom is oversimplifing? He said more likely.
Kend -- America has more hard working people than any other country according to various studies. What we need is more of socialist ideas of Canada. Ideas that put more money in the hands of those hard working people. That money will create the demand wihich actually creates jobs. The jobs which the 1% take credit for creating but actually just went along for the ride. The key thing the 1% are good at is destroying jobs through efficiency (AKA as productivity). The 99% responsibility is to make sure that productivity is shared by all. The 1% support people like reagan to make sure they receive all the benefits of the productivity. The evidence is shown in a plot of productivity and median wage. Since 1981, median wage has stopped increasing.
Thom's blog posting was not about health care or education. It doesn't surprise me that progressive candidates do not often seem to do all that well in getting elected, and having a government that would have policies that are less inclined to be so preferential to corporate interests; many progressive-minded people lack discipline and cannot stick to one topic and analyze that without going off in a hundred different directions. The Republicans, especially the so-called establishment Republicans who did rather well (my news source being NPR) in the recent primaries, are not scatter-brained in their approach to winning elections. They are often are single-minded in that they stay on message. Many of the posts on this entire website seem to have little to do with the specific topic that was taken up in a blog or bulletin board entry.
NPR has had a series on poor people who do something wrong and then are fined by a judge, and are unable to stay out of jail because they don't have enough money to pay the fine. Perhaps I missed it, but I haven't heard this matter discussed on progressive talk radio.
Thom suggests that NPR is unfair because they are tend to be conservative in outlook. How true is this assertion? If NPR is as one-sided as Thom implies, then why did they have a report last Friday on how Florida State University accepts money from the Koch Brothers' foundation in return for some vetting of new economics faculty by the foundation. NPR reported that the arrangement between the Koch foundtion and Florida State has come under such criticism, especially by faculty and students, that they negotiated a new agreement with the foundation. But students have pointed out that if Florida State wants there to be more transparency in this regard, why did it take the university one year before they released the conditions of the new agreement. The university contends that the new agreement takes power away from the Koch Brothers' foundation by having only one foundation representative on the committee that is involved with hiring economics professors, but critics say that the university will still be dissuaded from hiring someone who the Koch Brothers' representative would disapprove of, for fear the university might lose funding. NPR had a recording of a comment by a Florida State representative who may have been the chair of the economics department who said that their only concern is getting the best-qualified faculty members they can for the students. But the National Association of University Professors disagrees with the arrangement, saying that it inteferes with academic freedom, because an outside funder is given some degree of sayso in hiring of faculty in economics, since they can pull their support of they are displeased. NPR reported on this issue and gave both sides of the argument, allowing the views of critics of the Koch Brothers' support to be included in the report on Florida State. It seems to be if Thom or his associates don't have time to listen to an monitor reporting on NPR, then it would be preferable not to make accusations wiithout being able to present an objective view of the reporting. The stories I have alluded to are ones that I don't hear much about in either the convential media or on progressive shows.
These studies about rich people may have some truth to them, but there are many questions about human behavior which social scientists have not been able to adequately explain, and the idea that rich people are all the same and are all bad, with no good among their ranks, seems like an over-simplification. Rich people have set up foundations which engage in work which has nothing to do with poltiical influence and control. Rich people often have helped to support the arts, which in America receive little or no government funding; if you are too poorly informed to know much about visual or performing arts, than maybe this aspect of philanthropy would seem irrelevant. People with money have supported scholarships for college students, medical research, and many other worthy causes. Tavis Smiley is indirectly involved with research on poverty that is being funded by a well-known foundation based in Baltimore. The John and Catherine McArthur Foundation together with Harvard conducted a study of renters, which found that there is an increase in people who rent or want to rent, because of the inability to afford home ownership, and that many renters have difficulty in being able to afford to meet expenses. People in this country are not entirely without some rights and some ability to affect policies. Many are either apathetic to what is going on, or think that rich people are completley innocuous. More time should be spent on these progressive talk shows in thinking up new ideas and strategies to combat the negative influence of wealth on government and on business. Thom and his fellow progressive or left-leaning hosts come across sometimes as being emotionally depressed, and that goes against the whole notion of taking action.
Craig Bush and others -- Why do you try to keep coming up with new tax structures? The tax structure of the new deal worked quite well. Among other things, it kept anyone from becoming a billionaire. If we could go back to that tax structure, we need to insure that no one takes over the media to convince us that the New Deal tax structure was bad.
Alice: Thanks--kindred spirit. Hey, I need you guys, too, for my sanity.
Craig, I agree with everything you've just stated, but for one exception; the amount of assets exempted from such a tax. Ten million?!!! Waaay too high, my friend. How about one million? - AIW
Enact a progressive tax on net worth. The first $10 million exempt. Increase inheritance tax. No one starts out with more then $20 million in life. Restructure the institution of higher learning. End wealthy benefactors appointing regents and chancellors. End the trophy positions. Cap salaries of college sports coaches and staff. Today administration costs are double student endowments. Make it a percent of student endowments. First two years of college free. End tenure for it leads to cowardice in educators. A failed economic system is a result of a failed education system.
Increase fees on a progressive scale for political advertisements on our airwaves. All this money spent on politics can be channeled back to the public. End the tax deduction for political lobbying.
We learned over 50 years ago the "Ruling upper class power power elite" from Domhoff. They mean to rule us all. The Bush-Reaganomics defeated the Carter green energy movement. The petrol-chemical corporations hold the economic gun to our heads and force us to consume their goods. They don't understand that gun is held at their heads too. The planet they are warming up will destroy life on this planet Life their great grandchildren will need for survival. What fools! What spineless jellyfish cowards we have become as a society. We are walking hand in hand with flower baskets to our doom. All we have now is words to write. Waiting for the starry starry night.
The authors' explanation is an example of historical materialism: people's social existence, determined primarily by the requirements of production, shapes their consciousness.