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.
Horace Cooper, on your Monday's BigPic, said everyone could get rich if they just threw enough at the stock market. My wife nickeled and dimed into the market for forty years. She lost half in the recent crash as she approaches the end of her working life. Next logically, if everybody is rich on market returns who is laboring to produce the wealth? The market functions on taking the lion's share of the value of production.
Thom, you're thinking in Static terms just to to come up with yet another way to blame Bush for everything you see is wrong in America. As your side has so famously said under Clinton...'Move On'.
The truth is that the high cost of Education has nothing to do, or less to do with anything republican, than it does have to do with Government (as a whole) intruding upon the sector of Education. The cost of HIgher education (and K-12) has risen BECAUSE of the free-flow of government funds into the sector. Prior to the 80's there was almost no federal student loans and students/families paid their way (mostly) on their own. This was practical because students could pay for it even on the budget of a min-wage part-time job. (cost of education was reasonable)
However, with the introduction of and complete take-over of student loan programs by the Feds, the universities have hiked their tuition rates, far outstripping the rate of inflation, simply because the new, seemingly endless, pile of federal dollars in the form of easy to get student loans. The loans got bigger and bigger because of political pressure to make 'a difference' in education, and politicians being politicians just threw ever more money at the problem. The pile got bigger and the universities kept right on raising their rates. Where is their civic conciousness and liberal ideology in this? Bah, they are the worst sort of money grubbers you 'claim' to detest.
You see, there are no warantees or guarantees in higher education; you make the grade or you are out on your ear - no refunds.
Since Public education provides only an 8th grade level education, all but the most talented or dedicated fail in making the leap from k-12 to college and actually get a degree. (Education data shows that between 25-30% of students entering college actually get a degree.)
So, what you don't understand is that not only do the grads have huge debt to begin with, but the majority of student loans represent debt with no degree and even worse prospects for paying them off. Oh, and Obama's economic policies are busy creating red tape for businesses so the job market has continued to be stagnant.
Perhaps you should quit complaining about what is impossible to change, and focus on the here and now. Examine the source of the 'problem' which is not Bush or Afghanistan, but right here at home with the bad policies of the federal government and the outragously inflated education pricetag. (I just heard yesterday a story of higher education rate hikes in Ohio, again. Check it out.)
Sincerely, Dave
Who is in charge? Democrats and Republicans seem to be at odds about everything. If both are taking directions from some dark entity, then why all the bickering. I do believe in that entity but don't understand it's method of control. Maybe it's like siblings duking it out. Mom lets them go at it but in the end, mom decides the outcome.
Delco Radio...cool!
Odd, though, the tuition at the University of Florida is one of the lowest in the country at about $3,094/yr. It must have been even cheaper from 1996 to 2000 to earn a BS. Actually, the tuition year 2000-2001 was, for in-state residents, $2,256 and for 2001-2002 it was about $2,490. Of course room and board was about $5,440 for each of those years...in case you don't live near the university. Books about $710...other expenses: $2,280. So, that would be about $10,686 for a tuition year x 4 = lets round it off to $43,000. But, of course, if one only lived about 10 miles or so south of the university it would pay to commute, I suppose...saving $5,440/ year in room and board. That would make the total 4 year cost, except for the gasoline to commute, roughly $23,000 for 4 years earning a BS. But, if one had to travel all the way over to the Computer Science Department in Gainesville then it would have been pretty far to commute.
Delster: I tend to agree with you here! That may very well be the case.
Chicago Matt says: "The point of a college education is to separate yourself from everyone else. If everyone has one, it's no longer a selling point for you." And "Using taxpayer funds to provide 'free' college education is like forcing me, and other successful people, to bankroll my future competition." Respectfully, Matt, this is a selfish and short-sighted argument. You don't want college to be available to everyone else who wants a college education like you had, because YOU don't want to have to deal with competition in your line of business! Wow. Amazing.
I think it is ridiculous for you to compare your situation to that of a factory worker, forced to train his foreign replacements before losing his job. Is your job and sustenance subject to someone else's whims? And comparing free education to southern-style segregation, as two examples of outmoded old policies, is even more ridiculous. Education is a source of social uplift; segregation is a form of oppression. Hello.
You didn't say what kind of business you're in. But I'm assuming you'd like paying customers (or clients) who can afford your services. If things go your way regarding the availability of education, this will be a society of mostly soda jerks, burger flippers and motel maids who can't afford squat and are doing well just to be making the rent payments each month. Is that what you want? Because we're already well on our way in that race to the bottom.
I just love these folks who, once they've climbed the ladder to success, can't wait to pull it up before anyone else has a chance to climb it. That old "I-got-mine-and-screw-you" mentality...
Here's a question that keeps running through my mind: Is this a cultural problem, or are people naturally inclined to be self-centered and mean? - Aliceinwonderland
I believe there is something of a revelation with the Obama administration, and that revelation is that the president of the US is not in charge. He is taking direction from some source but certainly not the citizens of America. Obama is an intelligent leader, but he is not being allowed to exercise his gifts. He is merely a play by play announcer. As a citizen of this country I would really like to know who is in charge. I want clearity because nothing makes sense and pretty much everyone I talk to feels there is a shadow government. It's obvious to most thinking people.
Pesticides are killing not only the farmers but also the environment. We are facing huge problem because of it. and soon the global warming will increase.
Palindromedary ~ Very, very well said!! I agree 100%!!
I noticed that the graph of opium production out of Afghanistan, in today's Thom Hartmann program, ended at 2008. Hmmmmm! I wonder how much opium has been produced out of Afghanistan since Obama became president?
Well, hey, whaddayaknow! ..take a look at this graph that goes up to 2013. So, it sure looks like the opium production went up higher, under Obama, than it's ever been.
http://media2.policymic.com/9da89df050271cefc658d7704efe35ee.png
Just goes to show that not only did Obama not pull the military out of the Middle East, like he originally indicated he would, but opium production out of Afghanistan is even worse than when Bush was president. Let's face it...there are too many very powerful people in high places that don't want to see the opium/heroin trade stopped...they are making too much money. In fact, our whole economy would probably fail entirely if it stopped. So much for the war on drugs! What a laugh!
This link of the graph looks exactly like the graph that Hartmann showed us except Hartmann's graph was conveniently cut off at 2008. Is he trying to hide the poor performance of Obama's presidency while claiming the Bush presidency was horrible when it came to Opium in Afghanistan? Yes, Bush was really, really bad but is Obama any better? Really?
By the way, has anyone heard the news about the findings of a recently released study from France about the long term effects of smoking marijuana?
"Potential for heart attack, stroke risk seen with marijuana use"--"...on Wednesday, cardiologists writing in the Journal of the American Heart Assn. warned that 'clinical evidence ... suggests the potential for serious cardiovascular risks associated with marijuana use.' "
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-heart-attack-stroke-...
I bet a lot of people, especially those who use marijuana, will just dismiss it as readily as Climate Change deniers dismiss global warming as being human created.
"Yet, they have no logical defense for an economic system that provides billions in tax breaks for the wealthy, but denies a living wage and a little help to the average working American."
Therein lies one of the main differences in thinking between a left and right-minded person. Not taking money from someone, to me, is not the same as giving money to someone else. The only problem I see with this statement is, why aren't the poor getting tax breaks too?
I respect your opinion, but you must understand that the majority of people in this country have no memory of anything before Reagan, and the idea of college being expensive is normal for us. I was born in '80, so when I graduated high school in '98, I had known all along that I would have to pay a lot for college. Yes, I understand that it didn't used to be that way. But asking us to return to the old system now would be as foreign of a concept as asking baby boomers to return to the legal segregation of the 40s and earlier. That is, it is a concept that was always "before their time" and foreign to them.
Free education is a right, just like health care. There was a time when that was a reality. Before Ronald Wilson (666) Reagan stepped in and began the movement to ruin our way of life. Since the Powell memo I have to ask if this trend of restricting education to only the very wealthy is by necessity or by design. Like Thom lamented we have thrown away so much money on waste that can there really be any other logical explanation? The controllers of this government want to keep the masses stupid and ignorant; and, they are doing a very good job of it.
My wife and I are both in our early 30s and have $150,000 in student loan debts between us. (We both recieved Master's degrees from a private university.) We've been paying about $900 per month for over a decade, and our principle has not gone down by more than $4000, because all of the interest payments are tacked on to the front of the loan.
Despite this, I still feel like we both made the right choice. We've managed to use our education to work our way from borderline poverty into the upper-middle class, and now we've started college funds for our three children.
And when I read this column, all that keeps running through my mind are two things:
1. The point of a college education is to separate yourself from everyone else. If everyone has one, it's no longer a selling point for you. And...
2. Using taxpayer funds to provide "free" college education is like forcing me, and other successful people, to bankroll my future compeition. I've heard stories before about factory workers being forced to train their overseas counterparts, just so their jobs could be shopped to those overseas factories. I imagine they feel similar to how I would feel if I knew the $70,000 or so we paid in taxes last year went to provide college education for people who, when they graduate, will be my compeitors in the job market.
Also, on a side-note, I hope someone can clarify this for me: When they talk about the money spent for the Iraq and Afganistan wars, does that include money that would have been spent on the military anyway? For example, are they including all soldier's pay over there, even though those soldiers would still be paid if they were here? I've wondered that for awhile...
The problem, Thom, is the next one is just as corrupt. How many promises has Obama broken? In fact, I find him more reprehensible than Bush, if only because the village idiot was one from the get-go; and he was sometimes funny. Obama is both deceitful -- and dull! (The TPP as one small example...) But back to Bush and Afghanistan: So many of the scenarios you paint re Afghanistan are suppositional. We have been so hoodwinked about everything that went on under the Bush administration, and since. Given the fact that the illicit drug trade plays a large role in the funding of the world war economy, how serious are we to believe Bush might have been about stopping Afghani production of opium? And what has Obama done to clarify this picture? OBL was, by many accounts, dead shortly after 9/11 -- if so, how are we to explain that announcement Obama made in 2011? Is he capable of that kind of deceit? Probably. The corporate presidency. These people have destroyed this country, each one after Reagan was worse and we thought we had reached the first ring of hell when RR landed in the White House. It's a little like that line of Bush's: "You're going to miss me!" We thought he was joking, of course, and of course, the joke was on us.
Thom, one question you asked was, what law did the Republicans done since the 60s that promoted civil rights? Well actually, the bill was drafted by Democrats, but Reagan signed to law the Civil Right Acts of 1988: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988. ONE BILL!
gregcreal -- That concept of "race to the bottom" is one of the harder concepts for me to internalize. The best I have come up with for me is the Walmart case. When Walmart moves into an area there is a significant increase in jobs. Prices are lower and everyone seems happy. Five years later there are fewer jobs and the GDP is down.
AIW -- My answer, of course, is to vote democratic (while holding your nose if necesary). One driving factor is the one vote short on card check.
charlesbb -- Have you seen the exact use of democracy in the last 300 years in any country anywhere?
Thom,
These polls are starting to remind me of a vending machine filled with nothing but Zagnut bars.
A friend of ours at church works near an office of an administrator who was/is involved in a facility brouhaha at the University of Texas. The students weighed in with a letter writing campaign of one side of the issue. The mail came in by the multi-cartloads, swamping the office with unopened mail which kept coming. The administrators became so alarmed that they placed an campus cop guard outside the office door. Moral? Don't think your letter when added to many others isn't noticed.
Thomas Wheeler
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
455 12th Street SW
Washington, D.C.
I oppose the conversion of our open internet into a corporately tiered system.
Sincerely,
----------------------------------------------
(hand address envelope)
The right to discuss wages, benefits and working conditions is already protected by the First Ammendment (free speech) and by Section 7 (concerted activities) of the National Labor Relations Act. Of course those rights mean nothing as long as workers are willing to fight their way to the bottom.
Lately it seems like they are primarily making fun of the push-polls and stacked questions that Faux & Co. do.
But my main concern with the so-calledl supporters of the "Mad about being the Loser in Married With Children" guy - it that given what we now know about how the FBI likes to infiltrate various groups (like Animal Rights, Peace Advocates, Civil Rights) with agents provocateur - is it possible that there aren't any actual "militia" folks there - just undercover agents performing disatract-the-populous-from-the-real-stories duties?