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.
MauiMan2 - I won't presume to speak for DAnneMarc; he can hold his own with anyone on this blog, but I understand his point, which is, we could get by with one hell of a lot less military. All it would take is to change the paradigm that people like yourself seem to be locked into that we have to maintain ten to twenty times the military strength of any other nation on the planet in order "project" ourselves. That is, project our corporate interests.
What if we turned the DOO (Dept. of Offense) into the DOD (Dept. of Defense)? What if we cut our current trillion dollar annual outlay in half? What would that mean? It would probably mean we had to stop screwing with people all over the planet. Fewer bombs, drones, fighter aircraft, carriers, boots on the ground. Does that mean we wouldn't still have an exceedingly strong "defensive" posture? Absolutely not. If we cut the number of people in uniform in half, and based most of them stateside we would a) still have the strongest standing army in the world by far, b) avoid creating the huge number of disabled veterans that need to be taken care of for life, c) keep all that capital our troops spend all over the world right here at home and d) still have an obscene number of nukes, guaranteeing that not even China in it's wildest wet dream would think about invading us.
Now, if you can take off your war bonnet for 30 seconds, consider what could be done with $500 Billion Dollars per year to fix up the infrastructure, shore up education and the social programs you bemoan, and with the very significant loose change (like maybe half of it) back out of our deficit tut suite. But no, I think that's quite beyond your grasp, Mauiman2, because like most rabid right wingers, you start from the premise that there is no valid course but to ram our "way of life" down the rest of the world's throat. Have you ever stopped for a second to ponder why this country is so widely despised by the rest of the world? And more to the point of this thread, have you ever given a millisecond's thought to the real root cause of our economic problems? It's our military overreach, dummy!
By the way, next time you're "cranking your numbers", please try to take into account that most of the so called savings in various programs are usually expressed in terms of "over a decade" to make the numbers seem large. When we talk about our military outlay, it's always expressed in annual terms. They don't DARE talk about the cost per decade, because they don't want people looking at apples and apples. Now think real hard: what's a trillion bucks a year add up to over a decade?
And finally, I hate to tell you this, but calling people on this blog "progressive Democrat" comes across a lot like shouting "poopie pants!". There are quite a few of them likely hanging out here, tho I'm not one. Try to come up with something a little more scathing, and then end with "neener neener neener! It'll be a lot more effective. Just a thought.
D Anne Mark:
Your ignornace of reality is overwhelming! You think we can eliminate 100% of our military and still survive! You have got to be kidding!!!!!! You won't even get a small minority of the posters here to agree to that.
And you comment about t bills also shows your complete ignorance of economics. Stating that T Bills are speculative!!!!! If T Bills are speculative then we are all in big trouble because they are backed by the US Government. If they go out of business, we all go down with the ship.
No wonder you are a progressive Democrat, you don't have a clue about anything!!!!!! If they put the likes of you in charge, T Bills would be a huge speculation!
Stay of this board and do a little studying on a few topics before you come back here with your totally ignorant comments.
Also DanneMarc...An "ok" Foreign Policy is not a reasonable one. That kind of attitude - one of dimminishing expectations for higher standards of peaceful diplomatic diplomacy - is why we are in such dire straights internationally. More people, (inside and outside the U.S.), view the U.S. Government as tyrant bullies...And they are not off base!
If we ever want true and fruitful peace we MUST produce and elect peaceful leaders...Not corporate puppets.
TIMES WEREN'T BAD!?!?
Are you kidding DanneMarc!?!?
Clinton danced the Corporate two step just like the rest of them; with the exception of Thomas Jefferson, (The last "true" and greatest leader this country ever elected).
True, during the Clinton Adminnastration, the budget was in the black, the housing bubble hadn't burst yet, and 9/11 was just a twinkle in the eyes of the Military Industrial Complex, but Clinton did nothing to pull back the reins on Wall St. Clinton worked for the same people that put Regain in office...Wall St Captains, aka Rothchild, Rockefeller, Morgan etc.!
In my book any elected official that tap dances, and/or continues to two step to corrupt and fraudulant policies, that undermines the Constitution, robs and oppresses the working middle class, and disregards the elderly and the poor...As well as commits hostle military sanctions on innocent people, illegally invades and occupies a soverning nation, works to overthrow demacraticly elected leaders, and starts unnecessary wars, gets an F in my book.
As for infiedelity...I don't care where the president sticks his pecker. As long as the other party is a "consenting adult"...That's between the President and the First Lady. And in no way does that mean I "personally" condone such behaviour, but it is the VERY LEAST of my concerns when it comes to who runs this country.
Kend ~ By the way, concerning JFK, listen to this speech on secret societies,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces
If you haven't heard it before, listen carefully and you will hear a very brave man pound in the nails on his own coffin. He clearly states, "It's dissenters are silenced, not praised." You will not hear any President before or since render a speech like this.
DAnneMarc
Kend ~ As far as I can tell, Clinton balanced the budget. Times weren't so bad under his Administration. He had a reasonably OK foreign policy and kept us out of wars and well respected in the international community. Fine accomplishments in and of themselves but nothing particularly noteworthy. (These are the basics tasks any leader is expected to do.)
On the downside, his trade policies were a National disaster. However, if you look at his Administration as a whole, I'd give him a C- to a B- grade. Nothing fancy.
To answer your question, In my opinion, the whole appeal--or great love of this man--is a matter of contrast. Compared to the Administrations preceding and following him he shined like a Superstar. (A very mediocre superstar.)
By the way, thanks for agreeing about JFK. I appreciate that!
Palindromedary ~ cont # 54 I hope I have not offended you in anyway with this citation from the Bible. My intent is only to show to all the incredible hypocrisy of organized religion. The same institutions that condemn same sex marriage are the same institutions that profess control over the sanctity of marriage--a sanctity that is based on the requirement of mutual oath taking. (ie "Do you _____ solemnly swear to ...")
Don't you find the arrogant gall of organized religions to disobey their Messiah incredible? Don't you find it equally incredible that they try to dictate their self-righteousness to us all? I do!
Outback. Thanks for the reply. Though all the other discussions have been interesting.
Certainly I know and respect Robt Reich, however in that video he is simply making the current case that the "purpose" of using "Chained-CPI" is to reduce Social Security benefits. Or, as you say: "is a draconian piece of crap ... to modify the adjustment to Social Security ... to reflect the supply/demand curve..."
I'm not arguing one way or the other. My Point is simply that seeking factual data (rather than political bullshit), I went to the source: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), where "The BLS publishes thousands of CPI indexes each month, including the headline All Items CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) and the CPI-U for All Items Less Food and Energy." Note: BLS also publish the Producer Price Indices (PPI).
The Consumer Price-Indices are simply historical measures of inflation, ie: what a dollar can buy. Relative Costs of standard "baskets of goods and services" in various markets (urban, rural, regional, cities, etc), at various times (monthly, 1913 to current). CPI tables are available to anyone to use for any historical or current inflation comparisons or local cost of living price adjustments.
Statistical refinements have occurred through the years, as markets change or methodology is refined -- generally towards a more accurate index. Whether they adjusts more-up, or more-down is irrelevant, if the objective is "more-accurate." CPI's measure what IS; not what might or should be. Basing "Consumer Price Indices" on what people should or wish to buy is speculation, not science.
The "Chained CPI" (C-CPI-U) was an evolutionary statistical adjustment to CPI-U Index -- proposed and refined over decades first becoming available in 2002, (well before the 2007 market bubble and crash, or the recent budget stalemate). It is in line with international statistical standards of practice.
The various Consumer Price Indices are available to anyone interested in adjusting costs of anything for inflation (past, present or future, etc.) (I have applied CPI factors to my own salary or assets over my working career -- with shocking results). Other than being referenced by Social Security's Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), the CPI-U has nothing to do with Social Security -- it's just a statistical index of the dollar's historical relative purchasing power.
If the Chained-CPI (C-CPI-U) is more accurate and lower than the less-accurate CPI-U, then we can live in wishful fantasy, or Social Security can simply adjust it's own COLA formula's use of BLS's more accurate C-CPU-U ==> problem fixed, in a more rational manner. Similarly If Social Security needs "fine-tuning" due to demographic changes, it can be adjusted, without being destroyed by sell-out politicians.
My interest is simply that rather than basing current budget discussions on objective data (historical statistical data) we once again have another political circus where all opinions are equal, one pundit or scoundrel's opinion as good as another, and anyone's "facts" can be fabricated as need be.
Worse, I'm finding as much "BS" coming from the Left as from the Right -- which ain't no way to run a country.
References: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/ http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpiqa.htm http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume2_number11/cpi_2_11.htm
__
Mauiman2 ~ God, I hope your name does not imply there is a Mauiman1. Two of you is too damn much.
Outback ~ Thanks for stepping in for me. I've been working all day and just got home. You took the words right out of my mouth, except...
Medicare for all. This will solve your medicare crisis permanently. This problem is manufactured and the result of a jealous medical insurance industry. The fact that Medicare has been solvent for over a quarter of a century is more than proof enough that your concerns are ridiculous.
Funding Social Security? Retired Americans, veterans, the handicapped, and the unemployed is the highest priority of our society next to education. Cutting our Military budget by a pittance is a joke. I am 100% for a 100% cut in our military. We have no enemies in our hemisphere of the planet; and, no justifiable need for a military. Our "National Interest." BS!!! Give me a break! This is one of the greatest Corporate rip-offs of all time. "National Interests" equates Corporate interest. We have no business using our national military to 'secure' foreign sovereign territories for our Corporations to run amuck. These companies aren't even paying their fair share of taxes to cover the bill. SOME DON'T PAY ANYTHING!!! Close down the entire military complex, bring our troops home, close every foreign military base in the world and allow Corporations to protect their own "National Interest" the old fashion way--by hiring their own mercenaries. Let them pay for their own dirty work. If we can't afford essential life sustaining programs domestically, we can't afford the military.
Raise taxes on the wealthy, the banks, and Corporations. Enforce laws to make sure they pay their fair share. Kend seems to think that Corporations that do business in the Cayman Islands aren't guilty of wrongdoing. Kend seems to think that wealthy Americans that put their fortunes in foreign banks are not guilty of any wrongdoing. Well the last time I looked, TAX EVASION WAS A FELONY!! I say end the free ride and close the loopholes, and hold these entities and individuals accountable to the same consequences of their actions that you or I would be held accountable for. This miscarriage of justice is particularly responsible for our economic woes. There is no way we should ever tolerate the hoarding of money to lead to the cut back in essential services for the needy. Such an action would be the highest form of misjustice and evil.
Finally go ahead and raise SS payroll FICA tax. I'd much rather put my money into that fund than speculate with any T-bills or bonds. The Government is the best broker because they are answerable to We the People and We the People will hold them accountable. I have no problem paying more into SS because the money I bring home gets fed immediately into bills. I don't have anything left to invest or save. Besides, a few years ago we all found out how great an investment is pension funds and 401K's. BS! Keep that nonsense out of the discourse. Give me a higher SS rate, thank you very much. Tax me at the source and spare me the "National Debt Blues."
Well said DAnne I will not. So what's this great love for Clinton that Dems have. he dishonored a nation with his infidelity and no one seems to care.
Kend ~ Let me help you out. I never said I 'loved' Clinton. His infidelity has been proved and confessed. I do love JFK. His infidelity is part of one of the biggest and most reprehensible media propaganda scam that has ever been allowed to occur unchallenged. Frankly, I ask you to prove JFK's infidelity. The man was a highly motivated scholar, family man, and completely committed to his job. He had a severe back injury from the war and was constantly fighting chronic pain with medication. I find it highly unlikely that he was inclined to, or able to, cheat on his wife.
Don't you find it odd that accusations fly over this scandal after the man is dead and unable to challenge them. Don't you also find it odd that Marylin Monroe was mysteriously found dead shortly before rumors began to flood the media about their alleged fling. She too is unable to answer this charge. Personally I find it revolting that anyone speaks evil of the dead; however, in this case the whole story smells satanically reprehensible. JFK was never questioned about the matter under oath and never given the chance to say, "I did not have sex with that woman." In this country, you are presumed innocent until proved guilty. Since he is dead, he will never have a chance to defend himself on these allegations. Therefore, he is innocent!
Please don't mention this spurious gossip again about a man I have the highest respect for.
Outback:
Yes I do realize that SS is in balance right now, but what about 10-20 years from now? It is already a TERRIBLE deal for those retiring now and in the future, all of us would have been much better off if we had put our money into T Bills and not SS. I'm talking all of us are getting about half of what we should be getting. That's what happens when the government gets into something they can't do well, retirement planning.
And Medicare and Medicaid are in MUCH WORSE shape than SS. Again the government getting intpo something they should not be in, health care. And Obamacare is already a disaster, and it has not even started yet!
The wars you mention are over. Do you really think you can cut 500 billion a year out of national defense without serious ramifications? I think you are dreaming.
And remember what happened in England when they recently raised taxes on the rich from 40% to 50%. The rich voted with their feet and left the country in droves. The country actually lost tax revenues and had to back off on the increase to stop the bleeding. So your "tax the rich" montra isn't going to solve the problem, you might get another 50 billion or so out of the rich, and that's it. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the 1 trillion dollar a year shortfall.
You need a huge dose of reality if you think "tax the rich" and "cut the military" is more than a drop in bucket in what needs to happen. Run the numbers if you dare, but you appear to be someone who does not want to be confused by any facts. That's why you are a progressive democrat.
MauiMan2: Interesting that we're overspending by $1T per year, which is a little less than our combined "defense" spending if you factor in the wars, Homeland Security, NSA, AND CIA black ops. This country already outspends the combined military spending of the next fifteen countries combined. This spending comes out of general revenues (your income tax dollars).
Social security on the other hand is separately funded by a dedicated FICA tax paid by employees and matched by employers. The money paid into the Social Security account is earmarked for Social Security benefits only (though administrations since Reagan have dipped into the cookie jar). Social Security has not added a dime to the deficit. I'm flat amazed that you don't seem to know this.
Medicare is at least partially funded by its recipients. It needs fixing, but that overrun is fixable through health care reform and getting predatory medical insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies out of the equation. The best way to do this would be to establish a national health care system, as is in place with most of the rest of the developed world.
So you think people who have worked a lifetime, have contributed to a minimal retirement fund (costing the government nothing) and contributed a substantial portion of their health care costs through deposits to Medicare during their working years and premiums and co-pays during their retirement years should be required to chip in to balance the budget?
You think this country Is justified in spending nearly $200 Billion a year on arbitrary wars, maintaining 600+ military installations worldwide and 13 carrier battle groups, again costing a trillion dollars PER YEAR, not per decade, and can't come up with a fix for our budget woes by trimming the fat from defense spending alone?
And if not the bloated military, how about getting the corporations, now making record profits, to start paying some income taxes instead of stashing their goodies off shore? Ditto for those making over $250K.
You want grandma to pick up the tab over the next ten years? What flipping planet are you from, anyway?
Sorry I said the same thing twice I didn't know there was two pages
HalFonts - I was going to let your explanation of Chained CPI go unchallenged, but I simply can't. If the adjustment to social security is modified to reflect the supply/demand curve, such that when the price of gas goes up, people switch from mid grade to regular or drive less, and if the price of food goes up (as it will), people switch from hamburger to turkey burger, then cat food, where does that leave seniors who may be operating next to their threshold of pain already? What do they do when their out of pocket costs of their medication and medical treatment goes up? Gut it out? This chained CPI thing is the most draconian piece of crap I've ever heard of, I think you know the name Robert Reich. Here's a short video that gives his take on the chained CPI as it relates to Obama's upcoming proposal. There's also a petition there to sign, should you have a change of heart: http://civic.moveon.org/signon/reichvideo.html
Why do Americans love cheating womanizing Presidents. JFK and Clinton are talked about as Gods. They both used their positions of power to take advantage of young women. Yet if you don't want to pay for a abortion your are creating a "war on women" . I don't get it? Can someone help me out here.
DAnneMark Your numbers don't add up! Don't knock me until you actually run the numbers please!
We are overspending by 1 trillion a year. We have to cut at least 500 billion out of spending. NASA spending 100 million is a drop in the bucket.
The military budget is about 700 billion a year. How much do you want to cut? I say maybe 50-100 billion, maybe.
Where is the rest of it going to come from? You tell me, but it isn't going to come out of campaign reform, that I know.
Anyone who thinks that social security, medicare, and medicaid can survive as they are now is smoking some really good stuff. Can you send me some of it?
'
Why do Americans love Presidents that cheat on their wives so much Like Clinton and JFK. It doesnt get any lower than using a position of power to seduce young women. Yet the same women scream bloody murder if they don't want to pay for birth control and abortions. I just don't get it. Anyone?
Palindromedary ~ Thanks for bringing 'Dolly', the Sheep. I heard a caller on the show today condemn same sex marriage with a similar argument you had. He said, "Why not just legalize incest, bestiality, and polygamy?" I disagreed with the host's answer. Please allow me to add my two cents. Tell me what you think.
Mutual consent between adults is all I believe the Government has a right to legislate. Anything else is rape and a threat to personal freedom of choice. Therefore, in the case of incest the Government has a right to protect the child; or,unconsenting family member. If both family members are of the age of consent, and agree, they should be allowed to enter into a legal contract. With Polygamy, consenting adults have the right to join in any arrangement they see fit by legal contract. In the case of bestiality, that depends on the consent of the animal. Basically, if the animal accepts, then it is fine; however, if the animal bites or needs any type of restraint, it is rape and a crime. As far as marriage is concerned, animals do not have the ability to enter into any legal contract.
Consequently, anyone foolish enough to enter into a legal contract of marriage should be entitled to all the legal benefits of the status offered to anyone else. It's high time for all of us to pull our heads out of the ground and stop fixating on the past. That is gone for ever. It is time we grow and evolve into a better future where more people can share in the dream of the responsible pursuit of happiness; regardless of the private opinions of the few.
You'll also find this interesting. Did you know that the same book used to swear oaths everywhere in society actually forbids the swearing of oaths. That right, my friend. The sacred Biblical institution of marriage and the oaths of marriage that couples take in church in the 'holy matrimony' ceremony is actually forbidden by Christ himself. In Matthew chapter 5 we read,
"33 ¶Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
Yeah, thats something you can shove back in the face of Bible thumpers who irritate you. I guarantee they won't have a response. The irony can be overwhelming. Place you right hand here; but, whatever you do, don't open it and read it.
Have a good weekend, buddy!
"It's not the size that counts"...at least that's what my sheep Dolly tells me...bah...baaahhhh. Besides, every thing is "digital" ...or runs on batteries now.... what woman needs a real LongJohn, SlimJim, or a FatAlbert... or a man, a VenusFlyTrap, or BlackWidowWeb.... along with all of the excess emotional baggage...when all you have to do to shut "him" or "her" up is flick a switch to "off"? ;-} And they can't turn around and sue you for half or more of your hard earned wealth after the illusion (or delusion) dissipates. It happens to some people anyway...Dolly still thinks I'm an excellent lover..even with my microminiaturized tweeker..I might be able to slip my camel through the eye of a needle (I know, I'm bragging again)...and if she complains (in Sheepish)...mutton stew.
A real test for any budget is how much it would reduce the wealth of the less affluent. And the proposed changes to Social Security are sure likely to make the income divide greater.
We already have a huge income and wealth disparity and I sure wish Obama would mention this over and over again.
I sure am opposed to any reductions in the earned benefits programs so many of us have paid into throughout our lives and also which help provide necessary support for so many of us.
Yours,
Caleb
Outback wrote ~ "Besides, what would have been the worst that could happen if Obama lost? An acceleration of a process that may be inevitable? Not a bad outcome."
Apparently you are right again my friend! Indeed, Romney could have ushered in the impending Apocalypse with far greater dispatch than Obama. He wouldn't have even had to try to act remorseful. Why prolong this misery any longer than necessary?
I guess, in hindsight, I should have had serious misgivings about Barack Obama when he spoke about invading Afghanistan in his campaign. Talk about sending out red flags! Talk about selective listening! His Cabinet choices aside, my greatest disappointments during his first few days were not declaring a national emergency so he could expeditiously (without the aid of Congress) restore the Constitution by repealing the Patriot act and all other legislation passed by the Bush Administration that was so clearly unconstitutional. (Including the stupid Law passed that allowed him to take this very action.) He may never have promised this in his campaign; but, seriously folks, he is a Constitutional scholar who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and walked right into a state of affairs that made taking such action not only legally possible, but, morally imperative. No, I too am not terribly surprised with the man we have in office--terribly disappointed, yes, terribly surprised, no.
Yet asking ourselves "what if" at this point is all water under the bridge. Let us hope that this pathetic game of charades has stirred enough discontent in the population at large to create the motivation necessary for a viable third party in the next election. For that matter, why not a fourth, fifth, and sixth party and so on? The more variety of choice the better. Regardless, gentlemen, I for one have already decided to cast my vote to an alternative choice. To quote MMmmNACHOS ~ "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
From my view Thom and Louise Hartmann, are very good patriots to expose what has been going on in the criminal politics of modern America. I salute you both and pray for you to continue the efforts to bring justice by encouraging the electorate to put those in offices that will serve and protect the Constitution and make it better for the future. God bless us all and hope Obama will win. http://psychologycollegefinder.org/degrees/marriage-family-therapy
Oh mealworms. I wondered what mealworks were. (Typo in the daily post, which has been corrected. Thanks.) http://psychologycollegefinder.org/degrees/marriage-family-therapy
You really need 36 states win against such an entrenched system as the corporate/bankster kleptocracy. Its even more entrenched in Australia, its just better hidden. online masters degree in marriage and family therapy