Johngutta,

Great plan to destroy farms and small business in less than one generation.. You need to visit Odessa to see how your plan works. 3 generations living in 1 small apartment, but full employment. 3 month wait to go to a U.S 1950's hospital.

I think it's fair to conclude that the President was able to bring about a deal over fiscal hyperbole because citizen activism did not conclude with their vote.

Such is the case regarding Merkley/Udall or returning the talking fillibuster.

Folks can yack here and elswhere but I hope that you will take a moment and call Senator Reid and your state's Senators as well. Reform of the filibuster rqr's citizen participation. Fix the filibuster; then Senate branch of federal governance can return to functioning in a manner that "...promotes the gerneral welfare..." not the welfare of 1%, the uber class. Do not allow the obstructionist maneuvering of the political wing of that class, the socalled Republican Party to continue.

The "American Taxpayer Relief Act" - effectively written by Mitch McConnell because of the filibuster and 60% super-majority rule - gave our oligarchs a top marginal estate tax rate of 40% ( it should be at least 90% which would eliminate the national debt in one generation ), set the top marginal capital gains rate at 20% ( it should be at least 70% ), and raised payroll taxes on the working poor who produced most of the $20 trillion in wealth that the richest 1% now own.

Those low marginal rates guarantee that the flow of wealth from the working majority to the predatory 1% that began in the 1980's with Reagan's flatter, "fairer" tax rates will not be reversed, but will continue indefinitely. If this doesn't convince Americans that we need a talking filibuster, a 51% majority vote in the Senate, and public financing of lawmakers' campaigns and retirements, nothing will.

I still think John Boehner should be nick-named The Crying Shame.

Yesterday Thom Hartmann was interviewing a telephone call from what sounded like a Latino. Perhaps it was not, but what I realized in those telephone conversations a unique patience that could never be delivered by Limbaugh or Medved, especially Mark Levine. Some of those Americans perhaps tens of millions have a reasoning power that is scattered. With that said many can honestly say America is ripe to be taken in any direction the rich and powerful want to go. Anyway, hats off to Mr. Hartmann and his diligence, patience and kind action to those he recognizes as needing direction and help to understand todays politics. This is one and primary reasons I like Thom so much.

Moving forward, to address those in this comment section, I am on page with most everyone. Especially David Abbot ring true, for me, my pension was destroyed and now have to rely on Social Security. Now my retirement means going into poverty. My life was hard work with devoted time for different companies. Any way my bias is very much in the direction of a safety net that is a living wage.

Experience has taught me valuable work related first Amendment things. Unions are the first Amendment, and those who disregard this fact are throwing away a huge special right of the Constitution.

However, with rich people, the argument is very symmetrical with those on the top end that can make millions is out of balance in the equation of life. It is a “natural” distribution of wealth to make sure all employees; all those in the Gaussian distribution at least have substance if those at the top can bask in luxury, besides they should be adding to the common wealth in the form of taxes.

In my opinion what has been happening in our economy is an illegal distribution. For we all know, the Gaussian distribution is used in all over business to make the claim of productivity, yet it is totally ignored by the mass distribution, the worker who is in the masses, that put money at the top. That obviousness is insane. This is perhaps why our children see fit to go nuts and send a message of chaos and mass murder.

Massive individual wealth is a sign of serious mental illness. If these billionaires were amassing old newspapers rather than money their relatives would have them committed.

Where is the link to the petition regarding the 14th amendment?

My friend posted this to me regarding the statement that: It's never happened before anytime in the history of the planet. We need stimulus spending - not austerity gutting.

I'm not a history buff is he correct?

At the conclusion of World War I, U.S. officials found themselves in a bleak position. The federal debt had exploded because of wartime expenditures, and annual consumer price inflation rates had jumped well above 20 percent by the end of the war.
The unemployment rate peaked at 11.7 percent in 1921. But it had dropped to 6.7 percent by the following year, and was down to 2.4 percent by 1923.
To restore fiscal and price sanity, the authorities implemented what might seem today as incredibly "merciless" policies. From FY 1919 to 1920, federal spending was slashed from $18.5 billion to $6.4 billion—a 65 percent reduction in one year. The budget was pushed down the next two years as well, to $3.3 billion in FY 1922.
On the monetary side, the New York Fed raised its discount rate to a record high 7 percent by June 1920. It might seem that this nominal rate was actually "looser" than the 1.5 percent discount rate charged in 1931 because of the changes in inflation rates. But on the contrary, the price deflation of the 1920–1921 depression was more severe. From its peak in June 1920 the Consumer Price Index fell 15.8 percent over the next 12 months. In contrast, year-over-year price deflation never even reached 11 percent at any point during the Great Depression. Comparing nominal interest rates or "real" (inflation-adjusted) interest rates, the Fed was very "tight" during the 1920–1921 depression and very "loose" during the onset of the Great Depression.
After the depression the United States proceeded to enjoy the "Roaring Twenties," arguably the most prosperous decade in the country’s history. Some of this prosperity was illusory—itself the result of subsequent Fed inflation—but nonetheless the 1920–1921 depression "purged the rottenness out of the system" and provided a solid framework for sustainable growth.
Things turned out decidedly differently in the 1930s. Despite the easy fiscal and monetary policies of the Hoover administration and the Federal Reserve, the unemployment rate kept going higher and higher, averaging an astounding 25 percent in 1933. After the "great contraction" the U.S. proceeded to stagnate in the Great Depression of the 1930s, possible the least prosperous decade in the country’s history.[3]

Thank you MARK SAULYS...I agree.
Wealth inequality, Healthcare inequality, and Education inequality, is NOT exceptable.
Don't get me wrong I certainly know and understand that from one person to the next there are big differences that define our self independence, but as a social collective everyone should have the same opportunities regardless of name, race, sex, religion, or finacle status.

Unregulated Capitalism, allows fraudulant buisness practice, encourages people to lie cheat and steal in order to prosper, and creates a hostle and chaotic attack on the "equal right" to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

For whatever reason KEND sides with Daffy Duck, Ebineser Scrooge and the 1% mentality; MINE MINE MINE...IT'S ALLLLL MINE!!! No feelings of empathy for those struggleing to make ends meet; at least not enough to change unethical and inhumain practices, nor obligation towards recognition though a healthy and liveable compansation for those who do ALLLLLL the work work work.

I personally do not care how much money a person has...But no one on their own "EARNS" thoudsands of dollars per hour.

70% tax on a persons second one million dollars leaves 300,000.00 in their pocket...That's still alot of money.

Thom,

I listened to your interview with the woman from the Manhattan Institute in the first hour of the show, and I think anaother point that should always be made when discussing this topic is that we have to stop accepting the premise that the ulra rich have "earned" their money. There is a great post about this on the rationalrevolution.net website. Here is a bit of what is said there:

"People still talk about all income as having been "earned" or "made" even when it clearly wasn't. A case in point is the reported 20 million dollar income of the Washington Mutual CEO who was officially on the job for 17 days and received $20 million in compensation. Even the stories bemoaning this fact talked about how he "made $20 million" in 17 days, or how he "earned $20 million" in 17 days. That's the point, he DIDN'T make it, he DIDN'T earn it, it was given to him by taking it from other people, it WAS redistribution of wealth."

"The money had to come from somewhere, and he obviously didn't create $20 million in value in 17 days on the job as the bank imploded into failure, so where did that money come from? It had to have come from the workers, investors, and customers of WaMu. It was stolen from them and given to him. He never created any value, but was handed $20 million. The only way to describe that is redistribution. That is just an extreme example, but that has been the status quo for execute pay in America for the past 20 years."

"Every multi-millionaire and billionaire in the world today is a recipient of COLLECTIVELY CREATED WEALTH. There isn't a single individual in the world who has single handedly created billions of dollars worth of value. Every single billionaire and multi-millionaire has received his income by being part of a system of collectively created wealth, whereby collectively created wealth is transfered to them."

. . . . . "But do these people really think that a hedge fund manager with an income of $3 billion in 2008 really worked that much harder and contributed that much more to the economy and society than a school teacher with an income of $30 thousands? To believe that you have to be delusional. You have to have no grasp of reality, no concept at all of what an economy even is or what value creation is. "

"Do these pundits really think that an executive at a large corporation is personally creating $30 million a year in value for the economy and that THE WORKERS DOING THE ACTUAL WORK TO PRODUCE THE PRODUCTS THAT THE CORPORATION SELLS are really only creating $30 thousand worth of value a year? Do they really not understand that the executive pay is a redistribution of the value produced by each of the workers to the executives?"

. . . . . "[The] wealth and lifestyles [of the 1%] are only made possible by the work of millions of people. It takes millions of people to create the wealth that these millionaires personally own. They haven't created it by themselves. "

. . . . . "The entire economic narrative in America is based on a completely flawed assumption, which is that all income in America is completely fair and exactly compensates the recipient for value that they created. But that fundamental assumption is not true, which is why there can be no meaningful discussion of taxes or redistribution, or anything else. Until you acknowledge that the 30 million dollar incomes of executives for the past few decades have been unearned income that was a redistribution of wealth from the workers to the executives then you can't discuss taxation."

See the entire post here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/control.comment?a=render&blog_id=327506&entry_id=1891798

I keep hearing that "taxes have gone up for the middle class", meaning that the payroll tax holiday was allowed to expire. It's unfortunate that people can't seem to grasp the qualitiative difference between FICA (the payroll "tax") and general income taxes. It's as simple as this: we agreed as a society almost 80 years ago to set up a system to keep the elderly from falling into abject poverrty when they become too old to work. The program has been hugely successful. Think of it as a savings account that belongs to the people, not the government. Now if people today have decided that they'd rather not bother, have bought off on the (false) premise that Social Security is unsustainable, and swallow the lie that FICA is just another "government tax", then I guess the program will wither and die. I never thought I'd end up entirely dependent on Social Security until the "banksters" deprived me of most of my little nest egg a few years ago. It could happen to you. I thank my lucky stars the program still exists. If those of you that are down on SS will do just a little research and apply a modicum of critical thinking, you'll realize that all of the disinformation being directed at this critical social imperative is coming from large corporate interests who do not want to pay their 6% of the FICA tax. Think!