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 don't trust the Democrats in Congress because they've let us down so many times. I've been registered with that party for strategic reasons only. So to answer Thom's question, I'd say it's a toss-up.
Wonderful quotes. Thanks.
I am totally in favor of the marginal rates you suggested. What I am saying, they are neither politically or economically simple. Also, you should adjust your numbers for inflation, or it sounds like you are blowing smoke. With regards to debt, you should always consider the ratio of debt to GDP. That ratio exposes the fact that austerity (spending cuts) always fails. Another benefit, the ratio does not require inflation adjustment since both the numerator and denominator are effected by inflation.
Politically the problems with using the 1942 to 1981 timeframe are the changes in the laws and SCOTUS decision. Some of that timeframe is even before Taft-Hartley. It is definitely before the Citizens United decision, and I think before Buckley vs. Valejo. It is also before the repeal of Glass-Seigle (sp?).
Economically, the effect of the increase in marginal rates is not as straightforward as you describe. The increase rates do increase revenue from the rich. They persuade the rich to invest in America. Thus, the denominator of the debt ratio is increased.
0
0
1
79
451
home
3
1
529
14.0
We know that the marginal rates I suggested are politically possible because they were in effect from 1942 until 1981.
Ronald Reagan put America on the road to economic ruin in the 1980's with his flat tax, free trade policies ( Reaganomics ) that allowed and rewarded predatory mercantilist behavior, and we have not had a government run by either party promoting a productive capitalist economy ever since.
The results of Reaganite flat taxes and free trade over the last 30 years; -
Cumulative trade deficit zero in 1980; 8 trillion today
National debt less than 1 trillion in 1980; 16 trillion today
19 million manufacturing jobs in 1980; 11 million today
S&P 500 profits up over 900% since 1980; hourly wages stagnant
Combined net worth of the top 1% - 20 trillion; the bottom 40% - zero
The only remedy? - scrap Reaganomics and replace it with Capitalism.
Consider the following statements by Adam Smith, the founding father of Capitalism, in his book Wealth of Nations:
" The rate of profit of merchants and master manufacturers is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
“ A man must always live by his work, and his wages must be at least sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family.”
" The ultimate object [ of Capitalism ] is to enrich the country by an advantageous balance of trade. It discourages the export of the materials of manufacture [ natural resources ], and of the instruments of trade [ machinery and factories ], in order to give our own workmen an advantage. It encourages the importation of the materials of manufacture, in order that our own people may work them up more cheaply, and thereby prevent a greater and more valuable importation of the manufactured commodities." ( the Reaganites have us doing the exact opposite )
In summary, a Capitalist nation must have effective progressive taxation, a living minimum wage ( at least $15 an hour today ) for all adult workers at home, and tariffs on products made by slave wage labor abroad.
But you are referring merely to the last attack in China...there have been many other similar knife and/or club attacks on school children in China* that had occurred previously and many of those children and teachers died. So, yes, it is easier to kill lots of people with an assault rifle than it is with a club or a knife but it is still possible to kill many with just a knife, a machette, or a club.
And the problem still remains that by banning such weapons, you are just banning them from law abiding people who may not have mental problems or who may not be taking psychotropic drugs like some SSRI anti-depressants.
You are still not getting at the roots of the problems. The roots of the problem are not the weapons..the roots of the problem are what the people will do because of their mental condition...the pills that they swallow...or need to swallow. The root of the problem is why so many people even have to take these pills to begin with...what is it about our society that stresses these people out to the extent that it creates the production of certain chemicals in the brain that makes people flip out? I believe most mental problems are created by the environment...various stresses. But there is an ever present reluctance on the part of those that cause the environment to admit to the problem. It is so much easier to put the blame on deceptive surface issues that won't actually solve the problem or even help remedy it. It is just an elusive action that will never solve the problem. But the politicians will never tire of shifting the blame to someone else, or something else, if they can get away with it. And many people are easy to look to so-called experts and news media talking heads who are all just pontificating on the regurgitated refuse handed down to them from the ruling elite. Name of the game is to keep the people confused and disarmed so that no matter how hard it gets, no matter how much they lie to us and use us as their foot stools, we will never really be able to fight them.
*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%93201...
And, of course, everything else you said is true...I agree but how many more victims would there have been if instead of guns, or knives, or clubs....they used incendiary bombs...molotov cocktails...are we going to ban gasoline and bottles? Or even fertilizer? Remember OKC Federal Building...how many were killed then? Although, I don't think anti-depressants were involved..I don't know. Just what was the root of the problem there? Any guesses?
http://stoprx.blogspot.com/2011/01/does-arizona-shooter-jared-loughners....
JohnR: I had also heard this several times in the beginning but then after that all we ever saw on TV was pictures of the AR15 Bushmaster. Looks to me like someone is really trying to play mind games with us here. Are these people showing pictures of containers of anti-depressants? No, of course not, there is no way they can elicit a fear response showing a bottle of pills compared to an AR15 Bushmaster. And even the handguns, which were most likely the only weapons actually used, are not quite as scarey as an AR15 Bushmaster. What we have is a bunch of people who are trying to ban all guns as their goals. And I believe most of those people are either unsuspecting dupes or they are pretend liberals or progressives who are really working for the people who want to totally disarm America...the ruling elite. The criminals, especially the top criminals, would really love it if no one else had any way of fighting back. It would be "shutup and do what I say...not do what I do...although you can envy all you want".
Palindromedary- as always, you've made many excellent points regarding the problem of mass shootings. But I must repeat a very important point made earlier, by a fellow blogger: that those twenty Chinese kids attacked by a knife-wielding assailant ALL SURVIVED, contrary to the lies of corporatized media. Had the assailant carried a gun instead, the outcome would have been much worse. That highlights a notable weakness to the argument that violent people would only turn to other kinds of weapons in the absence of firearms. Perhaps so, but their victims would have a much better chance of survival. - Aliceinwonderland
Hola;............NO deals.......Wait for the new Congress in January 2013.................
I feel like they'll wait it out. Allows GOP to save face..and that they're gaining some capital..behind the scenes..in those back rooms... I wonder if they gave in on Rice because they have a SC position coming up sooner than we realize...Odd that 'no drama Obama' let that go on so long... I feel we've yet to see 'second term President Obama" and that it's too soon to be pessimistic.
http://www.anh-usa.org/take-this-antidepressant-and-you-too-may-have-a-v...
PLSzymeczek: I'm not so sure that what you say about Loughner is true...there are a number of Google Search hits that indicate that he may have been taking something...Yes, schizophrenic but also that his whole mood changed abruptly. But, of course..I doubt that it is always because of these medications...sometimes it may have nothing to do with being medicated...some people are just mentally unbalanced. Some people need these medications to cope and fit in to a more normal life. But if you have actually looked at that huge list of people who murdered other people who were on, or just stopped taking, their meds and concentrate on just that one who may never have taken these meds it is only one example compared to a great deal more who did. The contraindications of these medicines usually warn of the potential side effects so it should be no surprise to anyone that if side effects such as "aggression" or "delusions" etc. are a result of taking these medicines then people like this should not have possession of dangerous weapons...assault weapons...knives...or clubs...or even their cars. Take a good long look at that huge list...what more evidence do you need here? But what I am saying is instead of an irrational, over emotional, over reaction and making the majority of good people suffer for what a few have done why don't we look at the root causes of these occasional atrocities? And if you don't look at the root causes of why so many people need these medicines in the first place...at least keep these people from owning or accessing weapons. That mom in Connecticut should never have had these kind of weapons in their house because of her son's condition. She paid the price for her mistake. Unfortunately, so did so many others who were innocent victims. You can't just "shotgun" a problem with blanket over-emotional and irrational decisions. You'll never fix the problem that way. We need to recognize and remedy the root causes. Let's even explore what kinds of things would make people think of killing others in a school. What is it about schools that cause people to target them? What kinds of attitudes do some teachers or other children convey to these future killers when they went through school? What kinds of attitudes do parents pass on to their children who may make fun of some people in school? What kind of attitudes does our businesses and government pass on to the parents, who pass them down to the children, who make fun of other people in our schools? What kind of an example is it for a government to illegally invade and murder so many innocent civilians and then portray the lies of bravery and righteousness of these deeds on TV, in the movies, and in video games? I really don't think most people want to address the root problems...they really don't want to know...all they want to do is lash out emotionally and let themselves be herded into irrational ideas...just what some in power want...for you to be emotionally irrational so they can do with you whatever they want.
On today show, you had on someone that stated that the AR-15 Bushmaster was not used in the Newtown massacre of the 26 at Sandy Hook School but was in the truck of his car. I remember that being stated early on as the tragedy was being reported. Thom did not respond to that statement. Did I miss something, or was all the slaughter performed with only a couple of handguns. Thanks for clarification in advance.
So, are you saying that "moral hazard" is not just a bankster phenomenon? ;-\
Problem is that banksters and corporations are the biggest "welfare queens" expecting not only handouts for their reckless and feckless actions, but huge handouts that wreck economies. And they'll continue to expect these huge handouts over and over again. The big difference is that when the masses of little people get handouts they spend them for necessities to survive while the banksters (etal) just stash their booty into offshore accounts or into another Wall Street Casino roulette wheel. Spending by the little people will help the economy while it has been proven that these high roller scamsters have wrecked the economy. The workers or retirees or unemployed did not cause the multi-trillion dollar deficit. The deficit was mostly caused by the scams of the high-roller robber barons and Pentagon spending on illegal wars....and now a massive surveillance state to spy on every citizen. That's what caused the massive deficit. And now these scoundrels are trying to blame people laid off of their jobs or cheated out of their homes. The robber barons are not content with all they have stolen...now they want our Social Security and Medicare. How low can you get?
Notably missing from the list you reference is Jared Loughner, who perpetrated the massacre in Tucson. His psychosis was totally untreated, and he had never taken antidepressants. His parents knew of his mental problems, but refused to get him treatment.
Thank you, Futurenow! We will survive, one way or another. Creativity is our salvation. And it's important to have hope. Without it, we're doomed. - Aliceinwonderland
Your question is founded on many presumptions that have, at best, a shaky basis. How do you purport to speak for the middle class and if a portion of the middle class accepts certain assertions why is that?
Saul Alinsky described middle class prejudice very well when he wrote about how the success of his organizing project of impoverished stockyard workers affected those workers' thinking. Initially they were all poor, powerless, beaten down, without any self esteem remaining. They crafted a manifesto in which they declared that all men were brothers and rightfully equals, equally entitled and deserving regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, etc.. Then what happened was their project succeeded. The workers collectively gained power, won their battles, won a higher income and standard of living. The group of some 250 predominately Polish stockyard workers all bought neighboring houses in a new, middle classish development in Bridgeport, which is a neighborhood of Chicago a bit upper scale from Back of the Yards, where they were from.
No sooner had that happened than they forgot their passionately written manifesto and started complaining that they didn't want these types of people and those types of people and these other types of people moving into their nice new neighborhood.
Pat Brown, former governor of California and Jerry Brown's father, wrote in his book about Ronald Reagan that the Democratic Partyb was a victim of its own success. It moved the U.S. out of the Depression, moved the blue collar worker out of poverty and into the middle class. What happens when people start making money and bringing in higher incomes? They start buying stock and voting Republican. When I worked in newspaper circulation I knew many union truck drivers, many of whom had an income of $50,000 per year. With that money they started construction or rehab firms, towing services, bought bars, restaurants and income properties and so on. They began to employ people. Sometimes a driver/entreprenneuer would have his own workers organize or he'd have to deal with an existing union in his industry. It was amazing how the same driver who spoke so solemly and passionately of the importance of the Teamsters and of his labor union of drivers would, when talking about the organizing of his own employees and wokers, would denounce any idea of those workers' combination with equal passion. It is, in fact, a rare person who will vote against their own vested interests for the sake of abstract ethical principle.
In the case of welfare programs, there is a divisve strategy employed wittingly or not by welfare administrators and mandated by welfare legislation called "means testing". Means testing is the requiring of an applicant for welfare to prove that they are of a low enough income to qualify for the program they are applying for. Not only does it stigmatize the recipients of the program's benefits, causing them to be defined as people to disdain, but it creates what is called "middle class resentment" for the program and its recipients. Members of the middle class who don't qualify for the program, particularly those near the border line who could probably really benefit from it as they often have to choose between paying a medical bill, buying groceries or keeping tyheir electricity or heat on, acquire a resentment for trhose who do qualify for no other reason than because they are poorer and have less income than those who don't.
This contrasts with a government program whose benefit is treated as a basic human right, e.g., single payer healthcare that all are entitled to regardless of income. Because all are entitled to it there is no division and no resentment towards it or its recipients from any part of the society and the program tends to be well thought of and supported by all members of society.
Unemployment insurance is not, to my knowledge or perception, thought of negatively by the "middle class" or the blue collar part of the middle class, i.e., that part of it that consists of people who are employed by someome else. The part of the middle class and above that consists of owners of businesses may, in fact - and to my knowledge, does -have a dislike for UI.
Whether and to what extent UI and, for that matter, welfare, cause dependency is another controversy and another conversation.
And the dummies are watching every thing we do. Literally! The next time you pass a department store dummy...check out their eyes....which may very well be surveillance cameras staring back at you. Better not shop lift! Well, at least they are not doing what they did decades ago...subliminal messages, really big in the 50s,right? They used to put subliminal messages in the music played at department stores...."Don't steal...go to jail"...etc. But, maybe, what they are doing now is even worse. A recent episode of "Breaking the Set" with Abby Martin talks about all of these things...how we are being spied on by the "Security State".
Here's a free book download of "The Unauthorized Bio of the Baby Bells & Info-Scandal". You can either download the whole pdf or section by section.
http://www.newnetworks.com/downloadbook.html
Don't you understand!? He's helping the poor by giving TAX CUTS to BILLIONAIRES and he's protecting the FREEDOM of the poor by cutting off their unemployment insurance benefits.
Verizon screws its customers AND its workers.
In response to your comment on the unemployed, I feel you are right on. It seems the American condition is to look at a problem from the surface, ignoring the point of origin. There are as many unemployed off the record, either homeless on the streets or staying with family who usually can't afford the extra burden for more than 6 months, give or take a month or two. It is a demeaning system which pretends to provide incentive, but no one can really see it or feel it. We allow ourselves to be lead by the corporate sound bite. Fiscal cliff? We went over that the better part of a decade ago. We are now on the bottom scratching and climbing up, however the slopes are slippery and those who have all the resources are not sharing and never will of their own free will. Whether it be oil, corporate media, agricultural conglomerates, pharmaceuticals, ammunitions dealers[put those next to each other for the recent bloggers, I agree], or the Wall St. banksters and bullies who keep it comfy for them, we have to act. I have never seen a bully come around to being civil and a real team player without it being forced upon them by a democratic consensus, whether it be on the playground or in the big leagues. They are a few steps ahead and love to design our debate and discussions to keep us out of the real action zones. That is why I am truly grateful for entities like Democracy Now, Coomon Dreams, The Nation and other sources. We have to break up the conglomerates and mean it. They have been going for the internet and have made great strides in doing so on a global level. The only solution for the unemployed is to start getting active and not being willing to go by the established practices that keep them down, like outsourcing and union busting. Enough from me, time to get to work, self-employed, financially struggling, moving forward.
I've already paid taxes for my Social Security Insurance, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance. And, to place these bank accounts on the table for negoiations to balance the National Budget Deficit is an increase in taxes on me, the Middle Class to transfer my wealth to the Rich. This transfer of wealth is hidden in the Political Speech, or Code of the Republicans for "Balancing The Budget Deficit". The Republicans are bent on distroying the Middle Class and undoing the "New Deal". To be a Republican today, one must be Rich, Cruel, or Polictally Ignorant, and they are not mutually exclusive!
The dems have way to much to lose, especially in the upcoming 2013 elections to cave in. I, for one, will never vote for a dem again if they cave in. I would rather vote for someone who says that they will screw me rather than vote for someone who acts like their my friend and than stabs me in the back.
I hear ya, George Reiter! The Republicans are the Grinch that stole America for their own selfish ends. But the Democrats let them because the Democrats don't really represent the majority of Americans either...they are part of the illusion..or is it "delusion"? And the American people let the Democrats get away with telling their lies and not holding their feet to the fire...and even re-electing the liar...so that he can do it again. The ruling elite uses both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party to keep us beguiled, bewildered and befuddled.
And by the way...Shooting Santa Claus isn't really such a bad idea...by that I mean...hell..let's do away with Christmas and all the other holidays and celebrations where the merchants cajole us into wasting our money on trashy gifts that will just end up wasting storage space. We all need to break their hold on us. We're all like puppets..they pull the strings with their contrivances and commercials to get us to want things we can all do without.
Remember right after 9/11, all Bush could say was for us all to just "go shopping"? They want us all to shop till we drop and then they totally own us. Yard or Garage sales never recoup much of what you spent in the first place. I guess we're all hopelessly enamoured of collecting junk and throwing our money away. But the worst of it is that they are controlling us and jerking us to their every whim.
Let's just shoot Santa Claus...tell our kids that he doesn't really exist right off the bat so they don't all grow up with delusions and lies that we eventually will have to set straight. But, I guess one lie begets another bigger lie that many adults refuse to admit. People need to be shaken out of their fantasy worlds so they can recognize reality in order to properly deal with it.
Maybe they wouldn't need so many psychotropic prescription drugs for their inability to cope with reality. Yes, there are those whose conditions may be from physical maladies affecting the brain but it works the other way as well. A society that panders superstitious beliefs can't but help have a big problem with mental disorders. It all starts with Santa and the Easter Bunny and other equally ridiculous lies...like casting demons out of swine...walking on water...bringing a dead man back to life...dying on a cross and arising 3 days later...born of a virgin..that the great and all-powerful Oz knows all, sees all...hell, no wonder so many people need their meds.