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.
Has anyone found out if Mitt Romney has released his Tax returns yet?And if not why?
im surprised by the negative outlook of the results of this survey. im not sure how many responders this survey has had, but 60% saying they don't think that it will ever become legal is a travesty. come on guys! have a little faith!! MJ was legal for centuries before the 20th century and progress is being made every year on this issue. and if we can't even legalize weed because of lobbyists, then we will never get anything done. this is the least of our problems.
Since when is there a tax advantage to being married? Last time I was the tax savings would pay for the divorce.
Re the 'gay by choice' people;
First, your guest is trying the old bugaboo of gay as pedophile to damn by association.
Rape of a child shouldn't even be considered as sexual. It is violence and the results of it are the results of a trauma.. A really sad or sick viewpoint on that.
As to sexual orientation being a choice, I'm sure it is nothing new but have always thought a good analogy would be left or right-handedness. Someone can make a concious choice to practice one or the other, also, some have been forced into living as the opposite of their natural orientation. It can even share that word. Some people are ambidextrous, others may try both but settle on one... it goes on.
The Marcus Bachman's of the world are like the teachers who rapped knuckles to get kids writing 'the right' way. To deny the same marriage rights is like saying that somewhere in the bible it says that a man's partner shall sit at his right hand, so if you are left handed, sorry, we can't call that a marriage.. Makes about as much sense.
Rick in Canadia, where we have of course been declining in our morals and society since making gay marriage legal... still waiting for the sky to fall.
This has the feel of a massive Extinction Level Event coverup:
http://cosmicconvergence.org/?p=641
The only reason is average low education in America. This has always been a problem in 3rd World countries, in Africa and Asia: If the average population is too stupid and gullible, crooks have a good life, for people hardly get if you trick them.
Referring to a next war, I've got the feeling we would completely loose it this time. China would probably assist Iran and we just bleed to death.....
As if all Wall St. bankers were Jews... Your blah-blah is so dumb and rotten, it stinks to the milky way.
Sociopaths? They have ALWAYS been with us! About 2% of the population are prime and 4% are suseptible to them. They are drawn to positions of power and that is where we can find them in concentration.
Here is a pdf book that was written by a man who, as a student, studied -- up close and personal -- the Nazis after they took over his country, Poland:
http://www.ponerology.com/
The Senate can make its own rules every ywo years. If Harry Reid is against changing, perhaps we need a new majority leader.
This is a quick "off-topic". I hear ref. to Ike's "military-industrial complex" speech quite a bit. The original text said this; ".....military-Congressional-industrial complex."* Important (censored) omission, probably made to sooth political concerns. But it IS the truth after all,,,,then and now. rp in New Mexcio
*according to Ike's bio
Corporations are Trusts.
A trust implies that there are guardians of the trust who's highest charge is to prudently grow and preserve the trust. A trustee is must not have conflicts of interest with the trust. Today, CEOs act to rob the trust with excessive management fees, insane risk and conflicts of interests.
We need to go back to calling Corporations Trusts.
Threats are not action.
Legislation is stopped by the THREAT of a filibuster. No one is actually forced to filibuster. I think senators should have to filibuster and stay on their feet on the floor.
And, in a similar way, there were hundreds of bills during the Bush years (and, no doubt, now, too), that were not voted on because Bush THREATENED to veto them. Why not pass the legislation and then have the president ACTUALLY veto them?
Why not carry through with the actions of law-making? When I called my senator's office, frequently in those days, I was told: "There are not enough votes to pass." Well... why not VOTE on the bill anyway? Why say, "It's futile to vote" because of being short three votes to get a super-majority that the president can't veto. VOTE on the bills! Go for the VETO! Force the mouthy fili-busterers into backing up their words with ACTION!
HOW MUCH IS ALL OF THIS GOING TO COST? Presently, married taxpayers may file their tax returns as “Married Filing Jointly” which provides, in many cases, more tax benefits than filing separate returns - and if same sex couples become entitled to file federal MFJ, our aggregate tax revenue will decrease dramatically. As such, and irrespective of angry rhetoric, our deficit will increase because an entire class of taxpayers will be paying that much less. But this addition is chump change compared to the enviable Estate Tax consequences. In short, while our opportunistic panderer in chief may momentarily profit from this issue – the taxpayer must, as usual, foot the bill. Remember folks, in 2013 the exempt amount of an estate is a measly $1 million dollars – after that, the estate tax rate is a whopping 55%. In other words, all of that “previously taxed money” is about to be taxed again – and that’s just federal – after all, many states have estate taxes as well. Now, the spousal exemption for estate tax, known as the “marital deduction” allows a surviving spouse to inherit all of the decedent’s property without any tax penalty. And any property that was held jointly between the spouses will automatically go to the surviving spouse and won’t be included in the marital deduction. Thus, same sex marriage will cost us well over one billion dollars a year, and as such, the government will not receive the money it anticipates, and sadly, has already spent.
Very awesome article here,I really appreciate this article because the topic has been raised very intresting and written in very deep.
gerber life insurance for adults
Federal Government has money to give to the USVI, but the Federal government stop Federal Unemployment Insurance with unemployed people in the states. What is wrong with this picture?
$7.8 Million Federal Grant to Help with Hovensa Layoffs
By Source Staff — May 15, 2012
The territory will net $7.8 million in federal funding through a National Emergency Grant to help with the spike in unemployment due to the closing of the Hovensa refinery, according to the office of Delegate Donna Christensen.
“This is one of the first major funding to be received by the territory in the wake of the Hovensa closing,” Christensen said in a statement, congratulating V.I. Labor Commissioner Albert Bryan for the successful application.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, $3.6 million will be released immediately.
Gov. John deJongh Jr. said the grant should provide comfort to laid off workers "trying to figure out what to do next." With the grant in place, "We can tell them we have the financial resources to assist their professional transition."
"I would like to thank Labor Secretary Hilda Solis and the Obama Administration for keeping their promise to provide timely assistance for the territory as it faces a major economic challenge,” Christensen said.
"Abuse of the filibuster by minorities on both sides"????? I strongly surmise that Democratic party usage of the filibuster would be a reaction supportive of rule by the ruled, which in my world is not abuse, as opposed to the true minority party, "the republicans," who filibuster in support of rule by the rich only! I do support the suit however.
Maximum number of votes are for the yes and i do agree with this statement as there are many of the incidents and proofs that justify the statement presented. Audio Visual New York
Hey Thom. I just watched the re-run of the Big Picture tonight, and some of your talk show today, and I've gotta say that I'm becoming a little concerned about a tendency I'm seein' from you that mirrors a lot of what I see on MSNBC. We both know that the Re-gressives have lost their minds, but when I started listening to you a few months ago, I was floored by your knowledge and wisdom. Now, I'm seeing you not only as a shill for Obama, (who is nothing but another puppet for the jew banksters), but also as someone who seems to tow the line that is the Al Qaeda/OBL lie. 9/11 was the beginning of the end, and was perpetrated by the Zionist Jews, (who aren't even Jews). What gives man?
And will you rail at Randi for the same reason when she talks to conservative callers and plays sound bites of Rush Limbaugh, Shred? If you don't listen to both sides, you're not being open-minded. You're also going to be uninformed about exactly what Republican pundits are saying, and therefore you'll be unarmed in a battle of wits against any Republicans you argue with (not that you would bother to engage, though, I gather). I suggest you move to a cabin in the woods, if you want to avoid encountering anything that you might disagree with, but I'd prefer it if you stayed to fight.
Pfft. No. The Senate is allowed to make its own rules. The only thing that implies that votes in the Senate should be decided by majority is the provision that the President of the Senate has a vote only if "they be equally divided." However, since there are cases that require different ratios for passage (overriding a veto, approving a Constitutional amendment, expelling a member, and removing the President from office are all 2/3, and recording yeas and nays in the journal is 1/5) this can't be used to argue that all other votes must be by majority, only that there must be some votes decided by majority, and those would be actual passage of bills (i.e. things that also need to go through the House).
The filibuster rule is not about the passage of a bill. It is about ending debate, which is an internal procedure, and therefore entirely up to the Senate rules. Some processes other than passage of a bill might not even make sense if a majority were required. They could involve senators having multiple votes, or collectively choosing more than one option (say, the top three candidates to be on a commission are the winners). And requiring that everything the Senate does be decided by a majority of the senators (unless otherwise specified in the Constitution, of course) would certainly make committee work very difficult.
If the Supreme Court even took on the case, it would be exactly the kind of meddling across branches that Thomas Jefferson complained about in his letter to Spencer Roane.
It's time that the Dems just starting using the Nuclear Option, whenever needed.
What's the downside?
described at: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/filibuster.htm
It should be a no brainer, but then we're dealing with a 5/4 partisan Court right now. What's the sense of having a majority in either the House or Senate if the minority actually rules? Never made sense to me and I doubt it made sense to our founders.
As to the Republicans calling someone a hero for leaving the United States to avoid taxes, I think they may have a point. I think they should also emulate their heroes and follow suit... they can also renounce their citizenship at the door.
In the meantime, those of us who don't find it heroic, can stay here and wrest their moneyed claws off of our commons.
N
Here's a great bit of info on the filibuster pointing out it was never intended and instead was an unintended consequence.
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html
This is a strong argument that can be used to protect and reestablish the majority voting rule.
Good point. Without a specifically stated general rule, the conservatives on the SCOTUS will most likely say there is no application of the rule requiring exceptions also to be specific. However, there is a general rule of parliamentary law in the common law that states "unless otherwise stated, all votes are by majority." So in fact, this is the context for why the Constitution doesn't specifically state the general rule because all the people in the Constitutional Convention knew this general rule of parliamentary law and didn't see any need to add it into the Constitution.