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.
My house burned down, when I was a kid, and we were very lucky to get out alive. It is a terrible thing and I had nightmares for many years. The community came together and pitched in and helped us rebuild. The small communities in the 50s were often more benevolent and people oriented.
I wonder how much of that home in Tennessee was actually owned by the bank. It is terrible that she lost her home..and probably all of her possessions but we just don't know the entire picture here.
If the home was still owned by the bank, and she was making mortgage payments to the bank, then let them foreclose and let them have the ashes. If the bank held the mortgage then the fire department only managed to let the bank's investment burn. Of course, the "home owner" may have had a lot invested herself...or maybe she owned it outright....do we know if she had insurance? Probably not...but there is so little detail we know about this.
Wasn't there something in the news, recently, about a lot of vacant, bank owned homes going up in flames? Maybe someone is trying to send a message to the banks. Wasn't it Detroit that had an awful lot of vacant homes that were torched? I've heard of a common practice by many who have been evicted to actually gut the houses before they left. Yeah, I guess voting is more "civil"...if only it worked...but since the whole system is corrupt...it just won't make any difference at all whether you vote or not. Even the Democrats are owned by Wall Street. And many politicians, both Republican and Democrats, are being investigated for widespread inside trading. And I hear Nancy Palosi is right up there with the rest of them being investigated.
One thing stands brazenly clear...privatization is bad! bad! bad! We need a strong and honest government that will do what they are supposed to do ...protect the majority of the people from the rapacious capitalist wolves. And that won't be done by just voting for the same old politicians that two-timed us on behalf of those wolves.
I believe that the rapacious privatization mentality will eventually pounce upon those who held such selfish and hateful convictions. It will come back to bite them!!!
I believe it will come, if there is not a violent revolution first, in the form of an natural epidemic, the old terrorist, Mother Nature, herself that will rapidly spread largely because of the authorities inability to control it....largely because of the lack of affordable medical care to all.
People who can't afford it, which will be (which are already) unable or unwilling to go to seek medical care in the seminal stages of an epidemic...worsening the spread. The authorities will not be able to control it...and it will result in a massive die off...including the wealthy who become infected by the hordes of diseased riff-raff. They'll consider a defensive posture, at first, of extermination of the masses.
Sleep tight! Pleasant dreams!
It's a pity the "Equal Protection" clause of the Constitution means nothing to the anti-Washington anti-Northerner people in the Red Welfare State of Tennessee. And of course the gang of 5 Supreme Courtesans would agree. So, it is back to square one for one family's Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.
Oh but some believe they should be comforted in knowing this family has just as much chance of becoming billionaire tycoons as anyone else in America, because the American Dream is alive, and well. For them I'd say it's a little too "well done".
How about this: No Federal dollars for any state that refuses to provide fire protection services for all its citizens. Put that in your firehose and smoke it, Mayor Crocker.
How did the firefighters feel? The worst part of this story is the effect on the firefighters who wanted to help but were ordered to let the home burn by their captain. Imagine the effect on morale for the entire department staff. The firefighters must be very conflicted. They work best when there is cohesion where every firefighter knows that he will be supported 100% by every other person on the force. Now there is suspicion. Now there is a wedge. It would not matter if the captain told them that if it were his call he would help, but he is only following orders. Everyone of the firefighters were thinking, I want to do my job. Why can't I do what is right? What does money have to do with this? I was trained and I am prepared to dose this fire. Why am I merely standing here while the homeowner is in tears? The morale of the entire firefighting force is damaged. I would see that the firefighters received grief counseling after this event.
Alternatively, the fire fighters do not care at all. To them this is just a job. Do what the captain says, stay safe and make certain that no one gets hurt. We don't care if your home burns, it is not my home or my relative’s home. You should have paid your fee. It is your own fault. So what if I am here and have no other place to go. I could easily recue your home, but hey, what the heck. Captain says do nothing. I am just following orders. If this is how the fire fighters feel then all is lost already. I prefer to believe that they are flesh and blood real people who care about others. I think the fire fighters, all of them, those on the premises and everyone in the department must feel that they have let people down. They have betrayed their trust.
The fire fighters are not our enemy. It is the crazy politicians who made them feel they would lose their jobs if they helped the person just because he did not pay. I expect those politicians will discover when they die that they are not where they had hoped to be. I expect it will be hot for them. Condolences to the family who lost their home. In addition, condolences to the fire fighter who feared that by doing what is morally right they would have lost their employment.
Philip Henderson, Ethical Magician
Here, here , I support your message! I didnt see the like button, so here I am , ta dahhhaa, well said, my friend!
This goes to "LORE" #6 , capitalism is hurting our social structure . We need to love and value our own citizens , with free healthcare, and food production, and vasectomies for calories program. Men who do not want to be daddies could be rewarded with the decision for vasectomy for two million calories credit card. Within one generation, men who are not interested in loving fatherhood would stop making bastards. Currently, 1/3 of children grow up with out a father figure. This is serious disfuntion within our society. Science and reason could solve the weird despair we are all suffering by a simple , loving outpaitent procedure, no bombs or bullets necessary.
:) T
I suspect Mayor Crocker would support the idea that if Exxon Mobil pays zero fed. tax then, "We The 99%," should not have to pay for the manpower and military equipment necessary to protect their mideast oil interests.
Bible belt Christmas spirit????
It appears from the above comments, what we need is a federal fire service responsible for all jurisdictions. That way you wouldn't have corporate jurisdictions critized for not servicing non-taxed/non-paying unincorporated areas. I suspect, that what we have here is a bunch of Hamiltonians, certainly no Jeffersonians.
I believe that applied to the times when they had multiple fire departments and you subscribed with one for service.
The fact that a fire must be caught as soon as possable or it will get out of control and could burn down the house of a 'paying' person even though the fire fighters do all they can to save the property says it is not an option to let one house burn for non-payment. In our own history review the facts of the Chicago fire in the early 20th century.
Which means what exactly? BTW, when we toured Charleston our guide pointed out medallions on the front of houses that were signs to the fire department that the home was covered by fire protection. If you didn't have insurance they would sell it to you on the spot as your house burned and the fire men awaited the business transaction.
This is really the same thing that you have everywhere. Where I live, parts of the city partially surround unincorporated areas of the county. The city provides no services to those areas, even if city fire and police are more readily available, which is normally the case. Now the city contracts with the sheriffs department for service, but even though the city police cars are manned by deputy sheriffs, calls in the unincorporated areas are handled by deputies assigned to the county station only. This is in San Bernardino CA.
People living ouside the city limits enjoy benefits, economic benefits as the regulations within the city are quite different than the county. I suppose they factor that in every time they fight incorporation into the city.
It is unconscionablethat the Firemen would stand by and watch the house burn. This is surely a symptom of example set by the upper class and 1% wherein greed and wealth trump all other considerations of human compassion and goodwill toward man. The loss is on all sides: the person who loses their home, the firemen who will have to live with it, the Mayor and county residents who will also if they have any conscience at all will carry this travesty to their graves.
This kind of thing is a fine idea. In fact, I suggest we extend it to the Police and the military too, with one caveat: THE FEE MUST BE A PERCENTAGE OF EACH PERSON'S NET WORTH! After all, shouldn't the fee reflect the value of that which is being protected? The poor and working class hardly have property worth protecting, and their lives would hardly change if the U.S. were taken over by China or Russia, so shouldn't the wealthy have to pay a fee for protection by our cops & soldiers? They are the one's getting the real benefit.
For those of you who are sarcastically challenged, this is meant as satire, so hold your flames.
What I find most interesting, is how we simply forget how the government was complicit and one of the biggest benefactors of the bubble. I keep seeing Clinton smirking as he tells us how he balanced the budget, without mentioning the tech bubble. I love hearing how Bernakie was a student of the Great Depression, he evidently forgot the real estate bubble part. The government could have controlled this because they managed the interest rate, and they, thru the Freddie Fannie oligopoly, could have controlled qualifications.
Giving a pass to all those Washington and state beauracrats, is just not acceptable. For each banker that goes to jail, there should be one bureaucrat.
I do not know what you mean by "budgets must matter," but if you are saying they matter more than people, that's a callous and inhumane position. This is something of a throwback to the 18th and 19th century when people had to insure their houses and the insurance companies had their own fire fighters. I was horrified when I read that years ago. Most houses probably burned, not only because of lack of fire insurance, but because of the difficulty of getting to fires quickly.
Everytime I see something like this, I wonder what kind of country we have become. This is not in our tradition. This is not what we believe or think should happen. It's disgraceful
In fact, lots of corporations have gotten their start and assistance from the government. Corporations have no problem using the government "bootstrap" and then continue on with subsidies or other corporate welfare programs.
Corporations are also a big reason why government entities tend to become inefficient because, after getting government handouts, they go on to steal from the taxpayers by imaginative or just downright criminal exploits...like those who steal from Medicare and Medicaid...the doctors or their medical groups, the insurance groups, and the pharmaceuticals, etc. who makes false claims by charging for procedures, services, and medications that didn't happen...or overcharging for those that did.
And then the scamster stockholders, who expect, and put a great deal of pressure on the CEOs to perform (maximize their profits), turn right around and try to blame the 99%. The CEOs, and other corporate executives perform to the tune of the demands of the top shareholders but they also have vested interests, like lots of money and perks, in making their top shareholders happy (ie: rich and powerful).
The scamster stockholders are largely the top 1% but includes the top 10%. Get over the idea that "the stockholders" are "the people"...inferring that even the lowliest creature is an investor... who have invested in, and stands to gain from the shrewd and wiley bastions of corporate greed. That lowly 90 percent have had their 401k, and other long term "investments", pillaged by the top percent who were trying to convince us all that we should invest for the long term...for our retirements...yet they, themselves, were playing for the short term and stealing our "long term investments" from right out of our accounts.
Another part of where the big drain on taxpayer's money happens is when corporations buy influence in Congress...wins the bids for major projects...then goes into overruns..over and over again....without barely a whimper from our bought off politicians and "overseers".
Corporations and their major shareholders are the criminals who expect handouts from the government, then expect huge tax breaks, then try to make it look like our government is at fault for the last little bit of controls they still have. Even when the government is bought off by these criminals they still shift the blame onto the little bit of government that is hanging on to actually working for the people.
I watched that 60 minutes program "Prosecuting Wall Street" with the two whistleblowers. Great story!
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7390540n
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/07/news/congress_insider_trading/?hpt=hp_bn3
In these instances the communities were lucky. Apparently, the fires were contained, even as the homes were burnt doen. But this is merely an abboration. In most cases of building fires, the fire would spread to adjacent buildings or woods close to it. What would they do in Tennesee should that happen?
The other strange aspect of this story that in spite of them not doing anything because of the unpaid fee, the fire department was still called and still showed up, opposite the house without acting on the danger to the general welfare.
If this was really about money, then it would be far more sensible for the Fire Department to remain in the station and not bother to show up. Even showing up for a fire must cost something. Fighting itprobably more. What is going on here?
I suspect that the Fire Department trucks were there in case the fire was not containable to the structure and in such an instance, it would have to act. But now it would cost more money, still without the fee, because rather than containing the fire at an earlier stage, it would now be blazing out of control. Not to mention the property and vegitation damage and potentially human casualties as well.
RE: LBJ
Here is a bit of "insider" history -- Back in the day (circa 1960's), my mother was the personal, executive secretary to a man name Rhea Howard. Now Rhea inherited, and all of his life ran, the only newspaper in Wichita Falls, Texas. As a result, he was a very close friend of Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ would often drop by the paper and meet with Rhea. He came to know and called my mom by her first name, gave her flowers, candy, birthday gifts, etc. Often mom would sit in on and take notes of meetings that Rhea and LBJ had. The first time that LBJ came by to see Rhea, after he left office, mom was privy to the REAL reason he quit. As you may know, LBJ's political career was, beginning in 1941, completely financed by Brown & Root. When George Brown died, about 1962, Brown & Root was taken over by Halliburton. As you may also know, Halliburton/Brown & Root was one of (if not the only/main) contractor for the Viet Nam war. They were making fortunes off building bases, roads, airstrips, etc. in Viet Name. When Halliburton bought Brown & Root, LBJ was part of the package and he didn't like it worth a damn because Halliburton had NO intention of stopping the extremely profitable war. So, as LBJ told Rhea on afternoon, "The only way I could git out from under those hogs was to just quit suckin' on their tit." He saw that the longer he stayed, the more money Halliburton would siphon off from his "Great Society" and he REALLY wanted to leave a legacy for the poor and disadvantaged.
The sheriff's department does evictions. Sheriffs are are elected. Campaign against evicting sheriffs
Unisonously ugly? Something to do with "unison"?
As usual, in this "Reagan" policies poll the putrid principled "progressives" are deviously being disingenuous again.
It was the Robert Rubin/Lawrence Summers directed Clinton regime that set the banksters loose to be all the Enron they could be; and it was the Robert Rubin/Lawrence Summers directed Obama regime that considered the banksters crimes too big to prosecute... and therefore liberal logic worthy of big bonus rewards.
None of our problems are all about Republicans. All of our problems are caused by the solidarity of retrograde Republicans and depraved Democrats voting together within the corporate party.
Jill Stein for President:
http://www.jillstein.org
Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:
http://chenangogreens.org/home/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id...
The reason why the Postal Service is in such deep difficulty is not being reported in the media. Even on liberal talk radio, I hear commentators saying the Postal Service's problem is that the internet has taken over from people communicating by mail and that it might be time to privatize postal service. I am outraged by this rhetoric since it is a Republican complaint and this lie has no business being reported by progressive commentators who apparently have not done their homework. The only place I have heard the truth re the Postal Service's "poison pill" laid upon them by the Bush administration and a Republican Congress is on this (Thom Hartman) radio talk show, Ed Schulz Show, and from Senator Bernie Sanders.
I place the blame for media block squarely on the shoulders of President Obama. While the Postal Service's problems were surfacing, Obama was doing his Jobs Tour and not once did he mention saving 120,000 jobs of the Postal Service not did he bring to the attention of the American public that their plight was due to a Bush administration legistation that the Service's health and pension fund had to be funded for all employees present and future for the next 75 years AND could only be paid out of postage stamp sales!!! Preposterous. I don't know why Obama hasn't been pressuring Congress to repeal that law.
Are you aware that the Postal Service carries 25% of UPS and FedEx deliveries? UPS and FedEx refuse to deliver to rural America BECAUSE THOSE ROUTES ARE NOT COST EFFECTIVE. So, they deliver to the post office and the Postal Service makes the deliveries. I live in a rural area but do get UPS and FedEx deliveries; however, DHL and Airborne Express delivers to my post office where I have to go to retrieve my packages.
The way to avoid a two-party system is not to have single-member districts.
Proportional representation is one way to acheive that, but it relies on the existence of parties and doesn't guarantee geographical representation (putting people in office who know your local issues).
Another way would be to have multi-member (or rather multi-vote) districts, where the district is represented by several votes in the legislature and those votes are given to the candidates proportionately to the amount of the popular vote that they receive in the election. Yes, the legislators would have various amounts of power, but this is like shareholders of a corporation having different numbers of shares, and that power is porportional to the size of the electorate that wanted to be represented by the respective legislator. It doesn't rely on parties and almost guarantees that every voter will have a legislator that, in one person, represents them both ideologically and geographically.
For those that believe that in a "free market" society will allow those in poverty to rise above their station, I assert they don't understand history, at best their understanding of it is limited to the last couple of hundred years. The fact of the matter is, the "free market" is creating the foundations for a new feudal society ruled by immortal corporations instead of dynastic kingdoms. Executives and board members of today are the counterparts to courtiers of the dark ages. So long as we do not finance our government with progressive taxation and trade tariffs, we will end up paying far more to private corporations for the services provided by government. The costs will be far higher, and the service will be worse then what is currently administered by our government. Yes there will be people who are born into poverty now that will rise above, but it will in no way be dependent upon how hard they work, but more so it will rely on beating the odds and being lucky and being in the right place at the right time... which no one can control.
Basically the case is that those that think they can pull themselves up by the bootstraps, have no idea that the government is providing the boots in the first place. Paying our taxes is the way that government manufactures the boots... simple as that.
Budgets must matter.
There's no way to link directly to the text of Ellison's proposed amendment, so here it is:
"Section 1. Because of the compelling public interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption among elected officials, and because corporations and other business organizations are not natural persons or citizens, Congress and the States may regulate the disbursement of funds for political activity by for-profit corporations, other for-profit business entities, or other business organizations, without regard to whether or not the activity is carried out independently from any candidate or political party.
"Section 2. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press."
As a grammarian, I have to quibble with the phrase "whether or not", which should be "whether". As a person that wants the best semantics for the amendment, I dislike that it doesn't actually say corporations aren't people and that they don't have the rights of humans; it treats those facts as reasons for the actual provisions and I'm not sure how much legal force that would have. I consider this the worst of the four proposals.