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.
Hey, no problemo; I'm sure those twinkies I stockpiled back in the 70s are still fine.
The fatal flaw in the unfettered free market theory is that it makes no provision for greed. Greedy people, with help from greedy politicians, always game the system. Regulation happens when citizens exercise their right to protect themselves from the threat (foreign or domestic) of greed.
In theory, a completely free market makes sense. In practice you need to sit on the greedy bastards so they don't poop all over the commons.
antiutopia2: I cannot believe you do not understand it is not a Republican-T / Democratic issue. Presidents come and go, multinational corporations may never dissolve and are in solid conrtol of the elected officials and the direction our government is taking.
On Wednesday you went on a rant about Social Security and how ending the cap could result in actually paying out a passable retirement income if Social Security was all you had. If I'm not mistaken, when Reagan made the change in Social Security, Medicare deductions which were a part of the Social Security deduction was now listed seperately, and I believe Medicare deductions are also subject to that same cap.. What if , that being the case, the cap was also removed from the Medicare deduction. I bet that in itself would almost be enough to fund a Medicare-for-all type single payer plan or at least a Public Option. What do you think?
It isn't that there is enough to go around it's more on the order of there isn't enough left over to go around. This is a big problem for the uber rich. Slow motion revolution is more like it ,and on a global scale. It isn't bloodless by any means shape or form.
Remember those commercials "Look for the union label, when you are buying a coat, hat or scarf..."
We NEED to bring back those commercials and make every member of congress watch the movie Norma Rae three times before they take their seat in a new congress. This is ridiculous. The country will go down the toilet if we let them SCARs (Stupid Corrupt Assanine Republicans) steal any more money and jobs from the people of our country.
Doesen't anyone remember President Obama saying "If you'll STAND WITH ME..." who did? We can't stop working after the election. That's when the work starts!!!!
@Erik300
If you're going to have debate, let it be honest. A good debater doesn't let his/her "foil" get away with outright lies. He says the Democrats and the media shouldn't let Republicans get away with lies, and then he does it on his own show. And what I've demonstrated in my previous post, if you bothered to read it and check the links, is that the "slow dissection with facts and figures" didn't happen in this case, and it's not the first time.
A Tax cut for ALL!...
Nicole Sandler of Radio Or Not has been preaching this differently. What happened, Thom? You are forgetting that EVERYONE benefits from the so-called Middle Class tax cut. EVEN the millionaires and billionaires benefit -- but only on their FIRST $250,000 -- That is the meme we should be using. It is a tax cut that benefits everyone and preserves the economy: a win-win!!
Thom loves debate and I have learned a lot of facts and data from his rebuttals. Think of Dan as a useful foil for Thom for learning from.
Mike Malloy is just the opposite. He hates RW callers and promptly insults/crushes them and then hangs up on them and begs them not to call his show. I wish he would engage them like Thom does for a learning experience. I think Thom is the only one who has enough data and facts to keep his cool when a RW caller calls. He slowly dissects them with facts and figures.
Dan Gainor is a lying sack.
He's intellectually dishonest. He evades Thom's questions. He changes the subject. And he lies. And mostly Thom lets him get away with it (he was better today than he is on some days, but really not up to the task). Maybe Thom is worried that if he really exposes Gainor for the intellectually dishonest lying sack that he is, he wouldn't come on the show any more. That would be no great loss to me, but apparently it would be to Thom.
He refused to answer Thom's question about why he refused to condemn Republican and rightwing incitement to murderous violence. The closest he came was the bogus claim that "every time" someone from the Reichwing starts their murderous incitement there's a "hue and cry" from the "mainstream librul media." Really? That's crap and Gainor knows it. So does Thom.
Today's interview was a classic example. Once the podcast is up maybe I'll transcribe and analyze it, and post it somewhere, maybe here, maybe on Kos. Thom won't do it, so I guess we have to.
Thom didn't mention Glenn Beck or the murderous psychopaths he's inspired, like Byron Williams, the whackjob who took a truckful of explosives and assault weapons from the Sierras to the SF Bay Area to assassinate workers at the ACLU and the Tides Foundation in order to "start a revolution", and after a shootout with local police and highway patrol in my home town of Oakland, told officers he was inspired by Glenn Beck.
Media Matters has an entire catalog of Beck's murderous incitement, which goes on day after day after day after day after day after day after day, without a peep from Gainor or the librul mainstream media. And they have almost 4,200 individual posts documenting his lies, smears and incitement. And Beck's on Faux, which is NOT a premium cable channel (unlike M$NBC) and thus is available to every cable subscriber in the United States. You'd think Thom could have mentioned one or two out of the dozens that Media Matters and others have catalogued. But I guess truth is less important than keeping your guests happy.
Wow,
Cramer on CNBC just commented how horrible the White House is at messaging its successes like the GM bailout. His coanchor agreed, saying that in the absence of knowing what good he has done people latch on to the negatives of what he's done.
Cramer also said we need to raise the gas taxes alot to (pay for its externalities). He said that all the other ountries have much higher gas taxes.
Perterson Foundation founded with Blackstone money:
Wikipedia:
"The Blackstone Group was founded in 1985 by Peter G. Peterson and Stephen A. Schwarzman with $400,000 in seed capital.[20] [21] The founders named their firm Blackstone, which was a cryptogram derived from the names of the two founders (Schwarzman and Peterson): Schwarz is German for black; Peter, or Petra in Greek, means stone or rock.[22] The two founders had previously worked together at Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. At Lehman, Schwarzman served as head of Lehman Brothers' global mergers and acquisitions business...
...Blackstone ventured into other businesses as well, most notably investment management. In 1987, Blackstone entered into a 50–50 partnership with the founders of Blackrock, Larry Fink and Ralph Schlosstein. The two founders, who had previously run the mortgage backed securities divisions at First Boston and Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb respectively, initially joined Blackstone to manage an investment fund and provide advice to financial institutions. They also planned to use a Blackstone fund to invest in financial institutions and help build an asset management business specializing in fixed income investments (my italics)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone_Group
Wikipedia:
"Peter G. Peterson (born June 5, 1926) is an American businessman, investment banker, fiscal conservative, author, and politician whose most prominent political position was as United States Secretary of Commerce from February 29, 1972, to February 1, 1973 under Richard Nixon. He was the Chairman and CEO of Bell & Howell from 1963 to 1971, and Chairman and CEO of Lehman Brothers from 1973 to 1984. He was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations until retiring on June 30, 2007, after being named chairman emeritus. He co-founded the private equity firm, the Blackstone Group. In 2008, Peterson was ranked 149th on the "Forbes 400 Richest Americans" with a net worth of $2.8 billion. In 2008, he established The Peter G. Peterson Foundation with a $1 billion endowment...
...In 2008, Peterson founded the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (PGPF), an organization devoted to spreading public awareness on fiscal sustainability issues related to the national debt, federal deficits, entitlement programs, and tax policies. PGPF distributed the 2008 documentary film I.O.U.S.A., and did outreach to the 2008 presidential candidates."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson
Wanninski's orignal "Two Santa Claus article"
Original article is hard to find, and the Wanninski hagiography site (which purports to house "a complete and unedited selection of Jude's writings") doesn't have it. It was published in the National Observer, which folded in 1977. Bruce Bartlett retyped it and posted it on his blog:
Jude Wanniski: Taxes and a Two-Santa Theory
Bartlett's opening comments:
Opening of article:
Continued at the link. Apologies for the lousy formatting; apparently when using the quote tag formatting goes all wonky. I've tried everyhing I could think of to fix it.
Not necessarily.
There's no reason tax plans can't be passed through regular order (i.e. without the special reconciliation process). Reconciliation is reserved for deficit cutting measures, typically unpopular ones. And it's optional, including for tax measures.
NY Times overview of reconciliation process
House Rules Committee overview
NO! Use: http://schakowsky.house.gov/
Thom,
You have repeatedly said that you dare the Republicans to filibuster a tax cut plan that allows the tax cuts to expire for those making over $250,000 per year. However, you are overlooking one important point. Tax plans cannot be filibustered. That is how Bush got his current tax plan implemented - through reconciliation.
Ed
Here are letters two and three to the pastor and his weekend assistant for the Masses.
Dear Father XXX,
I am sending you a letter and a copy of the letter to Father XXXXX. Both Father XXXXX and you share with us informative homilies. The majority of the Parish is conservative or the Sadducees in Jesus’ time. The Sadducees in our parish are hard-core conservatives. They live in the past and they refuse to accept any changes in our Catholic Church and in our country. For example, once we are at war, we will always remain at war.
Jesus was a Pharisee. The Pharisees were concerned about the past and the present. His words were preparing us for the future and the Last Judgment. Jesus was a remarkable person as He walked among us. He did not ask to see a health insurance card before he healed us; He did not refuse helping people with a pre-existing medical condition; and He did not drop anyone from His health care plan. The Pharisees were an inclusive sect and the Sadducees were an exclusive sect. In our parish we have the Sadducees (a majority) and the Pharisees (a minority). I view the Sadducees as persons who will hoard their money and they seek more and more money. The Pharisees seem to be parishioners who are willing to share their money because in Basic Economics people need money to keep our economy going. If people are without money, how can they help to keep the economy alive? Greed and selfishness are destroying our country.
We are currently living in a country that is set on destroying the middle class and the focus of our government is to enslave ninety percent of the people. We are truly living in sad and dire times.
Sincerely, a Parishioner
Dear Father XXX,
I am sending you a letter and a copy for Father XXXXX. It is my guess that for every positive letter Father XXXXX receives for your homilies he will receive twenty negative letters from the Sadducees or conservatives in the Parish. Enclosed is some information. I cannot recall where I found these words.
CAN ONE BE A CHRISTIAN AND A CONSERVATIVE AT THE SAME TIME?
Two Thousand years ago in the midst of the Conservative, Militantly, Bellicose, Roman Empire and the parallel Rule of the Ultraconservative Conservative Herodian Kings and Priests, where the death penalty was a broadly used as it has been in Texas and Florida since the Bush advent therein, there came a man who opposed all of that for which they stood. He opposed the death penalty and much forgiving of sexual sins. (The woman caught in adultery John 8:1-11)
He despised greed/avarice which the Bushites Gekko say is Good!. Luke 16:19-31 The avaricious rich man
He opposed violence of any sort; he was by his own admission, "meek and mild." He advocated tolerance and acceptance of others. He offered free health care to any who approached him.
He also refused to condemn or judge others except for the rich who were avaricious and the hypocrites. He opposed judging others, a prime factor in the Bush administration IS judging others Luke 7: 37-42- judging others
He was dismissive of sexuality as a major judgmental concern. Luke 4:4-42 Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well
Jesus was, by the definitions, condemnation and attacks on Liberals by the Bushites and the "Christian" Right, a "bleeding Heart Liberal." They are indeed correct, because in his opposition to everything for which The Conservative Roman Empire and the Ultraconservative Conservative Herodian Kings and Priests, stood Jesus was and remains a Liberal. There is no way the Church can, without being hypocritical wriggle its way around the reality that one cannot be a Christian and a Conservative, any more than one can be a Christian and support the slaughter in Iraq (A nation 12 times smaller than the USA, and lacking air force and navy at the time of the invasion), and the planned slaughters in Iran, and Venezuela.
Therefore, begs the question, CAN A PERSON BE BOTH A CHRISTIAN AND A CONSERVATIVE? Sincerely, a Parishioner
I am going to share with you the first of three letters that I sent to the Pastor and his weekend assistant for the Masses.
Dear Father XXXXX,
I commence my letter that I am also sharing with Father XXX by offering a statement. I am pro-life and I believe that abortion is a dastardly act; yet, I oppose pro-life and right-to-life organizations because these organizations are money-grabbing hypocrites. My wife read in the Sunday newspaper (October 31, 2010) that pro-life and right-to-life organizations are donating money to politicians and political candidates. These organizations have the right to donate money but these same politicians and candidates vote for or favor immoral and wrong wars and continuously fund more money to have America at war through the Twenty-first Century. There is talk that America will be at war for one hundred years. These wars start for profits, huge profits for defense companies. These same politicians claim they are for family values. How can our country be for family values and still push for one hundred years wars for profits? How do endless wars enhance family values in America and in foreign lands? The United States is a country where hypocrisy flourishes. We also have politicians who are closet homosexuals and adulterers. These behaviors do not enhance family values.
Life begins from conception through natural death. Life is inside the mother’s womb and outside the mother’s womb. Life is also health care for mother and child, better and improved social programs and social services, and better and improved adoption services, foster care services, and day care services. Life is against the killing and maiming of God’s children in immoral and wrong wars. Life is practicing the Golden Rule and making the Eleventh Commandment a way of life. The Eleventh Commandment was given to us by Jesus at the Last Supper with His words, “Love one another as I have loved you.”
Talking about pro-life and the right-to-life is cheap. Pro-life and right-to-life are about sacramental moments in our life where we pursue good deeds for all our brothers and sisters on a daily basis. Life is precious but many politicians cheapen life with their ongoing hypocrisy.
Sincerely, a Parishioner
Thom,
The case of a desperate mother trying to sell her baby is outrageous, or course. But it is nothing new. Desperate mothers in desperate societies have been faced with such choices for millenia. Is anyone surprised that the United States, in the early 21st Century, after more than 30 years of Republican destruction, has devolved to this level of desperation?
Not me.
Jeff McKnight
Spring Hill, FL
cmoore68: The stats you provide bring up an interesting point. As Bush Jr. was running up unprecedented (45%) debts, Republicans did not consider this to be a critical issue. I recall reading that they agreed it was a problem, but one that could be worked out over time. After all, we were told throughout those years, this money would go into the creation of masses of "good, family supporting jobs". We saw how that worked out. Again. Debt abruptly became a critical issue to them ONLY when President Obama was elected. It feels like we're living in a rerun. Debts were "no big deal" when Bush Sr. was in office, running up huge debts, but instantly became a "critical issue" as soon as Clinton was elected. President Carter is still condemned for running up debts, yet they were a fraction of what our Republican presidents were able to accomplish. Up is down, hot is cold, and reality is irrelevant, I guess. I still can't figure out how the solution to the current deficit could include restoring the Bush tax cuts, draining billions of dollars from the budget during a time of war.
"This aint socialism, it is real Democracy" You make some good points. It appears that, step by step, we've been decaying into something that more resembles a feudal nation. Let me add that when we wiped out unions and social programs, we wiped out the power of ordinary people, and we are now all slaves to corporate America -- and we are far worse off as a result. The corporate/political powers very effectively used the Divide and Conquer strategy against us, effectively pitting segments of society against each other. We will no longer stand up for each other, out of terror that some undeserving person, somewhere, might get more than they deserve. As long as we are so paranoid that someone is being given an advantage, and as long as we continue to be so numbingly apathetic about the suffering of fellow citizens, I don't see any chance of Americans uniting to take the steps necessary to save this country.
"...there is only one job available for every 5 people looking." This might soon get much worse, as long as Americans remain so numbly apathetic. Would people please think a minute? For years, our budgets have been drained by massive corporate tax relief. Political careers depend on the rich, so the rich get what they demand. Taxpayer dollars have been used to build factories and offices around the world, shipping hundreds of thousands of US jobs to foreign countries. While the jobs were flowing out, Clinton repealed welfare, increasing the number of Americans in desperate need of a job. The jobs continue tio flow out. Wages continue to deteriorate, so tax revenues continue to fall while military expenditures -- which now take over 50% of the fed budget, far exceeding any other nation -- continue to grow.
We knew by America's yawns of indifference toward our poor that Social Security would be next on the hit list. Since it took a Dem president to shred the social safety net (there might have been protests if a Republican did that), we did fear that electing another Democrat to the White House would put Social Security in danger. Maybe we were right.
Americans will have to work until they drop dead. Slashing Social Security will massively increase the number of people desperate for jobs WHILE jobs continue to drain out of the country. Do the math: fewer jobs for more people in desperate need of work equals...what? Then there are the disabled and the elderly who are unemployable; what will we do about them? Should we legally require that families, struggling to provide for their children, now also somehow provide for their elderly and disabled? We can build institutions for those who have no families, but this will cost far more than Social Security, itself. So, are we heading for a "final solution" for our unemployable?
I'm on SSDI (Social Security/disabled workers). I've thought about the possibility of the fed govt stealing Social Security, into which my family has paid for generations. We knew the likelihood increased when govt began (again) lying about "Social Security going broke," etc. It's not.There was a massive Social Security surplus just a few years ago. Would Americans really let the elderly and disabled die simply to cover the costs of ongoing welfare for the richest? 30 years ago, the idea would have been ludicrous. But today, I just don't know. Will I have to die so some rich pig can get richer? Maybe.
Whoever you are, you really need to think about how this will impact you, your family, and your communities.
All I've been hearing is an arguement about big government vs small government. How about good government vs bad government? If we had good government and solid employment with rising personal income your business would thrive and you would be able to pay for that kind of government. As one of the "rich" (I hate that term since my income is much closer to the $70,000 a year guy than the $35 million a year guy) I'd gladly give up my Bush tax cuts to go back to Clinton's better government. Yes, he didn't do everything right but most of his biggest mistakes NAFTA and repeal of Glass Steagal (which were huge) didn't positively or negatively have much impact during his term. Sure I paid higher taxes but I did much better and so did my business and almost everyone elses. And unemployment plummeted through most of Clinton's term.
Until the entire 2005 Bankruptcy Bill is overturned there is very little Liz can do. By her own congressional testimony(2008), it is paramount to restore full bankruptcy to consumers and homeowners. Not to mention, put an end to usury rates. The 2005 bill was the catalyst to the worst of the worst loans, from late 2004-2006. Rather than stopping the predatory lending after the defeat of Elliot Spitzer’s law suit, the republican congress passed the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Bill to protect the banks from the fallout of their reckless lending.
The bill removed the need for due diligence and probably helped justify AAA ratings. At least in theory. Currently, the bill is the driving force behind the robo-foreclosures preventing homeowners from seeking bankruptcy protection via the courts. Without the hammer of court ordered principal reductions or payment plans, banks have no reason to negotiate.
Very simply put, the financial “Axis of Evil” (GLB, CFMA, 2005 BAPCPA) gave banks control over commodity prices, credit rates while allowing them to gamble with the FDIC insured deposits of the very people they were ripping off.
Can you say as easy as shooting fish in a barrel….
That should be $400 million.
Infantacide is probably a viable alternative to a dysfunctional woman.