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.
"Dick Cheney is a traitor", such a statement smears traitors everywhere.
I don't think there's a word for what Cheney is, in the future I think people will refer to characters that are beyond odious as 'Cheneyistic'
I suppose it would be useful if you could determine the likelihood of a politician to hold his ground on his position when you do a test to see who agrees with your positions.
Perhaps some people would like someone who changes with the blowing wind, and others might like the immovable.
I know I'd prefer someone who stayed the course.
Since we seem to be nearing the end of “phase one” of health care reform, perhaps we won't need to talk about it anymore? Not very likely, especially since some on the left have decided to back-away from even the taint of acceptance of the "reform" bill in order to avoid any embarrassing reversal of progressive cred (of course, this could change at any time). It must be confessed that whatever bill is eventually passed will so convoluted that no one will know its true effect for years, and by then we will need to hope that the party in power desires to improve it rather than scrap it altogether.
There are, one may suppose, some “good” things in the final bill which will obviously look a lot like the Senate version--like allegedly preventing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions (insurance companies could, of course, cite alternative excuses for not granting coverage), limiting how much insurance companies can charge seniors, and capping overhead costs (meaning that some of the people who are paid to say “no” may have get down on their hands and knees and learn how to say “yes” to another set of customers with another employer). Some say that this system still essentially locks-in the continued enjoyment of massive profits for the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals; loss of revenue on “Cadillac” plans will merely be made-up by increases in premiums (sort of like Thom’s wage and tax theory), and taxpayer subsidies will make-up any other loss of profitability.
We must especially hope that what emerges from confused state to semi-comprehensible is the so-called “insurance exchange” proposal, and its viability as an option to the public option. For one thing, there has to be a sufficiently large pool of “customers”—particularly among those who are not the otherwise “uninsurable” and impoverished—and an oversight body with enough power to secure insurance company compliance in the public interest. Apparently there is no guarantee of the former, and no assurance of the latter, particularly if a Republican administration has any say in how the exchange is regulated.
In the current proposal only a limited number of people initially (rather than all having the option) are being permitted access to the exchange, which is counterproductive. Nor is there a sufficiently strong enforcement mechanism to insure that insurance companies will play by the “rules.” We have to “trust” them. Without strong regulatory enforcement or the ability to negotiate rates to insure good benefits at affordable premiums, the exchange will merely become a dumping ground for wildly varying plans, from low premiums with high out-of-pocket expenses to high premium plans only (very) modestly moderated by tax subsidies. I suppose, if we want to look at it from a glass half-full perspective, that once this program is instituted and its failings manifest, that people will demand improvements, and maybe lawmakers will be forced to listen to them then, for once.
Yesterday's segment about how millions of people's only income is food stamps triggered something in my head. The premise for "ending welfare as we know it" is that there are some lazy, shiftless [i.e. "brown" people] who deserve to be dumped or who would benefit from a swift kick in the pants to get a job. But wait, unemployment didn't go down much as a result of this policy change. They only went down during the dot.com boom, when demand and wages were enough to cause employers to actually consider hiring some of "those" people whom they normally would never consider. During those days unemployment dipped down to levels that were not dreamed possible.
Now with the current economic situation long term unemployment is rising. The first fired and last hired are these same people at the bottom. All of this makes me conclude that the real problem with welfare is that there are not enough jobs, not that "welfare queens" are too lazy to work.
We need to reform welfare reform.
Nancy in Renton suggested a couple books. Wish I haddent been driving so I could have written them down.
Another Nancy in Renton
Thom, because of work I'm unable to call during the show. A couple of points I'd like your opinion (and bloggers) on:
1. Regarding the bailing out of the banks, they were leveraged up 30 to 1, heavily invested in mortgage backed securities for which there was no market... Had we not bailed them out a run on the banks would have left the FDIC (ie the tax-payer) on the hook for the whole mess; this was the lesser of the evils.
2. I think we should accept the concept of corporate personhood (is that a word?) and then seek to limit their political influence under the 14th amendment , equal protection under the law. Find our John Roberts or Scalia to argue that their ability to lobby makes them more equal than the "persons" speech protected by the 1st. If they were limited to what the indivdual can contribute there would be bipartisan support for publicly funded elections!
3. The adinistration should examine the trade deficit and adopt a carrot/stick approach to bringing jobs back to this country. Place tariffs on the high dollar-high employment (labor intensive) products; the stick. Give tax breaks to bring /produce those goods here, especially in areas of high unemployment; the carrot.
Thanks for letting me vent. Best.
Longtime listener first time caller.....
You can check the safety of your bank using this free screener at:
http://www.thestreet.com/bank-safety/
Last year I moved my money to a bank which operates only in my state. I have noticed that banks in agricultural areas seem to have the highest safety ratings.
Maybe co-ops couldn't get big enough memberships to be cost-effective. Still, if European countries with much smaller populations can make health care work, maybe there is a way to do this...
Thom,
What about progressive health care co-ops?
Thinking about the crotch bomber --- the bomb was too small to do significant damage, especially when held between the legs.
There are a number of simple things (forgive me for not detailing them) that would have given the "alleged" terrorist a bigger chance of bringing down the plane. It seems more likely that the point of this AQ op was to stimulate precisely the reaction that the GOP wants: to start strip-searching Arabs or Muslims or whatever. That'll be great for AQ recruiting!
Report on:
Obama in Action: 320 Days
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/obama_in_action_320_120609.php
A few weeks ago, I saw the ceo of Exxon on CSPAN saying the same thing as Dr. Hansen. He said cap and trade wont work. We should collect a carbon tax that is refunded evenly to everyone at the end of the year. That way, it is tax neutral, because it is all refunded; therefore it does not hurt the economy. It would reward people who use less carbon and penalize people who use more. I am pretty surprised to hear those two agree on the solution to climate change.
MONDO interesting graph on percentage of Party make-up during Democratic Presidential terms:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/oia_320_fig2.jpg
MONDO interesting graph on Electoral College vs Popular Vote:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/images/oia_320_fig1.jpg
Thom,
I would move my money to a credit union started by a good progressive organization if it were available. I think many of us would, once the word got out.
And btw, I have been in a credit union for years and love it. They don't do first mortgages, though.
The wife, I and our business went all Credit Union in 2004.
Re: moving money out of big banks -- this was on Democracy Now yesterday: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/4/move_your_money_project_urges_people
Presidential Speeches:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878601.html
http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches
http://www.presidentsusa.net/speeches.html
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/
This is the Congress under the Obama Administration . . . Of course, nothing is up front or open.
Tim,
Anything here?
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Bush+Jr.s+speech+about+home+owners...
Mark,
Beautiful post. Dickens couldn't have said it better. It's really frightening.
I have been trying to find Bush Jr.s speech about home ownership from Oct. 15, 2002 but it seems it has been scrubed off the White House's web site.
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/09/2002-bushs-speech-to-white-house.html
My morning Obama-mail came with a 2010 DNC survey asking for citizen comment or concerns. (My post sounded like I was chanelling a familliar voice) And is as follows:
"The commons' that elected this president also elected a do-little congress more concerned with re-election than serving the good people whom their office is made to serve. I am concerned of the influence entrenched within congress from intrests outside the common's good, especially those which pay little to no taxes and use that money in a more direct way to buy our politics, not just the people but the processes that hold true or decay a democracy."
Thanks for the voice Thom.