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.
batikjirolupat
God bless all of you for trying But it is to late You will never change the Billionaires, big corporate powers and bankersters minds And even if you could it is to late Just ask Thom the methane hydrate plumbs that are about to be released into the atmosphere are going to seal our fate I hate to be a fatalist But the facts are are right in front of us and nothing short of s miracle will save us
Thomm - IT's good that you give Abraham Bolden attention.
I can't imagine why CIA wants to continue holding files secret. Look, here's some declassified documents about what was happeningn with Cuba at the time of the assassination: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/
Of course, they completely blow the doors out of your cherry picked theory about Almeida. Maybe there really is something to hide...
I would have posted on Hff Post but I can't get the comment section to work.
Scott
Lifesize, your point about the slowness of change is legitimate. But there are plenty of reasons to attack Obama, which I and others have pinpointed here many times. The problem I have with the slowness of change, in the context of healthcare specifically, is that people are dying. I'm talking about people who do not have to die because the means to save them exists. I'm talking about people of all ages, including children. So I hope you will pardon us if our sense of urgency is a little more intense around the issue of healthcare. - AIW
K street just as criminal as Wall street and District of Columbia as of Act of 1871
I think the main reason this protest wasn't crushed is because of the shear numbers of protesters. It would be unfeasible to squash over 3K people in one of the busiest streets in the country without drawing attention. Shame though. This protest needs all the attention it can get. As the global situation gets progressively worse, I have every confidence that future protests will warrant much more attention from both the media and the powers that be. In the end, the people will triumph. They always have and they always will.
This doesn't do with climate change but it is related to the economy. I work hard, gotten a raise every year for the last 4 years. Put in many hours a week and get what you'd call a good wage.
I was able to go on a weeks vacation. Save and purchase a new matress without financing it for 5 years. What is going on? I am working more and more hours thankful I am not laid off. I have less money now than I did then. Can't go on vacation. Can't save a dime because I am paying all my bills. My bosses boss just retired at 50. I don't get it.
I'm surprised they didn't manufacture a reason for the cops to attack thus protest, like they did the occupy protest (me cause big money is against both). Its simple, capitalism has crested an intolerable situation of profit over biosphere (people's rap water is literally catching fire from Fracking; this the supposed clean natural gas infomercials). The big issue is severe neglect of our biospher; but to add insult, profit only for the 1-percent (unregulated capitalism; like a big board game of monopoly) is the driving motivator of the madness.
It's the hope for change we should not have to beg for.
Agree. Interesting bit of history: The Arab Oil Embargo of the 1970s created a surge of awareness of our hyper-dependency on oil, and the catastrophic consequences, from wars to breathing-related disease, environmental destruction and economic blackmail. President Carter launched a public education effort regarding the costs/consequences of our oil addiction, and the "urgent need" to transition to alternatives (including phasing out our excessive use of private motor vehicles, building a comprehensive mass transportation system). Then came Reagan. Every serious effort to address the consequences of pouring massive amounts of soot and oil particles (carcinogens) into the air each day is cut off by another govt campaign against the few who smoke cigarets.
Branski, with respect to YOU (as I agree more than disagree with your premise, by a wide margin), I have to ask you: by what measure was the overall quality of life in the U.S. #1 in the world prior to Reagan? Since WWII Europe’s social safety net has left ours in the dust.
Perhaps my assertion (post #9) that we’ve “never” tried socialsim was overstated. Once upon a time long, long ago, we had state-supported schools, not for-profit charters. While our healthcare system has never been single payer, in any form, it was at least nonprofit for a time. And for the foreseeable future (knock on wood!), our property and/or state taxes continue paying for roads, bridges and other transportation-related infrastructure. Ditto law enforcemnt (state taxes). I get that. The military, however, is another matter, already having been privatized to some degree.
You certainly don’t have to convince me what a prick Clinton was, by the way.
I still cringe at your reference to “Lib” media when all I see are neo-con (aka “neolib”) talking heads on the idiot box. - AIW
To understand what the (Clinton) Dems actually did, review our history. This isn't the first time the richest few took power over our politics and policies, to the harm of the nation (Great Depression, etc.). Here is something that, interestingly, Newt Gingrich addressed in some of his talks years ago: Each time in the past, the poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, ultimately united to push back -- to everyone's (and the nation's) benefit. That can't happen this time. The only way to bring the "Reagan Revolution" to fruition, as Gingrich pointed out, was to pit the middle class against the poor, workers against the jobless. Bill Clinton's New Democrats (as he labelled them) very successfully did just that. Divide and conquer. Millions of the poor, and those who get why unrelieved poverty is wiping out the country, voted for Obama in hopes that he could launch a legit public discussion about our poverty crisis (and how it serves to phase out the middle class, for better or worse). He tried, Dems and lib media aren't interested. Lib media continues to nurture the elitism of the better off, middle class consumers and campaign donors.
Alice, sure we tried it, and the more socialism we implemented into our policies during any given era, the more successful the nation was. Under socialism, taxpayers collectively cover the costs of those things needed for the common good. This includes everything from schools to roads, the military to Social Security, police and fire depts., etc. The more we phase out socialism (as we've been doing since the 1980s), the less gets funded, the more the nation deteriorates, no longer able to successfully compete with the modern nations. Because of the results socialist poilicies and programs, the US was rated at #1 in overall quality of life when Reagan was first elected. Largely because of our anti-poor agenda since then (and poverty does trickle up), the overall quality of life had plunged to #43 by the time Obama was elected.
I would expect nothing less from an unchecked male dominated regime such as we have with the world governments. Get behind He for She and support Equal Gender Representation for a balanced world.
Hi. Actually, it was the middle class that demanded the end to poverty relief, and "New Democrat" (as he called them) Bill Clinton who obliged them. In defiance of all logic, they insisted that those families who were trying to get on their feet on $4 - $5k (annual) welfare aid were "living better than the middle class," and middle class resentment of the poor was nurtured. By contrast, President Obama restored the disability aid that had been slashed by Clinton (an issue that failed to catch the fancy of bourgeois libs), saving much suffering, many lives. The (Clinton) Dems in Congress have quietly obstructed the president ever since. Dems and libs censored the poverty crisis out of the public discussion. As Dem pols know, it's impossible to save (much less, rebuild) the middle class without shoring up the poor, and the Party is fine with letting people think otherwise.
With all due respect (and I do have a lot of respect for Thom Hartmann), that's part of the story. The Clinton Dems rolled out NAFTA, causing the significant loss of working class jobs, and wiped out the Great Society (welfare) as a necessary step toward ending the New Deal (Social Security). Fewer jobs, more people desperate for any job at any wage -- the consequences were inevitable. The middle class continues to be phased out. The overall life expectancy of US poor fell by over five years since Clinton. Such a deterioration would normally be considered a national crisis. To grasp the results of our "war on the poor" on a broader scale: The overall quality of life in the US was rated at #1 when Reagan was first elected. By the time Obama was elected, after we had gotten rid of those "failed social programs," the overall quality of life in the US had plunged to #43. Meanwhile, the only response from libs is the call for job creation (as we've been doing for over 30 years already...) You can't buy a loaf of bread with promises of eventual jobs. You can't get a job once you no longer have a home address, phone, bus fare. You can't save (much less, rebuild) the middle class without restoring those policies and programs that had created the massive middle class we once had.
obamacare is a miracle!; after decades, the guy got a program through. of course it's not perfect, but it's a great step. the reason the right is so zealous about killing it is that in a few years the program will be too popular to squash, like social security.
major change takes time, cultural movement. just as same-sex marriage came from the fringes intot he mainstream in not much more than a decade, so must the public re-learn respect for govt after decades of right-wing sniping.
let's not waste energy attacking obama for not being bernie sanders. and please let's not gripe about the slow pace of change; one of the traits of adulthood is learning to live with deferred gratification. heaven on earth, and workers' paradise, ain't on the horizon any time soon.
I agree, Richard. I don’t recall a time when the Democrats reliably had our backs. What Reagan started, every president since him has perpetuated, regardless of party affiliation; even Clinton and Obama, those Democrat presidents I actually voted for. With regret.
Instead of creating a stronger social safety net for us; instead of building an infrastructure in this country that is up-to-date, reliable and safe; instead of a more equitable work environment, for the majority of us not enjoying a free ride, and instead of putting the reins on capitalism before it became cannibalistic, our so-called "leaders" have been too obsessed with foreign policy to actually do the work of running this country. So what we get for our hard-earned tax dollars is endless war, the worst manifestation of capitalism, at its cannabalistic extreme. War for “U.S. interests” translates to Big Oil interests, not the interests of the American people.
We need another party. Either that, or we need to dump the corporatists out of the so-called “Democratic” party and give it a major overhaul, so that it lives up to its name. Something I have not seen in my lifetime.
With due respect, Thom, I'll say it again: that Republicans are toxic and worthless as legislators is a given. But with few exceptions, the Democrats have also been complicit. It's time we call them out too, and your voice is much louder than ours. What we have now is Republican and Republican Lite. - AIW
how can you have a poll that only has one answer, or at least two variations on "yes." are you guys taking tips from republicans, or what? (just friendly mockery, but c'mon!)
I noticed there was just enough Senators 6 Republican and 2 Democrat non-votes that would have given that 3/5 need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act if they had voted yes. Isn’t that amazing how that works out? I guess the non-vote is political cover? There are polls on the PFA going back to 2001 showing Americans agree there is unequal pay (women)for equal work (men and women).
The consistent advocate against legislative attempts to correct this unfairness in the work place has been the U.S.. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber has been attacking PFA since 2001. USCofC campaign against equality in the work place has been very successful if you look at congressional voting record.
The small sample size of polls around the country, would lead a person to believe, that the American people would like, to see something done about the earning difference between men and women in the workplace. However, the two legislative houses of government voting record does not reflect the will of the people (democratic deficit); on the other hand, The Senate and Congress voting record lines up almost exactly with the advocacy of the US Chamber of Commerce, which is a common occurrence in the US legislative branch.
Here are some links below Gallup poll, US Chamber of Commerce, The Economic/YouGov, Pew Research Center. You can find voting records on any bill at Govtrack.us
12/15/2010 YouGov
http://today.yougov.com/news/2010/12/15/taxing-and-spending-lame-duck-congress/
Gallup poll 6/13/2014
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171596/prioritize-improving-veterans-health.aspx
C-SPAN Video 4/1/2014 testifying against Paycheck Fairness Act:
http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=f5239448-5056-a032-52ba-0aa8f38ca69f
US Chamber of Commerce website 9/15/2014
https://www.uschamber.com/blog/paycheck-fairness-act-would-increase-lawsuits-erode-employer-defenses-says-us-chamber
Pew Research Center 4/8/14
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/08/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/
The problem with Thom's analysis is that doesn't take into consideration, that the Democratic Party is just as responsible for our nation state of affairs. The Democrats are just as pro business and anti-working class as the Republicans; the main difference is approach. Democrats still play to working class, the Republicans can careless.
Until there is a collective effort from the citizenry of the US, there will be no significant lasting change in the US. The Clinton and Obama administration have mirrored the Reagan administration in many ways. Not to recognize this is simply bias and denial.
Clinton and Obama at times have gone beyond what the Reagan administration could've ever dreamed of achieving during the Grippers' reign. Until commentators like Thom, whom I believe is a good man, can start to come to grips, with the collusive nature of the Democratic Party, with the wealth interest of the US, there is just going to be repeated dissappointment with the political results.
I personally don't believe there is a poltical solution, but I'm just one monkey slinging pooh; We'd need a lot more pooh slingers if we really want to make a mess of things. Thom, it's time to calibrate your pooh, and sling it at both equally corrupt parties.
I am glad to see that people are actually discussing about this issue, very well written. I must say you have guts that you write this article. And I am also writing an article relates this for those who want Custom Essays UK for achieve higher rank in their class.
Dianhow, I was never even a GOP moderate. But I feel your pain.
We all just talk about getting green but the USA has been the controversial country in this world because this land consumes more and does hard more!
David in Vegas, I beg to differ. Nothing “absurd” about explaining a connection between Ray-gun’s corrosive, anti-labor, kleptofascist policies and what we’re dealing with now, in its various forms. The senile actor is dead, but his policies live on. Quite the contrary, sir, it is YOUR explanation for the rising cost of education that is patently absurd. “Greedy leftists"?! Gimmie a break. Were our colleges and universities part of tax-supported infrastructure here, as in other countries, there would be no need for student loan programs because nobody would have to get sucked into this carnivorous debt trap just getting themselves educated. You say socialism doesn’t work when we haven’t even tried it! Meanwhile everything these privatizers touches turns to shit: education, healthcare, the internet, our "fair and balanced" media (not!)…. Need I go on? So please enlighten me: on what, exactly, do you base this stridently vacuous defense of corporate crony capitalism?! Come on, humor me. - AIW