all the world states and all the news companies merely players but what kind of parties aren t. american players are to america offer much more artsy american person. many ways to use the landscape just like the real news big new good actors bad actors and in the end you could never hear on. the park all the world's all the world's all the world's a stage we are definitely a player. little

. oh i'm tom hartman in washington d.c. and here's what's coming up tonight on the big picture conservatives are supposed to be the defenders of stability and order so how can they possibly defend donald trump's reckless threat to nuke north korea into oblivion find out. it's

a long liberal rumble with julio rivera and george landreth just a moment and for most of the twentieth century american jobs were the envy of the world today those jobs have almost entirely disappeared how did that happen who was responsible veteran business journalist rick words money later on in the program. is donald trump reckless enough to tweet or blunder us into another war it certainly seems like it lets rubble. with me for tonight's rumble our holy or a vera editorial director of reactionary times is pod cast as reactionary times t.v.'s facebook live and george landreth president of frontiers of freedom and thank you both for being with us tonight great having you so much tom pleased to

have you with us let's get started donald trump's threat to hit north korea with quote fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen was completely it turns out off the cuff according to the new york times the president improvised those remarks during a press conference that was supposed to be about the opioid crisis is aides had no idea what he was going to say ahead of time how is this possibly conservative responsible government i thought conservatives were all about order or stability predictability you know thoughtful motion forward i don't get. well you know i guess the way i really see this is for twenty five years we've tried the kind of diplomatic speak and we've negotiated we've tried to work things out and what we've we thought at different points we had an agreement where they wouldn't have nuclear weapons we've actually removed our nuclear weapons from the peninsula now they have a nuclear weapon. we've removed ours and we're kind of where we are so i don't know

that doing the same thing over and over that we've been of the last twenty five years is necessarily that good an idea i'm not sure those exact words i would have used at the same time i have a hard time being critical because at some point may be we've not communicated our displeasure either to the north koreans or the chinese of the rest of the world and perhaps this is going to get people to wake up with what is again let me get the story you're suggesting we've always been doing what we're doing right now in point of fact back in the ninety's during the clinton administration we threatened to north korea and then madeleine albright went over met with kim kim's father and negotiated a deal where we had we froze their nuclear program we absolutely froze it we had no cameras in there did not we had the i.a.e.a. in there and it didn't start up again until george w. bush made that stupid remark about the axis of evil which immediately caused a rift and north korea ok if he's going to go after you know the three of us along

with iraq the axis of evil then we damn well better get our nukes together and that's when they pulled out so you know i don't listen to tom i don't get the lodge tom first of all tom first of all we gave them two nuclear reactors and we gave them billions of dollars and that was during the clinton administration electricity enough right and look for this did you really believe that that's what they were going to use it for tom come on seriously and calling his comments off the cuff or inaccurate because in one thousand nine hundred nine in a n.b.c. interview with tim russert he had stated that that was the strategy that he would take if you was president who's the talking about to the negotiation table right stop yes i usually who is the he that you're talking about in one thousand and donald trump president trump i didn't make the remarks that he made yesterday were not off the cuff ok he had stated clearly and if anybody was actually paying attention to what donald trump has said over the years this is in line with what he saw all along. you're acting like he's making these decisions as he's going along

and no i get it and i know about his i know about his nine hundred ninety nine comments julio you know i get that but what i'm saying is the first time that we had a president make make and inappropriate remark you know say you know inappropriate north korea is part of an axis of you there's no axis between north korea yes there is there is evil there are a list. over there that are letting there if you want evil look at look at saudi arabia look at the u.a.e. you look at countries they kill people who simply show up for democracy. there is no really piers allegedly no such thing as like i don't i don't disagree with you i'm not here to defend him my point if i could finish my sentence is that the last time we threatened him and made him crazy he started building nukes and therefore i think that this time we threaten him it's just going to make him crazier and he's going to be building nukes and we have asked for you to him like a child like like some likely he's not a childish guy is a very rational accuracy of appeasement is the reason why there is this close to

striking us. well george you want to add anything to this i guess i would disagree that the cause effect seems to me that you think the axis of evil comment caused the north koreans and the i don't think that that's what that's what the north koreans and the iranians both said. and also said did they also said they don't have you know that i would say i don't know and i believe them i think i did have a nuclear program at the time i'm not sure that they were both frozen by the i.a.e.a. by the u.n. they were for the period really effective in theory but i don't believe they were i mean they've been i think they did exactly what the iranians have done which is negotiate in poor faith or in bad faith do what they want to do anyhow in order and you're reinventing history here i mean the we had camera that's what's actually happened that's the dust because that's actually in fact a laughing patient what actually if i were to have set that up again in iran if they are if we can they are living in different realities i doubt we're going to we're going to resolve this debate so you know you both put your your positions

forward i have mine we'll let the viewers decide moving along another day another assault on voting rights by the trump administration on monday the justice department filed an amicus brief in federal court for the court brief to defend voter purges in ohio these purges target inactive voters otherwise known as voters who are still registered still legal to vote but haven't cast a ballot the past few elections or didn't mail back a card that came to them monday's filing marks a major reversal from the justice department obama's justice department held a voter purges like ohio's are illegal and republicans only when if they cheat by preventing people from voting. well you know how that's a crazy way of putting it to be honest with you listen but then why do republicans keep doing this that democrats from casting votes from people like hillary clinton and barack obama if you can't respond in the in the way that it's written says that you have to respond to the notice or vote in the next two midterm elections so it's

not like they're immediately. pulling people off of the voter rolls but you if you know this is just a choir you don't care is just asking them who they are why do you care to the notification why don't you just start voting if you're leo that's fine but you can respond to the notification there are if there are dead people on the voting rolls if i'm on the voting roll in oregon and washington d.c. because i didn't tell oregon when i moved to washington d.c. what does it matter. while you've got have a forty order you can do you can do i change a national change all address i did all they are able to find these people why does it why is the republican party spending millions of dollars why did george w. bush spend seventy four million dollars and six years looking for illegal voters he found six of the listed why why does it matter this is what would have done just that it was not just an excuse it is not just an excuse that you guys are using to decrease the voting rolls because you know as as jude when in ski said back in one nine hundred eighty our leverage in the elections quite frankly goes up as the

voting populace goes down george well. my experience i was in cuyahoga county in two thousand and four and what i saw there was bus loads of people who would leave one precinct with a sheet of paper they'd been given they got on the bus. and then they would get on that bus and drive directly to another precinct not a bus that would unload and get new voters and they would then vote with another piece of paper in their hand that is allowed to happen george i don't believe it if i saw my own i call call nine one one and report them things like that every single person on that bus that you're describing is subject to two to five years in prison george understood and there's nobody doing well i remember what i saw. and i guess my point is that's possible when there are people on the rolls who everyone knows isn't voting so if you're dead they know you won't vote so no one is going to show up and actually vote your ballot if they know you've moved the same things i think

the interest is to get people off the rolls that aren't around anymore because that is you know trump won wisconsin by twenty two thousand votes and kris kobach superstate cross-check knocked two hundred thousand people off the voting rolls just before the election in wisconsin i think. both of you are asserting that there's no relationship between those two numbers. well i would argue that if you first almost states of motor voter you can register any time so if you are actually knocked off you can quickly get back on and very easily so a lot of states there's a ninety day waiting period or you can't you got to do it within a certain period of time. that's increasingly not the case but but historically they used to have sometimes even six month waiting period but now we're down to a very short waiting period sometimes just a matter of a week or so so it's not a big deal just i don't know what of all the only for you you were able to vote that are illegal immigrants so i want that why don't we want to keep our not voting who are on the rolls why do you care well you're zero i guess george because you're asserting that they actually are i think there's a blank ballot out this potential i'm not saying every one of them is being voted

but i do think it creates a target of opportunity for those who like to commit voter fraud i think that's a real nice way of saying we're going to suppress your vote and we're going to do it the equivalent of poll tax this this whole you know you've got to you've got to get yourself a passport thing and you know texas republicans are under fire for supporting a bill many say would require women to buy something akin to rape insurance the bill in question house bill two fourteen would require women to pay an extra insurance premium to cover non-emergency abortion services no exceptions for rape or incest in this absurd a woman's uterus is part of her body and should automatically be covered under any health care plan no questions asked will you listen the the percentage of women that actually get abortions based on rape or incest is a minute amount to go ahead and they have women pay a little bit extra to cover non-emergency abortions makes perfect sense it's not a free service you know if you have to pay

a little bit more to cover that service you should have to buy personally don't believe in abortions at all i don't think it should be part of the health insurance period do you think the president should be covered by insurance. no should be elective if you want to give a sec to me get a second if you don't wear a condom ok at least you're consistent george when i was a newlywed my wife and i got insurance of this high and you could pick between getting insurance for the couple or getting insurance that included. maturity coverage so ideally you would you would pick coverages that and doesn't strike me as that outrageous. but the i think the key on the statute is that says abortions that were. murdered see one so they're covered regardless i don't know exactly how you define that but basically what this is doing is extracting just normal abortions from coverage under insurance and i don't get that well it would seem that they can be covered by us none of that outlaw the right is their only

available basically to women of means poor women can't afford them that this would theoretically really the cost of insurance which would kill the many babies they say and claim her to provide them for free exactly they kill they kill be george lander thank you both for being with us tonight. thank you growing up america used to have good jobs aplenty what happened i'll ask records one after the break. to. the to.

the mission of newsworthy it is to go to the people tell their side of the story our stories are well sourced we don't hide anything from the public and i don't think the mainstream media in this country can say that i think average viewer knows that our t. america has a different perspective so that we're not hearing one echo chamber that mainstream media is constantly spewing. we're not beholden to any corporate sponsor no one tells us what to cover how long the coverage or how to say it that's the beauty of our t.v. america. we give both sides we hear from both sides and we question more that

journalists are not getting anything get in your way to bring it home to the american people. when donald trump talks about making america great again or logs on to twitter to brag about how he's boosting manufacture in the heartland he's exploiting a very real fact of american life these days over the past few decades the good jobs that for the most of the twentieth century did find what it meant to be an american have disappeared so what happened to all those good jobs and what created them in the first place joining me now is rick warren spahn director of the center for the a functioning society at claremont graduate university's drucker institute and author of the new book the end of loyalty the rise and fall of good jobs in america

rick welcome to the program. a thanks for having me great having you with us i grew up in that period when good jobs are plentiful i remember it well but can you describe it for those of members of our audience who weren't there and don't know what it was like people who were you know born after one nine hundred seventy eighty ninety whatever. yeah absolutely so my book which you mentioned the end of loyalty focuses on this period that really began right after world war two and continued on into the early one nine hundred seventy s. and it was a period where across a huge swath of the american workforce people enjoyed rising pay and ever improving benefits both health care benefits which went from pretty nonexistent in the one nine hundred forty s. to then having more than seventy percent of american workers covered with basic health care benefits which extended to their family members and you had pensions

too i mean actual pensions guaranteed once you retired for the rest of your days defined benefit plans now of course replace for the most part by for a one k's where the risk is shifted on to the shoulders of workers and their fans. please this golden age if you will does come with an important asterisk which is you know it was largely white males who saw their boats rising as the tides lifted women and people of color were in many ways excluded from the labor force to face tremendous discrimination but again this really was a golden age for a lot of the american workforce you know what are. you know that conventional wisdom is or at least that could be a conservative story about it i suppose is that this is just all the natural result of world war two destroying the manufacturing infrastructure of other countries that might compete with us and yet you know and and huge pent up aggregate demand from years of warfare when we were buying things does it go beyond that. it does i

mean those are certainly factors and it was an extraordinary time and many historians think a unique time for the reasons that you said we pretty much glue bombed our global competition out of existence or at least to its knees and american big american companies therefore produced an inordinate amount of the world's goods and shipped them all all across the globe so that was certainly an element of it you also had all the servicemen who were turned home and created the baby boom created this really the cements consumer culture in america that just exploded during the one nine hundred fifty s. and sixty's so those were all factors and again kind of unique for their time but there was also something else and all my research really brought this out to me big corporate executives back through that period the forty's and fifty's and sixty's

they had a real stakeholder mindset and what i mean by that is they talked very explicitly about balancing the interests of all their constituencies if you will so their shareholders to be sure but also their workers their customers the communities they operated in they even bragged about how much they paid in taxes and did their part to contribute to the state and its coffers now of course most companies brag about how much they've successfully shielded from the tax collector by offshoring money which helps their stock go up and and that's really it there has been a shift beginning kind of in the mid seventy's and then very much accelerating through the eighty's and ninety's into today from the stakeholder model to a different corporate ethic a different corporate culture which is all about maximizing shareholder value and when you put shareholders first it's math it's a matter of math the pie gets carved up differently and workers labor just doesn't

do is oil. right and that's absolute happen you know i still remember i would well remember in the one nine hundred sixty s. and seventy's if a company was starting to do layoffs their stock would fall people would say oh my god something's wrong and now yes lay people off their stock goes up you know oh they're shutting expenses your book focuses on four companies general motors general electric kodak and coca-cola why those four companies and what is common and what is unique among the fore. yeah so it's a great question i focused on the four large i write narrative history it's driven by character and scene and so i was looking for a way to tell this larger story through the lens and i've written i was going to do it as one company actually spent some time looking at hewlett packard which also would have illustrated these larger themes very well my publisher i think very wisely said it's going to end up being

a packard book if you if you do it even if you have these bigger things going on and so i needed a device that would allow me to weave in and out of multiple companies and these four that you mention g.e. g.m. kodak and coca-cola were all instrumental in the founding of an organization called the committee for economic development which was started in the late one nine hundred forty two while world war two was still going on but these business leaders were beginning to plan for peace and they were very concerned that if they didn't provide good jobs with good job security and rising pay and good benefits that all these returning servicemen might come home and there be bread lines again in america they worried about another depression setting in perhaps even worse than what unfolded in the one nine hundred thirty s. and so they set out to plan for peace provide these good jobs and in their minds that was one way to keep communism and socialism from taking root on american soil

so i then weave in and out of these four companies over over this seventy year arc . all of them are you know different in that you know some like g.m. especially and to a great degree there are a lot of its history were heavily unionized and unions organized labor played it played a huge part in forging the social contract early on in this period not only for those carrying union cards but there was a tremendous spillover effect that lifted wages and benefits for those across the economy. you had a company like kodak which. was never unionized actually offered great pay and perks and kept the unions at bay that way the interesting thing though is you have two that have been largely successful over this whole span in coca-cola and general electric they've had their ups and downs but have done remarkably well you have to that falter to the point that they both filed for bankruptcy in general motors and kodak but for their workers the story is the same it doesn't matter way whether

they were with the two by and large successful companies or with the two that failed their workers have seen in each case failing job security declining pay for those on the front lines maybe stagnant pay but in many cases they went to two tier wage structures with new hires getting paid at historically very low levels faltering retirement security and eroding health care benefits so it didn't matter whether you're with one of the winners or the losers for the workers the story has been the same prior to the reagan administration my understanding and please reality check this for me but my understanding is that it was very difficult to compensate senior executives whose stock options because of the way the tax code was structured and as a result of that you know most in fact most c.e.o.'s have been with their companies more than thirty years in one nine hundred eighty in that year and and you know most of their compensation was straight salary it was it was pay and bonuses and when when the reagan administration or when congress changed the laws so that

senior executives could be stuck compensated with stock options which by the way are taxed at twenty percent rather than thirty nine percent you know a much lower tax rate as capital gains suddenly their thinking became that of an owner rather than being somebody who's concerned about the institution itself the company the community the customers or the workers the constituents as you talked about is it is it possible that something that simple simply shape changing how we compensate. senior corporate executives could have created this this disaster where corporations basically don't give a damn about their employees anymore their community anymore they don't care what kind of crap they're selling to their customers and they seem not to care even about the institution of the company they'll tear it up sell it off break it up is that it is impossible that small a change made that big a change in corporate behavior. overall for sure and there were some important tax

law changes in the ninety's it was as well that excel aerated this idea that no one in the business community is pay for performance but you know by and large right what happened is that c.e.o. compensation c.e.o. pay got linked very explicitly to this idea of maximizing shareholder value over start over came in stock price it became in the c.e.o.'s personal interest to jack up the stock price often in the short term as a way to enrich themselves and more and more acted accordingly i mean they were incentivized to do so and so you know when you do that suddenly everything you know begins to look like a cost right employees begin to look like an avoidable expense they no longer look like something you invest in through higher compensation and through increased

training and skills development and things like that and the story is is you can just look at the math i mean it absolutely happened i look i don't want to paint too broad a brush there are many corporate leaders that don't behave this way but if you if you look across what happened c.e.o. pay in real terms apples to apples inflation adjusted terms held remarkably steady from the one nine hundred thirty s. all the way up to the one nine hundred seventy s. big company c.e.o.'s made on average about a million dollars a year and it was just a steady line and then beginning in the one nine hundred eighty s. when as you say tax law changed and this maximizing shareholder value ethos kicked in that doubled to two million dollars on average it doubled again in the ninety's to four million dollars and today depending on how you measure stock options were somewhere between thirteen and sixteen million dollars on average right and then you've got our wires like stephen jay him silly united health care has taken over a billion dollars and the guy before him you know dollar bill mcguire the same deal

it's. it's pretty remarkable we just have a few seconds left but do you see anybody pushing back against these you know let's let's take the tax code back to where it was we just have fifteen seconds. yeah i do i mean there's definitely a movement the aspen institute is doing some interesting work around this we at the drucker institute are are pushing on these fronts and there is definitely a push to look at some broader social metrics how companies treat their people and the planet and not just focus on short term share price and quarterly earnings so there is some definite pushback are there for courts or it's one thanks so much and thanks for writing a brilliant book. thank you and that's the way it is tonight and don't forget democracy is not a spectator sport get out there get active tell your. all

the world's. you know the news companies merely players but what kind of partners are into america are to america. america in the. many ways. just like the. you know real news fake news good actors that act

and in the end you could never hear on. so much parking all around the world all the world's a stage and we are definitely a player. i do not know if the russian state packed into john podesta e-mails and gave them to wiki leaks but i do know barack obama's director of national intelligence has not provided. to support his claims. i also know he self in a senate hearing three months before the revelations provided by edward snowden he denied the n.s.a. was carrying out wholesale surveillance of the us. the hyperventilating corporate media has once again proved to be an echo for government claims that cannot be verified you would have thought they would have learned something after serving as george w. bush's useful idiots in the lead up to the invasion of iraq. it is vitally important

that the press remains rooted in a fact based universe especially when we enter an era when truth and fiction are becoming indistinguishable. on the news the united states edges closer than ever to war with north korea former congressman alan grayson joins us for the conversation and reports emerged the f.b.i. raided home and took documents relating to the trump campaign's connections to russia and daniel hawkins reports from iraq tonight all the latest in the investigation into the blackwater firm's baghdad massacre. reporting tonight from washington d.c. this is the news on r.t. america.

good evening friends we start tonight with the entire world focused on president trump's comments on north korea and the political fallout here in the united states the president stirred the entire political arena threatening to bring fire and fury to north korea the congressional reaction has been mixed although the president has an understanding of some in the senate about what the country is actually facing put yourself in president trump shoes for a moment where does your allegiance slide is it isn't your primary purpose is present states to protect the american homeland from a nuclear weapon attack by a guy like kim jong boom my belief is that we're headed that way unless the world can stop north korea he's going to pick loam land defense over regional stability and he has to. redstone see it that way senate minority leader chuck schumer says the president's comments and method are reckless.