Thursday, February 13, 2014
The Plain Truth: Obama’s Latest Con, a Massive Ponzi Scheme?
The Plain Truth: Obama’s Latest Con, a Massive Ponzi Scheme?: With much fanfare, Barack Obama recently announced his plan to solve the retirement crisis: a new savings vehicle called the MyRA. But on...
Obama’s Latest Con, a Massive Ponzi Scheme?
With much fanfare, Barack Obama recently announced his plan to solve
the retirement crisis: a new savings vehicle called the MyRA.
But one look under the hood shows that MyRA is about as likely to solve the retirement crisis as Obamacare was to solve the healthcare crisis.
You see, MyRA is actually another fraudulent scheme to transfer wealth from the young to the government. These long-suffering youths already pay hefty payroll taxes to fund social security as well as oversized health insurance premiums to subsidize middle-aged buyers.
On top of that, many young people are burdened with student loans, which mostly fund the extravagant lifestyles of older professors – many of whom teach less than three hours a week. In fact, between state, local and national taxes, young people pay some of the highest taxes in the world – and politicians in D.C. wonder why these youths still live with their parents!
The younger generation is slipping into poverty, and the reason is simple: They’ve been fleeced by politicians, stripped of nearly every last cent and left with no money to save.
Young Americans Left for Dead
So now, the exalted leader of the United States, his highness Barack Obama, has a grand plan to fix the problem (which was caused by his socialist U.S. government in the first place).
Young people aren’t saving, Obama says, so let’s create a scheme that puts their money into U.S. government bonds! And in his infinite benevolence, Obama will insure the whole scheme so that nobody loses a dime.
This sounds good to the average saver, because he or she has probably been abused by Wall Street. In fact, many people are still looking at IRA and brokerage balances destroyed by the financial crisis.
And the MyRA couldn’t be simpler, as it boasts just one investment choice: a Treasury bond fund stuffed with U.S. Treasury bonds. While account holders allegedly can’t lose money on this investment, I’d argue that they’re likely losing every month as the value of their currency is inflated away. Just look at 2012, when the fund returned a miserly 1.47% and inflation more than doubled that at 3%.
Anyone who invests in Treasury bonds will tell you that they absolutely can lose money. When interest rates go up, the value of an outstanding bond with a lower coupon goes down in value. When interest rates go down, the value of outstanding bonds with a higher coupon go up in value. The only way that you don’t lose is to hold the bond to maturity, and by then you’ve likely lost to inflation.
Therefore, even when you get paid a return on these bonds, the currency you get back in retirement will be worth substantially less than the currency that you put into the account. This is no way to save for retirement, unless you plan to live on food stamps in a government housing project.
The Government’s Last-Ditch Effort
So why would Obama tout his new savings plan as a grand solution to the retirement crisis?
Here’s a little secret: The Federal Reserve is insolvent. The U.S. government is insolvent. Truth be told, the whole MyRA scheme is about getting unsuspecting people to invest in something that they don’t understand.
And the government is desperate to find new investors. You see, our politicians are currently spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Hong Kong. The budget hasn’t been balanced in years, and instead, the government has issued debt to cover the unpaid balance.
Obama and the politicians always want more money, and the only place left to turn is your wallet. The MyRA is one scheme that they can use to covertly fleece the unsuspecting masses. Buy in at your own risk!
But one look under the hood shows that MyRA is about as likely to solve the retirement crisis as Obamacare was to solve the healthcare crisis.
You see, MyRA is actually another fraudulent scheme to transfer wealth from the young to the government. These long-suffering youths already pay hefty payroll taxes to fund social security as well as oversized health insurance premiums to subsidize middle-aged buyers.
On top of that, many young people are burdened with student loans, which mostly fund the extravagant lifestyles of older professors – many of whom teach less than three hours a week. In fact, between state, local and national taxes, young people pay some of the highest taxes in the world – and politicians in D.C. wonder why these youths still live with their parents!
The younger generation is slipping into poverty, and the reason is simple: They’ve been fleeced by politicians, stripped of nearly every last cent and left with no money to save.
Young Americans Left for Dead
So now, the exalted leader of the United States, his highness Barack Obama, has a grand plan to fix the problem (which was caused by his socialist U.S. government in the first place).
Young people aren’t saving, Obama says, so let’s create a scheme that puts their money into U.S. government bonds! And in his infinite benevolence, Obama will insure the whole scheme so that nobody loses a dime.
This sounds good to the average saver, because he or she has probably been abused by Wall Street. In fact, many people are still looking at IRA and brokerage balances destroyed by the financial crisis.
And the MyRA couldn’t be simpler, as it boasts just one investment choice: a Treasury bond fund stuffed with U.S. Treasury bonds. While account holders allegedly can’t lose money on this investment, I’d argue that they’re likely losing every month as the value of their currency is inflated away. Just look at 2012, when the fund returned a miserly 1.47% and inflation more than doubled that at 3%.
Anyone who invests in Treasury bonds will tell you that they absolutely can lose money. When interest rates go up, the value of an outstanding bond with a lower coupon goes down in value. When interest rates go down, the value of outstanding bonds with a higher coupon go up in value. The only way that you don’t lose is to hold the bond to maturity, and by then you’ve likely lost to inflation.
Therefore, even when you get paid a return on these bonds, the currency you get back in retirement will be worth substantially less than the currency that you put into the account. This is no way to save for retirement, unless you plan to live on food stamps in a government housing project.
The Government’s Last-Ditch Effort
So why would Obama tout his new savings plan as a grand solution to the retirement crisis?
Here’s a little secret: The Federal Reserve is insolvent. The U.S. government is insolvent. Truth be told, the whole MyRA scheme is about getting unsuspecting people to invest in something that they don’t understand.
And the government is desperate to find new investors. You see, our politicians are currently spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave in Hong Kong. The budget hasn’t been balanced in years, and instead, the government has issued debt to cover the unpaid balance.
Obama and the politicians always want more money, and the only place left to turn is your wallet. The MyRA is one scheme that they can use to covertly fleece the unsuspecting masses. Buy in at your own risk!
Sunday, February 2, 2014
The Plain Truth: A “Genetically Altered” Nightmare for American Con...
The Plain Truth: A “Genetically Altered” Nightmare for American Con...: On January 2, General Mills (GIS) announced that it would stop using any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in its most popular brand,...
A “Genetically Altered” Nightmare for American Consumers!
On January 2, General Mills (GIS) announced that it would stop using any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in its most popular brand, Cheerios.
The change has been heralded as a major victory by anti-GMO and food activist groups, such as Food Democracy Now and GMO Free USA. But it left me wondering: What exactly have they “won,” and ultimately, what are they fighting for?
It’s easy to see why activists are so thrilled with General Mills’ decision. Cheerios is one of the most ubiquitous brands in America. Better yet, the move to eliminate GMOs from the breakfast cereal seems to imply that General Mills has the consumer’s best interest at heart.
Makes you feel all fuzzy inside, doesn’t it?
But even a cursory look at statements from General Mills’ spokesman, Tom Forsythe, quickly dispels that heartwarming illusion…
“It’s not much of a change at all,” Tom wrote in a posting on the company website.
And he’s right – it’s not.
You see, Cheerios are made of oats, and there are no genetically modified oats. All General Mills has done is use different corn starch (now made from non-GMO corn) and different sugar (non-GMO pure cane sugar).
Tom added: “It’s not about safety. Biotech seeds, also known as genetically modified seeds, have been approved by global food safety agencies and widely used by farmers in global food crops for almost 20 years.”
All true. Genetically modified seeds are FDA approved and have been in use for decades. In fact, 90% of commodity crops in America (including soy beans, corn and sugar beets) are grown from genetically modified seeds, according to National Geographic.
So why did General Mills feel the need to acquiesce?
“We did it because we think consumers might embrace it,” says Mr. Forsythe.
Or, more accurately, because the company thought its bottom line might suffer if it didn’t make the change. Meanwhile, General Mills has no plans to remove GMOs from any other line of cereal because it would be “difficult, if not impossible,” according to a recent statement from the company.
The Biggest Loser
So let’s tally up the points here. Non-GMO advocates have scored a major win because a national brand has ostensibly turned its back on biotech seeds. And General Mills has protected its bottom line while making nothing more than trivial changes.
That leaves us with the loser, which in this case is science. Oh, and the nearly 900 million people around the world suffering from undernourishment (according to the World Hunger Education Service).
You see, the shortsighted and ignorant push to eliminate GMOs from food does come with a cost. It casts an ominous shadow on a technology that doesn’t deserve quite so much vitriol, and it hampers progress toward stemming third-world hunger.
It’s unfortunate that all of the recent press about GMOs ignores their numerous benefits. According to UC Santa Cruz, these benefits include greatly increased crop yields, foods with more complete nutritional value, foods with a longer shelf life for easier shipping and, ultimately, the promise of more sustainable agriculture worldwide.
Food activists will be quick to point out that there are concerns over testing (or a lack thereof). Do we really know that GMOs produce food that’s safe for consumption? At this point, the majority of the research (including a majority of independent critical reviews) says that GMOs are harmless.
In fact, Jon Entine, a Forbes contributor, writes that, “Every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research about GMOs and openly declared crop biotechnology and the foods currently available for sale to be safe.”
It’s that kind of information that gives the anti-GMO movement the same self-righteous stink as, say, the Occupy Wall Street movement (body odor not withstanding).
Considering we live in a world where a child dies every two seconds from hunger, should anyone really be concerned about the GMO corn starch in his or her Cheerios? As Always The Plain Truth!
The change has been heralded as a major victory by anti-GMO and food activist groups, such as Food Democracy Now and GMO Free USA. But it left me wondering: What exactly have they “won,” and ultimately, what are they fighting for?
It’s easy to see why activists are so thrilled with General Mills’ decision. Cheerios is one of the most ubiquitous brands in America. Better yet, the move to eliminate GMOs from the breakfast cereal seems to imply that General Mills has the consumer’s best interest at heart.
Makes you feel all fuzzy inside, doesn’t it?
But even a cursory look at statements from General Mills’ spokesman, Tom Forsythe, quickly dispels that heartwarming illusion…
“It’s not much of a change at all,” Tom wrote in a posting on the company website.
And he’s right – it’s not.
You see, Cheerios are made of oats, and there are no genetically modified oats. All General Mills has done is use different corn starch (now made from non-GMO corn) and different sugar (non-GMO pure cane sugar).
Tom added: “It’s not about safety. Biotech seeds, also known as genetically modified seeds, have been approved by global food safety agencies and widely used by farmers in global food crops for almost 20 years.”
All true. Genetically modified seeds are FDA approved and have been in use for decades. In fact, 90% of commodity crops in America (including soy beans, corn and sugar beets) are grown from genetically modified seeds, according to National Geographic.
So why did General Mills feel the need to acquiesce?
“We did it because we think consumers might embrace it,” says Mr. Forsythe.
Or, more accurately, because the company thought its bottom line might suffer if it didn’t make the change. Meanwhile, General Mills has no plans to remove GMOs from any other line of cereal because it would be “difficult, if not impossible,” according to a recent statement from the company.
The Biggest Loser
So let’s tally up the points here. Non-GMO advocates have scored a major win because a national brand has ostensibly turned its back on biotech seeds. And General Mills has protected its bottom line while making nothing more than trivial changes.
That leaves us with the loser, which in this case is science. Oh, and the nearly 900 million people around the world suffering from undernourishment (according to the World Hunger Education Service).
You see, the shortsighted and ignorant push to eliminate GMOs from food does come with a cost. It casts an ominous shadow on a technology that doesn’t deserve quite so much vitriol, and it hampers progress toward stemming third-world hunger.
It’s unfortunate that all of the recent press about GMOs ignores their numerous benefits. According to UC Santa Cruz, these benefits include greatly increased crop yields, foods with more complete nutritional value, foods with a longer shelf life for easier shipping and, ultimately, the promise of more sustainable agriculture worldwide.
Food activists will be quick to point out that there are concerns over testing (or a lack thereof). Do we really know that GMOs produce food that’s safe for consumption? At this point, the majority of the research (including a majority of independent critical reviews) says that GMOs are harmless.
In fact, Jon Entine, a Forbes contributor, writes that, “Every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research about GMOs and openly declared crop biotechnology and the foods currently available for sale to be safe.”
It’s that kind of information that gives the anti-GMO movement the same self-righteous stink as, say, the Occupy Wall Street movement (body odor not withstanding).
Considering we live in a world where a child dies every two seconds from hunger, should anyone really be concerned about the GMO corn starch in his or her Cheerios? As Always The Plain Truth!
Sunday, January 26, 2014
The Plain Truth: Rogue Agency Seizes Control of the Peoples Interne...
The Plain Truth: Rogue Agency Seizes Control of the Peoples Interne...: You’ve probably heard the words “net neutrality” being tossed around a lot lately. That’s because on January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals...
Rogue Agency Seizes Control of the Peoples Internet!
You’ve probably heard the words “net neutrality” being tossed around a lot lately.
That’s because on January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Order, which protected net neutrality by regulating the nation’s broadband infrastructure.
The court’s ruling appeared to be the coup de grâce for the FCC, which has been fighting to regulate the internet for over 10 years.
But as it turns out, the opposite may be true. By calling out the FCC for overstepping its bounds, the court may have actually opened the door for the FCC to completely control the internet.
Worst of all, no one’s talking about it! The mainstream media is focused on the slight (but real) possibility that consumers may have to pay a little more to use services like Netflix (NFLX). And don’t get me wrong – that’s a distressing thought.
But there’s far more at stake than the price of streaming video.
Conveniently Rewriting the Rules
The FCC’s fight to regulate the internet can be traced to 2002, when the Commission classified internet service providers (ISPs) as “information service providers” and not “telecommunications carriers.”
Since then, however, the FCC has continued forcing ISPs to follow the same rules that apply to telecoms (with varying degrees of success). And now, for the first time, the court has said definitively that the FCC can’t do that.
But that’s not the whole story…
You see, in 2008, the FCC quietly reinterpreted Section 706 of the Communications Act. Sounds pretty harmless, right? But the updated version acts as a broad grant of authority for pretty much whatever the FCC wants to do.
And on January 14, when the court struck down the Open Internet Order, it also accepted the reinterpreted Section 706.
Basically, the court told the FCC: You can’t broadly regulate ISPs like telecoms, but don’t sweat it! On a case-by-case basis, you can do virtually anything you want.
As Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne said in Wired, “The FCC now has vast discretion, and seems unwilling to give that up.”
On top of that, Judge Silberman, who ruled in the Open Internet Order case, called any remaining limitations on the FCC “illusory.” In his dissent, he said that Section 706 “grant[s] the FCC virtually unlimited power to regulate the internet.”
Could the FCC Control Your Entire Life?
Giving sweeping power to a federal agency is never a good idea, and the FCC is no exception. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has long supported net neutrality, says the ruling could be a “Trojan Horse for unrestrained FCC authority to regulate the internet.”
In fact, it’s unclear why the FCC couldn’t regulate any information services, so long as it has a plausible argument that it’s boosting broadband demand. Could the FCC then rule over VoIP as well as broadband? What about smart cars? Or even entire smart cities?
It’s a scary thought, and everyone – from net neutrality advocates to venture capitalists, broadband innovators and even ISPs like Verizon (VZ) and Comcast (CCV) – should be worried.
An open internet is essential to our very way of life, from education to freedom of speech to economic growth. Handing the government the keys to common law regulation allows the FCC to wage a piecemeal campaign that slowly but surely tightens the grip of federal regulation, and that’s no good for anyone. As Always The Plain Truth!
That’s because on January 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Order, which protected net neutrality by regulating the nation’s broadband infrastructure.
The court’s ruling appeared to be the coup de grâce for the FCC, which has been fighting to regulate the internet for over 10 years.
But as it turns out, the opposite may be true. By calling out the FCC for overstepping its bounds, the court may have actually opened the door for the FCC to completely control the internet.
Worst of all, no one’s talking about it! The mainstream media is focused on the slight (but real) possibility that consumers may have to pay a little more to use services like Netflix (NFLX). And don’t get me wrong – that’s a distressing thought.
But there’s far more at stake than the price of streaming video.
Conveniently Rewriting the Rules
The FCC’s fight to regulate the internet can be traced to 2002, when the Commission classified internet service providers (ISPs) as “information service providers” and not “telecommunications carriers.”
Since then, however, the FCC has continued forcing ISPs to follow the same rules that apply to telecoms (with varying degrees of success). And now, for the first time, the court has said definitively that the FCC can’t do that.
But that’s not the whole story…
You see, in 2008, the FCC quietly reinterpreted Section 706 of the Communications Act. Sounds pretty harmless, right? But the updated version acts as a broad grant of authority for pretty much whatever the FCC wants to do.
And on January 14, when the court struck down the Open Internet Order, it also accepted the reinterpreted Section 706.
Basically, the court told the FCC: You can’t broadly regulate ISPs like telecoms, but don’t sweat it! On a case-by-case basis, you can do virtually anything you want.
As Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne said in Wired, “The FCC now has vast discretion, and seems unwilling to give that up.”
On top of that, Judge Silberman, who ruled in the Open Internet Order case, called any remaining limitations on the FCC “illusory.” In his dissent, he said that Section 706 “grant[s] the FCC virtually unlimited power to regulate the internet.”
Could the FCC Control Your Entire Life?
Giving sweeping power to a federal agency is never a good idea, and the FCC is no exception. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has long supported net neutrality, says the ruling could be a “Trojan Horse for unrestrained FCC authority to regulate the internet.”
In fact, it’s unclear why the FCC couldn’t regulate any information services, so long as it has a plausible argument that it’s boosting broadband demand. Could the FCC then rule over VoIP as well as broadband? What about smart cars? Or even entire smart cities?
It’s a scary thought, and everyone – from net neutrality advocates to venture capitalists, broadband innovators and even ISPs like Verizon (VZ) and Comcast (CCV) – should be worried.
An open internet is essential to our very way of life, from education to freedom of speech to economic growth. Handing the government the keys to common law regulation allows the FCC to wage a piecemeal campaign that slowly but surely tightens the grip of federal regulation, and that’s no good for anyone. As Always The Plain Truth!
Sunday, January 12, 2014
The Plain Truth: The FDA Wants To Control How You Bathe!
The Plain Truth: The FDA Wants To Control How You Bathe!: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is at it again. As you’ve seen before, this government agency has the ability to make or break m...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)