OK, I can get alone with true conservatives since I share some of their values. But the US isn't conservative, or Christian, as David Brooks points out. I agree with him when he says, "A key factor of the educated elite is not that they are pro-conservative, they are anti-left. (@5 :00)". Ths pretty much explains the differences.
Showing posts with label Right Wing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Right Wing. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 25, 2025
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Politifact FAILS the Right Wing Claim
"every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown"
Share this story:
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
"Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."
Joe Walsh on Sunday, April 17th, 2011 in an interview on "This Week with Christiane Amanpour"Rep. Joe Walsh said that every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown
Members of the tea party movement like to say the "tea" stands for "taxed enough already." Several House members on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour said they stand by that sentiment, even if tax increases could more quickly balance the budget.
Amanpour asked if it was realistic to oppose tax increases while also calling for a balanced budget. "Can you really sustain what everybody is calling for, just by cuts in public services? Doesn't there need to be revenue-raising mechanisms?" she asked.
"Christiane, you raise revenue by growing the economy," said Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill, one of several new House members elected with tea party support. "And everything this president has done the last two years has gone against that. You get taxes and regulations off the backs of businesses so that revenues can increase."
"I know that that is your position," Amanpour said. "But there's so much evidence, even going back to Ronald Reagan, where he did tax cuts and in fact the debt increased, and then he had to make tax increases. I mean, can you really cut public spending by that amount and just expect to balance the budget?"
Walsh answered, "In the '80s, government revenues went up. We didn't cut spending. Revenues went up in the '80s. Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."
We decided to check out Walsh’s claim that "Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."
We should first note that on its face, Walsh’s statement is not accurate. The White House Office of Budget and Management publishes detailed tables of government collections of income taxes. There was a small dip in 1983, after President Ronald Reagan signed off on a tax cut in 1981, though tax revenues increased the next year and all through the 1980s. More significantly, income tax revenues fell in 2001, 2002 and 2003, as President George W. Bush successfully pursued tax cuts.
We contacted Walsh’s office, and his staff told us that the Bush tax cuts didn’t reach their full impact until 2003 (when the top rate decreased to 35 percent, where it now stands), and that tax revenues increased after that.
"The pickup in economic growth, and the strong growth in revenues, coincides fairly neatly with the 2003 tax cut," said spokesperson Elizabeth Lauton via e-mail.
But the question of rising revenue is more complicated than that. For one thing, economists expect tax revenues to go up each year due to economic growth, population growth and inflation, even if tax rates stay the same. So saying "revenues have gone up" isn’t particularly meaningful in that context.
Given that, it would be more significant to be able to say what effect tax changes have on the overall economy. But this isn’t easy, because so many things affect the economy more than the federal tax code. What this means is that you can raise taxes during a bad economy and get less revenue, or you can cut taxes during a time of economic growth and get more revenue.
Those changes to revenue generally aren't caused by the tax rates at all, but by other changes in the broader economy. President Bill Clinton, for example, raised taxes in 1993, and the economy expanded for much of the 1990s and tax revenue went up.
"There's no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship."
Additionally, a 2006 report from the U.S. Treasury Department concluded the effect of most tax laws on the wider economy were "uncertain, but probably generally small."
Previously, we’ve rated statements that tax increases lowered revenues, and we’ve found that False. Walsh’s statement stops short of such a claim, but it does leave the impression that tax cuts could help the budget picture, and that’s problematic.
The 2006 Treasury report sought to document the revenue effects of every major tax law passed since 1940. To compare the different laws, it examined tax revenues as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, a measurement that accounts for economic growth and inflation.
The report found that laws that lowered taxes produced declines in revenues, and that laws that increased taxes produced increases in tax revenues. This undermines claims that tax cuts can actually increase government revenues more than they would have increased otherwise.
We’re examining Walsh’s statement, "Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown." He said "every time," and that’s not the case. Revenues did not go up in 2001, 2002 or 2003, after tax rates were lowered. We also find it problematic to make hard claims about tax cuts growing the economy enough to increase tax revenues and helping balance the budget. Overall, we rate Walsh’s statement False.
Amanpour asked if it was realistic to oppose tax increases while also calling for a balanced budget. "Can you really sustain what everybody is calling for, just by cuts in public services? Doesn't there need to be revenue-raising mechanisms?" she asked.
"Christiane, you raise revenue by growing the economy," said Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill, one of several new House members elected with tea party support. "And everything this president has done the last two years has gone against that. You get taxes and regulations off the backs of businesses so that revenues can increase."
"I know that that is your position," Amanpour said. "But there's so much evidence, even going back to Ronald Reagan, where he did tax cuts and in fact the debt increased, and then he had to make tax increases. I mean, can you really cut public spending by that amount and just expect to balance the budget?"
Walsh answered, "In the '80s, government revenues went up. We didn't cut spending. Revenues went up in the '80s. Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."
We decided to check out Walsh’s claim that "Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."
We should first note that on its face, Walsh’s statement is not accurate. The White House Office of Budget and Management publishes detailed tables of government collections of income taxes. There was a small dip in 1983, after President Ronald Reagan signed off on a tax cut in 1981, though tax revenues increased the next year and all through the 1980s. More significantly, income tax revenues fell in 2001, 2002 and 2003, as President George W. Bush successfully pursued tax cuts.
We contacted Walsh’s office, and his staff told us that the Bush tax cuts didn’t reach their full impact until 2003 (when the top rate decreased to 35 percent, where it now stands), and that tax revenues increased after that.
"The pickup in economic growth, and the strong growth in revenues, coincides fairly neatly with the 2003 tax cut," said spokesperson Elizabeth Lauton via e-mail.
But the question of rising revenue is more complicated than that. For one thing, economists expect tax revenues to go up each year due to economic growth, population growth and inflation, even if tax rates stay the same. So saying "revenues have gone up" isn’t particularly meaningful in that context.
Given that, it would be more significant to be able to say what effect tax changes have on the overall economy. But this isn’t easy, because so many things affect the economy more than the federal tax code. What this means is that you can raise taxes during a bad economy and get less revenue, or you can cut taxes during a time of economic growth and get more revenue.
Those changes to revenue generally aren't caused by the tax rates at all, but by other changes in the broader economy. President Bill Clinton, for example, raised taxes in 1993, and the economy expanded for much of the 1990s and tax revenue went up.
"There's no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship."
Additionally, a 2006 report from the U.S. Treasury Department concluded the effect of most tax laws on the wider economy were "uncertain, but probably generally small."
Previously, we’ve rated statements that tax increases lowered revenues, and we’ve found that False. Walsh’s statement stops short of such a claim, but it does leave the impression that tax cuts could help the budget picture, and that’s problematic.
The 2006 Treasury report sought to document the revenue effects of every major tax law passed since 1940. To compare the different laws, it examined tax revenues as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, a measurement that accounts for economic growth and inflation.
The report found that laws that lowered taxes produced declines in revenues, and that laws that increased taxes produced increases in tax revenues. This undermines claims that tax cuts can actually increase government revenues more than they would have increased otherwise.
We’re examining Walsh’s statement, "Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown." He said "every time," and that’s not the case. Revenues did not go up in 2001, 2002 or 2003, after tax rates were lowered. We also find it problematic to make hard claims about tax cuts growing the economy enough to increase tax revenues and helping balance the budget. Overall, we rate Walsh’s statement False.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Another Worthwhile Clip from Jon Stewart
I gave the television a standing ovation for this one; I think Stewart encapsulated the right wing circus of debates and gaffes and insanity perfectly. The right doesn't know what it wants, what it THINKS it wants is out of step with the country - AND THIS CENTURY - and it is NUTS.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2012 - The Great Right Hope - The Ideal Candidate | ||||
| ||||
Monday, November 15, 2010
Cold Political Calculation
George Bush recently made the rounds promoting his new book, "Decision Points." In this book he (apparently) talks about his second-thoughts and moral tugs-of-war over things like the invasion of Iraq, water-boarding, and the financial collapse of 2007-2008 (and on into 2009).
On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).
On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.
In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.
On water-boarding, he says he approved the decision, responding "Damn right" to the question of whether he approved it directly. Ironically, it's the same line fictional Colonel Nathan R Jessup used in "A Few Good Men." discussing whether he approved a "code red" to beat a soldier (unintionally causing his death).
On the question of the financial collapse, Mr. Bush replied that he was "totally blindsided." He went on to suggest that if Congress had passed his reforms for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the problems might have been avoided.
In both cases, I am reminded why this man was so manifestly and absolutely repudiated in 2006 and 2008. I am also reminded why eight years of colossal mismanagement and political deceit isn't easily undone in twenty months. Bush came across as he always has, saccharin, fake and clearly politically calculated in every reply.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Right Words
"If words are to enter men's minds and bear fruit, they must be the right words shaped cunningly to pass men's defenses and explode silently and effectually within their minds."
- J. B. Phillips
British Biblical translator, writer, clergyman
1906 - 1982
"In a sense, words are encyclopedias of ignorance because they freeze perceptions at one moment in history and then insist we continue to use these frozen perceptions when we should be doing better."
- Edward de Bono
Maltese physician, inventor, professor, author and consultant; originator of the concept of lateral thinking
1933
"Deception is a cruel act... It often has many players on different stages that corrode the soul."
~ Donna A. Favors
On Thursday evening March 4th comedic genius Stephen Colbert presented an especially cogent mini 'Tip of the Hat' segment on the Colbert Report in which he demonstrated the kind of extreme editing and outright fakery used by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles in creating the false and misleading 'ACORN' sting videos. That it also made fun of the folly of Sean Hannity of Fox News on Hannity's own set added to the effectiveness of the send up, while emphasizing the underlying truth of Colbert's criticism of both O'Keefe and Hannity.
www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/265498/march-04-2010/tip-wag---james-o-keefe---sean-hannity
Saturday evening, March 6th, at the California Republican Assembly Convention, an event that the late President Ronald Reagan called "the conscience of the Republican Party", James O'Keefe and his partner in crime, Hannah Giles, were to be presented with the Ronald Reagan Freedom Fighter Award for their videotape 'stings' of ACORN. This can reasonably be construed as a 'right wing' gala event, the 'right' of the title of this essay 'Right Words', which is all about wrong words, lies, deceptions, fraud and misrepresentations.
So, why reward O'Keefe and Giles, not only with this award, but with wider spread right wing adoration?
For the same reason that so many other right wing prominent political figures have come out against ACORN. They hate ACORN for having been effective in registering voters from lower income and disadvantaged areas who vote largely Democratic, and for the support of associated causes.
The criticism of ACORN for a number of problems, both with internal issues including embezzlement of funds, and with a very small percentage of their voter registration drives, criticism by both the left and the right, is well deserved. Some of the ACORN voter registration drive efforts were badly supervised, and I personally have a serious objection to funds going to an organization that has a past of covering up embezzlement. But I don't believe that ACORN has been proven to have altered the outcome of elections, or many of the other claims against it.
Overall, about 5 to 7% of ACORN's voter registrations have had to be further checked, with about 1% actually being rejected as either duplicate or false. That percentage is higher than the success rate for other voter registration groups, but not excessively so. Those 'bad' voter registrations are caught through the various cross referencing methods used to validate the voter registration data base in every state. Anyone who wants to know exactly what the validation methods are in their state can determine that with a quick phone call or email to their own state administration for that data base. It is a matter of public record, and I encourage people to make their own inquiries.
The RNC has sent out many fund raising solicitations over the signature of chair Michael Steele, both by email and snail mail, incorrectly claiming voter fraud, not just voter registration fraud or failures by ACORN. The RNC and a number of prominent conservative politicians, media talking heads, and bloggers all claim an unprecedented and unprosecuted theft of elections from the right by this voter fraud. They specifically blame ACORN, they specifically target ACORN because they need someone, something, to blame for their losses.
This is a claim even more loudly advanced by Minnesota 6th District Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who has elevated hatred for ACORN into an obsession as unique in intensity as it is inaccurate factually. ACORN is a frequent icon for terrorizing her doner base in Bachmann's fund raising efforts, and a regular target for Bachmann's legislative efforts on behalf of the right. Hannah Giles has included similar completely false, unsupported allegations in the three page solicitation letters she sent out to raise money for her legal defense. There is a lot of money to be made in peddling fear, and anger, and the sting of losing majority power. Further, the right needs a distraction from their own years of bad government when they had that majority power.
Even the December 22, 2009 Report to the Congressional Judiciary Committee prepared by the Congressional Research Service, determined that ACORN has not had a single instance of actual voter fraud resulting from their voter registration efforts (page 1, item number 3).
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/CRS-ACORN091222.pdf
The CRS report was only one of the more recent examination of the charges of voter fraud to find no evidence to support the charges against ACORN by the right; it is not the only report to do so.
So, while there may be a few jokers who fill out a voter registration card as Minnie Mouse or Donald Duck, or even Goofy, none of those people have tried to vote under those registrations. An equal or greater proportion of the problem registrations have been simple duplicates, where there was no attempt to use a fictitious identity. None of the investigations to date have found any pattern of deliberate fraud to alter elections. Problem voter registrations are a nuisance, in some instances they are a crime, but they have never EVER been demonstrated to be significant in the outcome of elections.
But that hasn't stopped the continuing efforts of the right against ACORN. Readers may recall that the New Mexico US Attorney, David Iglesias, lost his job for refusing to prosecute ACORN in that state because there was insufficient evidence of any crime, during the Bush administration attempt to politicize the Department of Justice. The efforts by O'Keefe and Giles are only the latest attack on ACORN by the right.
The latest award to O'Keefe and Giles comes at the end of the week that saw the announcement by the Brooklyn, New York District Attorney at the conclusion of an extensive investigation that there was no basis for any prosecution of ACORN. This despite the attempts by O'Keefe and Giles to portray the Brooklyn ACORN office, and a number of other ACORN locations, as engaging in not just any criminal activity, but child prostitution, in a calculated attempt to engage the emotions of the public. Mere voter registration issues are too boring to get a reaction. They needed to 'sex up' the perception of problems with ACORN.
Except that like the false accusations of voter fraud, there do not appear to, have been any instances of criminal activity, either aiding prostitution or money laundering, by ACORN identified to date. There are other investigations into the activities of both ACORN AND O'Keefe and Giles, resulting from these videos, including one by the California Attorney General. There is a very real possibility of criminal felony indictments resulting from those investigations - charges against O'Keefe and Giles.
There has been a huge media smear of ACORN, but no charges, no proof. To date, only O'Keefe and Giles, and now the Brooklyn, NY District Attorney have seen the uncut, unedited version of the events. O'Keefe and Giles, and their boss Andrew Breitbart have insisted across the internet, and across pretty much the entirety of Fox News and some mainstream media, and social utilities like Youtube through their videos and interviews that their heavily altered and partially faked videos portrayed ACORN assisting them to try to set up a brothel providing the sexual services of underage illegal immigrant girls.
In response to the investigation by the Brooklyn DA, the right has tried to fly the accusation of conflict of interest, along with the usual factual errors they resort to with ACORN claims. One of the best analyses of New York prostitution and money laundering laws explaining factually why the Brooklyn DA did not prosecute ACORN was written by prominent New York attorney Michael J. Gaynor at www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=100305 where he breaks down the applicable statutes line by line as they apply to what ACORN did - and did not do.
There have been multiple investigations, and now there are law suits against O'Keefe and Giles being filed. There may be criminal indictments as well resulting from their videos of ACORN, and appropriately so as they appear to have possibly violated not only the laws of a number of states including Maryland and California, relating to recording without consent, but also possibly the federal statutes against recording people for either tortious or criminal purposes. Some states make a particular point of singling out for penalty not only recording people with or without their consent with the intent of then making the recordings public after altering them to reflect false and negative images, which would seem to be a big problem for O'Keefe and Giles.
Fox News which promoted O'Keefe and Giles is suddenly very quiet on the subject. Andrew Breitbart who employed O'Keefe and Giles, accepted awards with them, and widely promoted them across the media is now claiming he never saw the unedited 'raw' footage, and that he was deceived by O'Keefe and Giles.
I wonder when more of the right is going to catch on that the jig is up. I wonder if the California Republican Assembly will eventually try to take back their Ronald Reagan Freedom Fighter Awards.
I wonder what the Right words on ACORN, O'Keefe, and Giles will be then.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The right thing to do
As media like the Star Tribune have pointed out - we have a local Madoff-scandal brewing it seems. While DG is/has been writing about this.. and we'll have another installment soon - I wanted to put something out which answered a question I was recently asked by someone on right-wing radio - namely, what are the standards FINRA looks at in my experience - and I hope this answer is instructive in some regard for those who have questions about what a respectable investment company should normally look like.
First - the industry-based oversight authority for stocks/securities generally is the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or FINRA. This used to be two distinct regulatory bodies, the NASD (or National Association of Securities Dealers) and the regulatory arm of the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange).
Per FINRA's website, their review authority is sweeping:
"FINRA touches virtually every aspect of the securities business—from registering and educating industry participants to examining securities firms; writing rules; enforcing those rules and the federal securities laws; informing and educating the investing public; providing trade reporting and other industry utilities; and administering the largest dispute resolution forum for investors and registered firms. It also performs market regulation under contract for The NASDAQ Stock Market, the American Stock Exchange, the International Securities Exchange and the Chicago Climate Exchange."
This means FINRA has oversight over much of the securities market of the United States. I would urge anyone who has a question about a broker, or a broker-dealer (i.e. corporate entity) to go to FINRA's site and confirm the current licensure of the investment service and review the complaint status regarding that broker.
That said, here was my answer when asked -
The oversight review is not easily encapsulated into easy pidgeon-holes and my answers should be seen only as guide-posts, not as a complete list of all points of interest or oversight.
FINRA and any investor should/will look for (among other things) three key elements in my experience, those are:
Transparency - A customer is supposed to be able to understand where there money is, where it is being invested and why, and where it will go, in easy, well-understood language. A customer shouldn't have to try to weave his or her way through a myriad of cryptic services or disclosures to understand how, who, what, why and where their investments are being placed.
Accountability - The statement is the 'bible' both for banking and for investment services. Statements should be easily understood, and above all, accurate. Any mistake on a statement should be remedied normally by the creation of a replacement statement unless such mistake is of an immaterial nature. Any investor who routinely sees mistakes, or who cannot confirm the data as accurate, should be concerned. Any repetition of mistakes might well warrant a call to FINRA to inquire about the status of the broker. Brokers are accountable for the accuracy and completeness of statements. Inaccurate or incomplete statements are a hallmark of deceptive and/or fraudulent investments.
Credibility - Most brokerages require even their customer service representatives to be Series 7 licensed - meaning they are so concerned about not crossing the line of providing unqualified commentary about investments, they train anyone likely to answer the phone and have to provide a detailed answer - to be seen as competent and qualified to do so by the regulatory authorities. They do this to protect themselves against complaints, but also against people providing unsound commentary about investment products. Any investment service which does not have appropriate credentials, is one to be avoided entirely. They may not even be acting within the law by conducting such activity, but at a minimum, they are acting in a way the regulatory body wouldn't prefer (remember, FINRA is non-governmental, they don't pass or enforce law).
The key points I am trying to convey are these, you should have accurate, ready and competent access to how, where and why your funds are invested. People who say they 'want to work outside the system' or that 'they are tired of how the big companies take your money' etc.. are almost always selling something which is too good to be true. Investment brokers do make money, but there are already discount brokers like TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab, and those which charge no load (percentages of earnings or investment amounts) at all, but instead charge by transaction. People who claim to be able to make 20% per annum when the market is losing ground, are saying they are smarter than the 670,000 registered brokers in the United States. It's possible, but don't you think if it was possible, the big companies would do it? For that matter, everyone would? Anyone who says they'll provide you these kinds of returns, should seem like the guy/gal who isn't registered with FINRA (or the commodities board, etc..) - or who produced a faulty statement, or who's check's bounce.. it's a sign that something is very fishy.
The people apparently and ONLY ALLEGEDLY bilked in our local case were nearly all victims found through right-wing radio. There are apparently a lot of these 'investment strategies' plying the airwaves talking about how to beat the system and protect your money from the government. The Right thing to do would be for the stations themselves to start providing information like that listed above - but they aren't, at least not yet. Until then, forewarned is forearmed.
First - the industry-based oversight authority for stocks/securities generally is the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or FINRA. This used to be two distinct regulatory bodies, the NASD (or National Association of Securities Dealers) and the regulatory arm of the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange).
Per FINRA's website, their review authority is sweeping:
"FINRA touches virtually every aspect of the securities business—from registering and educating industry participants to examining securities firms; writing rules; enforcing those rules and the federal securities laws; informing and educating the investing public; providing trade reporting and other industry utilities; and administering the largest dispute resolution forum for investors and registered firms. It also performs market regulation under contract for The NASDAQ Stock Market, the American Stock Exchange, the International Securities Exchange and the Chicago Climate Exchange."
This means FINRA has oversight over much of the securities market of the United States. I would urge anyone who has a question about a broker, or a broker-dealer (i.e. corporate entity) to go to FINRA's site and confirm the current licensure of the investment service and review the complaint status regarding that broker.
That said, here was my answer when asked -
The oversight review is not easily encapsulated into easy pidgeon-holes and my answers should be seen only as guide-posts, not as a complete list of all points of interest or oversight.
FINRA and any investor should/will look for (among other things) three key elements in my experience, those are:
Transparency - A customer is supposed to be able to understand where there money is, where it is being invested and why, and where it will go, in easy, well-understood language. A customer shouldn't have to try to weave his or her way through a myriad of cryptic services or disclosures to understand how, who, what, why and where their investments are being placed.
Accountability - The statement is the 'bible' both for banking and for investment services. Statements should be easily understood, and above all, accurate. Any mistake on a statement should be remedied normally by the creation of a replacement statement unless such mistake is of an immaterial nature. Any investor who routinely sees mistakes, or who cannot confirm the data as accurate, should be concerned. Any repetition of mistakes might well warrant a call to FINRA to inquire about the status of the broker. Brokers are accountable for the accuracy and completeness of statements. Inaccurate or incomplete statements are a hallmark of deceptive and/or fraudulent investments.
Credibility - Most brokerages require even their customer service representatives to be Series 7 licensed - meaning they are so concerned about not crossing the line of providing unqualified commentary about investments, they train anyone likely to answer the phone and have to provide a detailed answer - to be seen as competent and qualified to do so by the regulatory authorities. They do this to protect themselves against complaints, but also against people providing unsound commentary about investment products. Any investment service which does not have appropriate credentials, is one to be avoided entirely. They may not even be acting within the law by conducting such activity, but at a minimum, they are acting in a way the regulatory body wouldn't prefer (remember, FINRA is non-governmental, they don't pass or enforce law).
The key points I am trying to convey are these, you should have accurate, ready and competent access to how, where and why your funds are invested. People who say they 'want to work outside the system' or that 'they are tired of how the big companies take your money' etc.. are almost always selling something which is too good to be true. Investment brokers do make money, but there are already discount brokers like TD Ameritrade and Charles Schwab, and those which charge no load (percentages of earnings or investment amounts) at all, but instead charge by transaction. People who claim to be able to make 20% per annum when the market is losing ground, are saying they are smarter than the 670,000 registered brokers in the United States. It's possible, but don't you think if it was possible, the big companies would do it? For that matter, everyone would? Anyone who says they'll provide you these kinds of returns, should seem like the guy/gal who isn't registered with FINRA (or the commodities board, etc..) - or who produced a faulty statement, or who's check's bounce.. it's a sign that something is very fishy.
The people apparently and ONLY ALLEGEDLY bilked in our local case were nearly all victims found through right-wing radio. There are apparently a lot of these 'investment strategies' plying the airwaves talking about how to beat the system and protect your money from the government. The Right thing to do would be for the stations themselves to start providing information like that listed above - but they aren't, at least not yet. Until then, forewarned is forearmed.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)