Elected officials – Republicans and Democrats - should not be allowed to trade individual stocks. This shouldn’t be hard to ban, but neither party will do it. This is completely offensive to the people they ‘serve.’ A higher percentage of members of Congress - Republicans and Democrats - outperform the market than actual professional money managers. Pelosi absolutely and continually crushes the market, posting improbable returns. And I get criticized by the left for pointing it out. And Trump has shattered the record for wealth creation of anyone serving in any political U.S. office ever. And I get criticized by the right for pointing it out. There is simply no way around the fact that politicians on both sides of the aisle have proven they will eventually use their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of the public. We simply must ban any political leader from trading of any kind, even from a 'blind trust'.
@MaryBowdenMD Thank you, I always trust what you have to say and the rest of us have to try to sort out everything since we are not doctors, nor do we have the background to make educated decisions on our health considering all the misinformation out there! You are the best!
@MaryBowdenMD Well—-I have heard a story or two where AI found something that the radiologist missed, but I have read that sonograms are the way to go…but of course, insurance makes you start with pancake press..
@charliebilello Hi Charlie, I went to the Charlotte Creative Planning event yesterday and they mentioned your name.
Sure missed getting to meet Peter, but I understand.
This is correct. I attended the Supreme Court arguments. Trump DOJ argued alongside Bayer/Monsanto that because the EPA had already blessed glyphosate, no state government could require labels disclosing cancer risk. The EPA & DOJ in this instance was only there to protect Bayer.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision reflects that the capture of government by big industry is nearly complete. It affirmed the right of chemical companies to injure, maim, and even kill you and your children with their pesticides, herbicides, etc., with near complete impunity.
This means you can expect increasingly toxic pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, etc., because the more toxic they are, the better they will kill weeds, pests, etc. And farmers that then use the most effective products, no matter how harmful to humans, will have a competitive advantage. The result will be that the farmer who adopts the most effective products (meaning most toxic) will have the largest crop yield. Other farmers, to compete, will then also be forced to adopt the more harmful product. With that, the race to the bottom has begun.
I expect that in the coming decades we will look back and wish to return to the “safer days” of glyphosate. So, bottom line: your government has abandoned you and your children. Think about this decision: 7 out of 9 Supreme Court judges sided with the chemical company against the public, and Trump’s DOJ intervened in the case on the side of the chemical company. Anyone who thinks this administration cares about you over industry profit is, at this point, delusional.
Shame on the DOJ, shame on the Trump admin, and shame on the Supreme Court for letting chemical companies get away with injuring, maiming, and killing Americans with their products instead of just allowing normal market forces to protect us and our children. Now, in addition to vaccines, we can add pesticides, etc., to the list of products that can injure and kill with near complete immunity.
Below is the decision and, in a nutshell, it holds that failure to warn claims brought under state law (which is the primary type of claim one would bring for harms from a pesticide, herbicide, etc.) are preempted by the EPA-approved label such that, if the harm is not on the label, your claim loses (since EPA didn’t add it to the label as a harm), and if the harm is on the label, your claim loses (since it has been disclosed on the label). Meaning heads or tail they win, and you and your children lose.
https://t.co/KGl3RCQqTt
@MaryBowdenMD I know the organ donations have been controversial I can change my mind, what do you think? I had a niece cystic fibrosis and she had two sets of donated lungs, so I tend to think of that because it kept her alive another eight years.