And that this is just politics, is nonsense - this is a corrupt and destructive ideology that seeks in Mr Objma's own words, to "fundamentally change America" from a representative federation into a country of social radial dependents, bent on forcing on us the premise 'we all must be no better then anyone else' to facilitate a level playing field of equality.
Again, the basis for the socialist democrats is "according to ones needs and according to ones abilities".
Sadly, a majority in this country agree, either from having a lazy mental attitude or they just aren't able to understand they are being herded, and then stampeded over the cliff of into the darkness of a heralded perfect socialist state where all things are provided.
That history has shown catastrophic failure in all intendances is of no concern. It's about the destruction of the current society of a freedom to choose, and establishing the new order dependence that will carry the socialists for decades, if not generation, to successful elections.
This is not new, this has always been the agenda of the democrats. It's about getting and keeping power by any means necessary. There is no other reason. Everyone is expendable.
Politics and Investment Options Don’t Mix
By Pam Villarreal
In the midst of rightly placed concerns over proposed new Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rules for brokers, the DOL has also issued a new interpretive bulletin designed to politicize investment choices. How so? As Andy Kessler writes in the Wall Street Journal, a previous 2008 Interpretive Bulletin issued by the DOL encouraged pension fund managers to weigh social and environmental factors when selecting investment choices for their clients. Since fund managers have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns for their clients, the primary consideration must be the economic return on investment. But “all things equal,” secondary social factors such as climate change can act as a “tie breaker” between two investments.
That has all changed, writes Kessler. The new interpretive bulletin puts environmental, social and governance issues on par with economic returns, stating:
“Environmental, social, and governance issues may have a direct relationship to the economic value of the plan’s investment. In these instances, such issues are not merely collateral considerations or tie-breakers, but rather are proper components of the fiduciary’s primary analysis of the economic merits of competing investment choices.”
This means that a pension fund manager could be potentially sued for selecting the “big bad” oil stock over the “environmentally friendly” green energy stock.
Several years ago, a colleague and I compared socially responsible mutual funds to oil and tobacco index funds. The results were astonishing. From 2004 to 2009, Amex Oil and Amex Tobacco outperformed the S&P 500 with positive returns on investment, while three out of four of the Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) funds we measured produced negative returns that were even worse than the S&P 500. This is not to say that “sin” funds always outperform socially responsible funds, but pension fund managers would be failing their fiduciary duty by judging an investment on politically correct, socially conscious factors that may have nothing to do with economic performance. The Department of Labor should be obligated to investment and product neutrality, lest they ruin the retirement plans of many.
In today’s low-interest rate climate, there are not many good investments for long-term savers to hang their hats on outside of stocks and stock funds. Fundamentally strong, low-debt firms with potential for growth are what will lead savers to a comfortable retirement – touchy feely, politically correct, do-goodism will not.