Group items tagged

WASHINGTON -- With the debate over the Affordable Care Act law morphing from a constitutional matter before the Supreme Court to an implementation matter before state houses, President Barack Obama and allied Democrats are refiguring their sales pitch. In response to criticisms that the law hamstrings governors, defenders of the president's health care law will be championing a states-rights amendment that already enjoys Republican support. Under current law, states are allowed to opt out of various requirements of the Affordable Care Act by 2017, provided that they meet minimal standards for coverage. The Empowering States to Innovate Act would move that date to 2014. For the Obama White House, the amendment has a number of politically appealing aspects. The most obvious is that it provides an avenue to the type of federalist approach that the Republican Party, and its standard-bearer Mitt Romney, has argued should have been adopted in the first place. More bluntly, the co-sponsor of the amendment, along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is Sen. Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican who happens to share a senior adviser with Romney. When top Obama administration officials were asked how they would go about selling the law in the immediate aftermath of the court's ruling, one of the three provisions they cited was the opt-out amendment. It was equally telling that the president made a point of emphasizing the idea in his post-SCOTUS remarks. "Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too," Obama said. "And I've asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one." Perhaps the most obvious signal that the White House sees the amendment as a campaign instrument came in February 2011, when the president declared -- in a bit of prescience with respect to

WASHINGTON -- With the debate over the Affordable Care Act law morphing from a constitutional matter before the Supreme Court to an implementation matter beforestate houses, President Barack Obama and allied Democrats are refiguring their sales pitch. In response to criticisms that the law hamstrings governors, defenders of the president's health care law will be championing a states-rights amendment that already enjoys Republican support. Under current law, states are allowed to opt out of various requirements of the Affordable Care Act by 2017, provided that they meet minimal standards for coverage. The Empowering States to Innovate Act would move that date to 2014. For the Obama White House, the amendment has a number of politically appealing aspects. The most obvious is that it provides an avenue to the type of federalist approach that the Republican Party, and its standard-bearer Mitt Romney, has argued should have been adopted in the first place. More bluntly, the co-sponsor of the amendment, along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), is Sen. Scott Brown, a Massachusetts Republican who happens to share a senior adviser with Romney. When top Obama administration officials were asked how they would go about selling the law in the immediate aftermath of the court's ruling, one of the three provisions they cited was the opt-out amendment. It was equally telling that the president made a point of emphasizing the idea in his post-SCOTUS remarks. "Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too," Obama said. "And I've asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one." Perhaps the most obvious signal that the White House sees the amendment as a campaign instrument came in February 2011, when the president declared -- in a bit of prescience with respect to the GOP prim

Stock fraud takes advantage of the trust a consumer places in a broker or brokerage firm. Stock fraud occurs when a broker manipulates customers into trading stocks without regard for the customer's interests. Stock fraud can be orchestrated at the company level, or can be committed by a single employee; stock fraud can also range in size financially from multi-million dollar deals to penny stocks, but stock fraud consistently involves intentional disregard for the financial situation of customers and obsession with personal gain. An attorney experienced in defending the rights of stock fraud victims and recovering funds stolen from them may be able to help guide you through your legal rights and advise you on the most appropriate course of legal action. The Following Activities are Considered Stock Fraud When Done Intentionally: Giving biased investment advice Giving unfounded advice Offering separate clients contradicting advice Advising clients to continue an imprudent risk Advising out of a conflict of interest Protecting Yourself Against Stock Investment Fraud There are many ways in which you can protect yourself from fraud before it occurs. One way is to make sure you are closely monitoring transactions and commissions in your account. Another way to help safeguard your account is to keep it from becoming too concentrated in any one stock position. As a general rule, no one stock position should represent more than 2% of your total portfolio. You don't want another Enron on your hands! Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (partial) Federal securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is defined as "(1) material misstatements or omissions, (2) indicating an intent to deceive or defraud, (3) in connection with the purchase or sale of a security." Brown v. E.F. Hutton Group, Inc. , 991 F.2d 1020 (2nd Cir. 1993). An unsuitability claim is a subset of 10(b) securities fraud with the following elements to be proved: "(1) that the sec

Again we see a classic case of our troops dying in a war that serves no justification other than simply lining the pockets of the elite fraudsters some of whom are connected to very senior MP's and Lords in the UK! You will recall that Gordon Bowden and I have been pulling our hair out for a few years now trying to force some sort of action against the massive fraudster that operate in this country from corporate executives to bank CEO's to very senior MP's and the elite in the House of Lords. Ever asked yourself why the Serious Fraud Officer, Police or even "clean" (if we have any!) Members of Parliament never raise such issues during Prime Minister's Question Time? I keep asking myself why is it that no one speaks out and brings these "Political Crooks" to justice? Why don't the Unions and their members take to the streets and hold a peaceful protest outside the House of Parliament, 10 Downing Street or even at one of the many "Boiler Rooms" in the City of London? Why is everyone so afraid to reveal the very thing that has and continues to ruin the economy of the United Kingdom? We have our Prime Minister telling us all that severe austerity measures have to be implemented in order to pay off this huge toxic debt that has been handed down to us from the previous government under Gordon Brown. It's an absolute joke…. When are you, the British public, going to open your eyes and understand that you will always be screwed and always remain the underdogs as long as our leaders get away with it. We now see a US congressional probe into such fraud and yet two of the companies are British and operate out of one of those "Boiler Rooms" right here in the City of London at 788-790 Finchley Road, NW11 7TJ. How come we the British are not investigating the massive fraud being carried out by those two companies at the above address that were privileged to share in some of the $1.069 billion that has been handed out in US contracts?