The Federal Government is attempting to gain more control of the financial market with the recently-passed Senate legislation regarding Wall Street.
According to President Obama, "Our goal is not to punish the banks, but to protect the larger economy and the American people from the kind of upheavals we've seen."
This may be a moderately true statement.
However, government regulation and intervention does a couple of things to the free market. First, it does limit free market practices and, potentially, expansion. Next, it increases the size and scope of government.
There is a definite need to derail criminal activities in the private sector. The same is true for the public sector. And who watches over these people?
In just the past several months Main Street USA has seen the Social Security Administration throw a lavish, by any standard, management getaway, only to be topped by the Federal Aviation Administration's 5 million dollar bash. Taxpayers have also heard about Department of Veteran's Affairs employees obtaining, if not illegal, unethical loans and other monetary benefits for themselves and family members as well seen evidence that state pension funds face a trillion dollar deficit. More recently, it was exposed to the public that many high-paid Securities and Exchange Commission executives spent their 8-hour day doing anything other than their assigned tasks.
In these days of relatively low-cost video conferencing (especially when compared to what the SSA and FAA spent), coupled with the economic reality of the times, how can the White House, Capitol Hill, state governments, etc., allow such unethical and immoral behavior in their own sphere?
Thus, the question to ask is, as government continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, who will be the watch-dog over the supposed overseers, as well as our own elected officals?
True, the election process does allow citizens to boot those they feel have violated the public trust (though having to wait two to four years may not be appropriate justice), but what disciplinary action do non-elected officials face?
Before throwing stones at the private sector, the public sector needs to ensure that each and every nook and cranny in their own house is in order. America is not a "do as I say not as I do" mentality.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Showing posts with label wall street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wall street. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Political Mind Games
Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of playing political mind games, much to the detriment of Main Street USA.
It is the Democrats, however, who have taken the lead in their game of dividing America and pitting Wall Street against Main Street.
It seems a day doesn't go by when someone on Capitol Hill or at the White House blasts big business, most notably the financial and insurance industries.
Interesting that one rarely sees anything about the drug companies and their enormous profits and dangerous products.
Watching TV commercials for this drug or that drug it is amazing to this person why anyone would decide to take drugs that could potentially cause death or "suicidal thoughts or actions." Yet big PhRMA continues to roll out new drugs and rake in an estimated 17 or 18 percent net profit, far higher than most industries.
It could be, of course, that with the amount of money the drug companies put into play for political campaigns and lobbying is why they are not in the Democrat cross-hairs.
What is behind the blatant attempt to divide big business and rank and file American citizens and taxpayers?
Quite possibly more government takeovers and the erosion of our personal liberties.
The Federal Government has crossed too many lines and either trampled on or attempted to side-step the Bill of Rights, that powerful document that is supposed to ensure those actions cannot be done.
This has been accomplished, as one example, by massive earmarks and additional pork (read buying votes) to poorly crafted legislation in order to garner enough votes to ensure passage.
As noted in previous posts, the Congressional Special Interest Group is far worse than any other SIG in existence. And, under President Obama, who promised to eliminate earmarks during his reign, the health care reform act may have been the worst.
Recent polls point out that citizens are tired of political games with as many as two-thirds of those surveyed stating that new blood is needed in Washington DC.
America must get back to being America with free enterprise generating the economy, with the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to be doing, not running our lives and making decisions for us because they feel they know what is best for each and every person living here.
By all means, get rid of criminal elements in the private sector, but do so also in the public sector, as there are ample cases of crooked politicans and others who are paid through one or another government agency or taxpayer-funded institution. In other words get your own house in order.
Above all else, quit playing mind games and trying to destroy capitalism by making big business into the big bad wolf.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
It is the Democrats, however, who have taken the lead in their game of dividing America and pitting Wall Street against Main Street.
It seems a day doesn't go by when someone on Capitol Hill or at the White House blasts big business, most notably the financial and insurance industries.
Interesting that one rarely sees anything about the drug companies and their enormous profits and dangerous products.
Watching TV commercials for this drug or that drug it is amazing to this person why anyone would decide to take drugs that could potentially cause death or "suicidal thoughts or actions." Yet big PhRMA continues to roll out new drugs and rake in an estimated 17 or 18 percent net profit, far higher than most industries.
It could be, of course, that with the amount of money the drug companies put into play for political campaigns and lobbying is why they are not in the Democrat cross-hairs.
What is behind the blatant attempt to divide big business and rank and file American citizens and taxpayers?
Quite possibly more government takeovers and the erosion of our personal liberties.
The Federal Government has crossed too many lines and either trampled on or attempted to side-step the Bill of Rights, that powerful document that is supposed to ensure those actions cannot be done.
This has been accomplished, as one example, by massive earmarks and additional pork (read buying votes) to poorly crafted legislation in order to garner enough votes to ensure passage.
As noted in previous posts, the Congressional Special Interest Group is far worse than any other SIG in existence. And, under President Obama, who promised to eliminate earmarks during his reign, the health care reform act may have been the worst.
Recent polls point out that citizens are tired of political games with as many as two-thirds of those surveyed stating that new blood is needed in Washington DC.
America must get back to being America with free enterprise generating the economy, with the Federal Government doing what it is supposed to be doing, not running our lives and making decisions for us because they feel they know what is best for each and every person living here.
By all means, get rid of criminal elements in the private sector, but do so also in the public sector, as there are ample cases of crooked politicans and others who are paid through one or another government agency or taxpayer-funded institution. In other words get your own house in order.
Above all else, quit playing mind games and trying to destroy capitalism by making big business into the big bad wolf.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Friday, May 14, 2010
YouCut - Wouldn't That Be Nice
Here is a unique concept.
While Rep Cantor's idea may not be practical, may not be realistic, it is this taxpayer's opinion that perhaps his campaign will open the eyes of people (especially those on Capitol Hill) who are blindly following our dramatic deficit spending spree--all in the name of saving the US economy.
So, even though Cantor's idea may not fly, it is another way for people to see for themselves where all of our money (and debt) is going, what it is "buying" for us as a nation.
And, based on recent polls Main Street USA is not buying it. Citizens are unhappy with incumbents now residing in Congress.
There are those in Washington DC continuing to try and create a great divide between Main Street USA and Wall Street.
Attempting to, basically, destroy capitalism.
To those people it would seem fair to ask what other system allows individuals from all walks of life to be able to accumulate wealth in so many different ways.
How many people who purchased stock in Wal*Mart or Microsoft early on became wealthy simple because they allowed their money to work for them?
How many people earned seven or more figures from creating and selling something as simple as a "Pet Rock"? (For those too young to remember this, it was a common ordinary rock that was boxed and sold for about ten dollars, claiming it to be the easiest pet to care for.)
While critics scoff at the idea of YouCut, elected representatives may want to look deep within their hearts and their minds at the direction our country is going under their service.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
While Rep Cantor's idea may not be practical, may not be realistic, it is this taxpayer's opinion that perhaps his campaign will open the eyes of people (especially those on Capitol Hill) who are blindly following our dramatic deficit spending spree--all in the name of saving the US economy.
So, even though Cantor's idea may not fly, it is another way for people to see for themselves where all of our money (and debt) is going, what it is "buying" for us as a nation.
And, based on recent polls Main Street USA is not buying it. Citizens are unhappy with incumbents now residing in Congress.
There are those in Washington DC continuing to try and create a great divide between Main Street USA and Wall Street.
Attempting to, basically, destroy capitalism.
To those people it would seem fair to ask what other system allows individuals from all walks of life to be able to accumulate wealth in so many different ways.
How many people who purchased stock in Wal*Mart or Microsoft early on became wealthy simple because they allowed their money to work for them?
How many people earned seven or more figures from creating and selling something as simple as a "Pet Rock"? (For those too young to remember this, it was a common ordinary rock that was boxed and sold for about ten dollars, claiming it to be the easiest pet to care for.)
While critics scoff at the idea of YouCut, elected representatives may want to look deep within their hearts and their minds at the direction our country is going under their service.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Friday, July 10, 2009
Whom Do You Trust? Whom Can You Trust?
Unfortunately we live in a time of widespread corruption, misuse of power, as well as both lesser and more serious crimes against people and/or society at large.
One of the more unforgivable transgressions, to me (aside from murder), is a politician’s betrayal of the public trust. Here we have a person voted into office by Main Street USA to do a job, and to do it to the best of his or her abilities. And they are compensated well for their work and the benefits, well, those will be the subject of another blog.
This one is about trust.
I do not know of any public official swearing-in ceremony where doing their best includes corruption or bribery or even taking leave for many days with no method of contact.
As an example, Randall “Duke” Cunningham, pled guilty of accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes.
Two million four hundred thousand dollars in bribes.
That is the equivalent of someone working for $60,000 per year for 40 years!
Bribes are, of course, illegal. For Duke, the payoffs came from defense contractors and he did plead guilty.
I believe that a publicly elected official taking money from an organization to gain favor is nothing less than Treason. That is why Duke should not receive his Congressional pension. Last I heard, that is not the case. Elected officials guilty of bribery are still eligible to collect a pension.
One reason is that our government officials have a more limited view of treason than do I. The typical application of that word relating to an elected person is a violation of allegiance to the state or of attempting to overthrow the state or selling secrets of the state.
Those have to do with the state, not the public trust, which is interesting because the public elected the person, not the state. To me, a violation or betrayal of the public trust is clearly a treasonous activity.
So why is Duke eligible to collect pension?
It seems as though our elected officials may believe that they are not necessarily above the law, but above some of the laws. Then again, they are the ones who write the laws…
Why is it that Wall Street and Main Street are expected to follow all of the rules and regulations that are imposed and, if not, face the consequences. And, not that I condone AIG executives receiving lavish bonuses (because I do not), what really is the difference between an AIG exec receiving a bonus and Duke who pled guilty to bribery but remains eligible to receive public funds?
Before I leave Duke’s example there is one other thing I did not understand about the judgment and his sentencing. Duke received $2.4 million in bribes but only had to pay $1.8 million in restitution. That makes it appear as if Duke was able to keep $600,000 of illegally gained money (whether he had spent it or not). What a bonus! (for lack of a better word.)
The above is serious abuse by an elected individual to receive illegal monetary rewards. Duke is but one example. There have been others.
Then there is the better-than-thou type. From all that I have read, Governor Mark Sanford (SC) was a harsh critic, voting to impeach President Clinton from office for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Sanford said "...what he did in this matter was reprehensible."
Fast forward to June 2009 and Gov Sanford goes AWOL. His aides tell media that they think he went hiking in the Appalachian Trail. As we all now know, he had been in Argentina with another woman.
How is it that Sanford could be so adamant about Clinton being impeached but he feels he should be able to maintain his office?
The apparent difference is that Sanford admitted his affair and Clinton first lied about his. True, that is a difference. However, Sanford was, even worse, AWOL. His duty and responsibility to the state of South Carolina comes first. And, if he is not able to be reached when gone, proper transition of power should have been granted to the Lt. Governor. Anything less is purely dereliction of duty.
In the military, the maximum penalty is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay and six months confinement duty. Because he did come clean for the affair, but was absent without official leave, perhaps Sanford should not pay the maximum penalty but I do not think that he should retain public office. Nor should he be allowed to collect a pension. He was AWOL.
Corruption charges, dereliction of duty and other acts that violate the public trust should not be rewarded. They should be punished. They should not stay in office. They should not collect pensions. They should be fully and totally accountable to Main Street USA, to the people who elected them.
Perhaps by enforcing appropriate penalties our elected officials will be more honest with Main Street USA and with themselves and can start to earn back the Trust they have lost.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
One of the more unforgivable transgressions, to me (aside from murder), is a politician’s betrayal of the public trust. Here we have a person voted into office by Main Street USA to do a job, and to do it to the best of his or her abilities. And they are compensated well for their work and the benefits, well, those will be the subject of another blog.
This one is about trust.
I do not know of any public official swearing-in ceremony where doing their best includes corruption or bribery or even taking leave for many days with no method of contact.
As an example, Randall “Duke” Cunningham, pled guilty of accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes.
Two million four hundred thousand dollars in bribes.
That is the equivalent of someone working for $60,000 per year for 40 years!
Bribes are, of course, illegal. For Duke, the payoffs came from defense contractors and he did plead guilty.
I believe that a publicly elected official taking money from an organization to gain favor is nothing less than Treason. That is why Duke should not receive his Congressional pension. Last I heard, that is not the case. Elected officials guilty of bribery are still eligible to collect a pension.
One reason is that our government officials have a more limited view of treason than do I. The typical application of that word relating to an elected person is a violation of allegiance to the state or of attempting to overthrow the state or selling secrets of the state.
Those have to do with the state, not the public trust, which is interesting because the public elected the person, not the state. To me, a violation or betrayal of the public trust is clearly a treasonous activity.
So why is Duke eligible to collect pension?
It seems as though our elected officials may believe that they are not necessarily above the law, but above some of the laws. Then again, they are the ones who write the laws…
Why is it that Wall Street and Main Street are expected to follow all of the rules and regulations that are imposed and, if not, face the consequences. And, not that I condone AIG executives receiving lavish bonuses (because I do not), what really is the difference between an AIG exec receiving a bonus and Duke who pled guilty to bribery but remains eligible to receive public funds?
Before I leave Duke’s example there is one other thing I did not understand about the judgment and his sentencing. Duke received $2.4 million in bribes but only had to pay $1.8 million in restitution. That makes it appear as if Duke was able to keep $600,000 of illegally gained money (whether he had spent it or not). What a bonus! (for lack of a better word.)
The above is serious abuse by an elected individual to receive illegal monetary rewards. Duke is but one example. There have been others.
Then there is the better-than-thou type. From all that I have read, Governor Mark Sanford (SC) was a harsh critic, voting to impeach President Clinton from office for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Sanford said "...what he did in this matter was reprehensible."
Fast forward to June 2009 and Gov Sanford goes AWOL. His aides tell media that they think he went hiking in the Appalachian Trail. As we all now know, he had been in Argentina with another woman.
How is it that Sanford could be so adamant about Clinton being impeached but he feels he should be able to maintain his office?
The apparent difference is that Sanford admitted his affair and Clinton first lied about his. True, that is a difference. However, Sanford was, even worse, AWOL. His duty and responsibility to the state of South Carolina comes first. And, if he is not able to be reached when gone, proper transition of power should have been granted to the Lt. Governor. Anything less is purely dereliction of duty.
In the military, the maximum penalty is a bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay and six months confinement duty. Because he did come clean for the affair, but was absent without official leave, perhaps Sanford should not pay the maximum penalty but I do not think that he should retain public office. Nor should he be allowed to collect a pension. He was AWOL.
Corruption charges, dereliction of duty and other acts that violate the public trust should not be rewarded. They should be punished. They should not stay in office. They should not collect pensions. They should be fully and totally accountable to Main Street USA, to the people who elected them.
Perhaps by enforcing appropriate penalties our elected officials will be more honest with Main Street USA and with themselves and can start to earn back the Trust they have lost.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Just Take This Pill . . . (we need the money)
There has been a lot written the past several years about over prescribing drugs to people, especially seniors, in America. I have to throw my hat in the ring.
This is personal, as it deals with my step-father of 30 years. (I earlier mentioned in a post that my biological father was killed in an accident when I was 20. Mom re-married 7 years later.)
Pop, as we called my step-dad, passed away just over a year ago, on July 4, 2008.
He was, without a doubt, over prescribed. And, I am certain, that this caused his death. It also added profits to the drug companies (more on that in just a bit).
At one time, Pop had been advised by physicians to take as many as 12 different drugs during the course of his day. And he did it. Without any questions. Without any regard to what may be occurring in, and to, his body. And, unfortunately, without telling any of us.
I defy anyone, anyone at all, to tell me (and the world) what the consequences might be to have that many different drugs in a body at the same time.
It would be extremely hard (I say impossible) for any drug company scientist or researcher or any pharmacist, despite their years of study and training, to predict all of the possible side effects one drug might cause in a body. Why? Because there are over six and a half billion people on Earth and that means there could be that many different reactions, as every person’s body is just a little bit different.
Thus, if it is hard to predict everything that one drug could do, how could anyone possibly believe that they could, in good conscience, prescribe two, four, eight, or twelve completely different drugs to one individual?
Pop’s final two or three years were the worst. He started a serious decline in motor functions, bodily control, experienced dizziness, lightheadedness, and more, all of which ultimately combined to lead him to death before his time.
Undoubtedly the main culprits, through direct observation (once we found out), were antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety pills, which my sister and I do not, to this day, believe that he needed.
Almost all of the time, Pop had already started taking one of the new wonder pills his doctor advised before we discovered he was taking it.
And, yes, his family doctor and the specialists he had visited, knew his history and the drugs he had been taking at the time. At least they had all the paperwork citing such. Did they review it? I certainly hope so.
Generally, within a day or two of beginning with an additional anti-pill (a week at most), Pop would experience one or more of the commonly advertised side effects.
Then, due to his by-then-weakened body state, he would fall and injure his body. One time he broke his right hip and off he went to the hospital. Next, he got dizzy sitting on the toilet and slipped off only to fracture a rib. Another time he experienced vertigo and banged into the doorframe and cracked his collar bone. The final saga began with another fall where he broke his other hip.
After that last fall, he went to the hospital, then to extended nursing care and finally back to his assisted living facility before finally passing.
Each of those accidents occurred following his taking yet another anti-pill “to make him better.”
During this time Pop also started losing weight. He was not a big man. He was below average height for a man and slender. I think that anyone without excess body fat to lose who experiences a 35% loss in their weight will eventually fall to serious consequences.
Shortly after Pop passed away CNN ran a story about over prescribing seniors with drugs, sharing similar stories of other people.
Then there was a news story about Eli Lilly and their, what I call, payoffs to doctors.
Lilly explains that the gifts and the consulting and speech money they pay are made to compensate a doctor for time away from practice for doing such. That may be true enough. However, critics of this compensation practice (which has probably been going on for decades) feel that treatments recommended by these doctors are more than likely influenced by these payments. I would have to agree.
While Wall Street companies (i.e., the financial market, et al) pay their executives rather lavish salaries, bonuses and other forms of compensation, drug company executives also score extremely well.
And, while drug company execs make tens of millions in salaries and bonuses and even more in stock options, the net profit of these pill pushers is astronomical.
Let’s take, as a comparison, oil companies.
For 2007, according to a Congressional Research Service report, the oil industry earned $1.5 trillion (78% by the big five) and had a net profit of $155 billion (75% for the big five). Those figures are, indeed, very large. Taking it one step further, these numbers equate to approximately an 8% net profit, which is not much higher than reported by the US Census Bureau a decade earlier, with much lower gas prices.
By comparison, the pharmaceutical industry, for 2007, raked in $606 billion in revenue. The drug companies are pretty consistent in earning above 15% in net profits. That is about twice as much as the oil industry and several times more than the manufacturing industry (usually around 4%) and retail (closer to 2% or 3%).
As an added note, Pfizer Company had sales of over 48 billion dollars in 2006 and had an almost 40% net profit, over $19 billion.
I do believe that a 40% NET PROFIT is completely out of hand.
Even Wal-Mart, with worldwide sales of nearly $405 billion, made a paltry, by comparison, 3% net profit (or slightly over $13 billion).
And, we in Main Street USA wonder why health care costs so much. (I covered some of that reason in an earlier post.)
If people want to talk about who is really only in business for the money look no further.
It is the same companies that are producing the anti-pills that have widely advertised (forced on them by the FDA) side effects such as: sexual dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, hostility, extreme agitation, suicidal thoughts, and more. One that I know of even has to state sudden accidental death.
And would not those possible side effects become more pronounced if combined with some other drug, or combination of drugs?
While I am not a chemist, to me it makes perfectly logical sense to conclude that when a person ingests several foreign chemicals (i.e., not naturally found in his/her body) that there could be severe complications.
That is why there currently are class action law suits against some of the pharmaceutical companies.
What I know for certain is that Pop started his decline with increased drug prescriptions, many of which did have adverse affects and caused bodily harm/injury, ultimately leading to his demise. Rest In Peace, Pop.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
This is personal, as it deals with my step-father of 30 years. (I earlier mentioned in a post that my biological father was killed in an accident when I was 20. Mom re-married 7 years later.)
Pop, as we called my step-dad, passed away just over a year ago, on July 4, 2008.
He was, without a doubt, over prescribed. And, I am certain, that this caused his death. It also added profits to the drug companies (more on that in just a bit).
At one time, Pop had been advised by physicians to take as many as 12 different drugs during the course of his day. And he did it. Without any questions. Without any regard to what may be occurring in, and to, his body. And, unfortunately, without telling any of us.
I defy anyone, anyone at all, to tell me (and the world) what the consequences might be to have that many different drugs in a body at the same time.
It would be extremely hard (I say impossible) for any drug company scientist or researcher or any pharmacist, despite their years of study and training, to predict all of the possible side effects one drug might cause in a body. Why? Because there are over six and a half billion people on Earth and that means there could be that many different reactions, as every person’s body is just a little bit different.
Thus, if it is hard to predict everything that one drug could do, how could anyone possibly believe that they could, in good conscience, prescribe two, four, eight, or twelve completely different drugs to one individual?
Pop’s final two or three years were the worst. He started a serious decline in motor functions, bodily control, experienced dizziness, lightheadedness, and more, all of which ultimately combined to lead him to death before his time.
Undoubtedly the main culprits, through direct observation (once we found out), were antidepressants, antipsychotics and anti-anxiety pills, which my sister and I do not, to this day, believe that he needed.
Almost all of the time, Pop had already started taking one of the new wonder pills his doctor advised before we discovered he was taking it.
And, yes, his family doctor and the specialists he had visited, knew his history and the drugs he had been taking at the time. At least they had all the paperwork citing such. Did they review it? I certainly hope so.
Generally, within a day or two of beginning with an additional anti-pill (a week at most), Pop would experience one or more of the commonly advertised side effects.
Then, due to his by-then-weakened body state, he would fall and injure his body. One time he broke his right hip and off he went to the hospital. Next, he got dizzy sitting on the toilet and slipped off only to fracture a rib. Another time he experienced vertigo and banged into the doorframe and cracked his collar bone. The final saga began with another fall where he broke his other hip.
After that last fall, he went to the hospital, then to extended nursing care and finally back to his assisted living facility before finally passing.
Each of those accidents occurred following his taking yet another anti-pill “to make him better.”
During this time Pop also started losing weight. He was not a big man. He was below average height for a man and slender. I think that anyone without excess body fat to lose who experiences a 35% loss in their weight will eventually fall to serious consequences.
Shortly after Pop passed away CNN ran a story about over prescribing seniors with drugs, sharing similar stories of other people.
Then there was a news story about Eli Lilly and their, what I call, payoffs to doctors.
Lilly explains that the gifts and the consulting and speech money they pay are made to compensate a doctor for time away from practice for doing such. That may be true enough. However, critics of this compensation practice (which has probably been going on for decades) feel that treatments recommended by these doctors are more than likely influenced by these payments. I would have to agree.
While Wall Street companies (i.e., the financial market, et al) pay their executives rather lavish salaries, bonuses and other forms of compensation, drug company executives also score extremely well.
And, while drug company execs make tens of millions in salaries and bonuses and even more in stock options, the net profit of these pill pushers is astronomical.
Let’s take, as a comparison, oil companies.
For 2007, according to a Congressional Research Service report, the oil industry earned $1.5 trillion (78% by the big five) and had a net profit of $155 billion (75% for the big five). Those figures are, indeed, very large. Taking it one step further, these numbers equate to approximately an 8% net profit, which is not much higher than reported by the US Census Bureau a decade earlier, with much lower gas prices.
By comparison, the pharmaceutical industry, for 2007, raked in $606 billion in revenue. The drug companies are pretty consistent in earning above 15% in net profits. That is about twice as much as the oil industry and several times more than the manufacturing industry (usually around 4%) and retail (closer to 2% or 3%).
As an added note, Pfizer Company had sales of over 48 billion dollars in 2006 and had an almost 40% net profit, over $19 billion.
I do believe that a 40% NET PROFIT is completely out of hand.
Even Wal-Mart, with worldwide sales of nearly $405 billion, made a paltry, by comparison, 3% net profit (or slightly over $13 billion).
And, we in Main Street USA wonder why health care costs so much. (I covered some of that reason in an earlier post.)
If people want to talk about who is really only in business for the money look no further.
It is the same companies that are producing the anti-pills that have widely advertised (forced on them by the FDA) side effects such as: sexual dysfunction, anxiety, insomnia, confusion, hostility, extreme agitation, suicidal thoughts, and more. One that I know of even has to state sudden accidental death.
And would not those possible side effects become more pronounced if combined with some other drug, or combination of drugs?
While I am not a chemist, to me it makes perfectly logical sense to conclude that when a person ingests several foreign chemicals (i.e., not naturally found in his/her body) that there could be severe complications.
That is why there currently are class action law suits against some of the pharmaceutical companies.
What I know for certain is that Pop started his decline with increased drug prescriptions, many of which did have adverse affects and caused bodily harm/injury, ultimately leading to his demise. Rest In Peace, Pop.
Over For Now,
Main Street One
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)