Saturday, April 05, 2014

Wall Street "Fat Food" is making the world sick. The world should be healthy and make health care insurance companies happy.

I want to know how much of the Australian diet carries the same products as the USA.

April 6, 2014
Cosima Marriner
Sun-Herald senior writer

Generation Xers are fatter (click here) and more likely to have diabetes in their prime than their baby boomer parents, highlighting the significant deterioration in health in the space of a generation.

But Xers are better educated, less likely to smoke and more likely to be employed if they are female than baby boomers at the same age.
University of Adelaide researchers used data from the 1989-90 and 2007-08 national health surveys to compare attributes of the two generations when they were 25 to 44 years old.

They found those born between 1966 and 1980, dubbed Generation X, had higher rates of obesity and diabetes than baby boomers (born in the aftermath of World War II) at the same age.

Almost one in five of Generation X males were obese compared with 9 per cent of male baby boomers at that age. Thirteen per cent of Generation X females were obese, compared with 10 per cent of female baby boomers....

This is not American food, it is Wall Street food. When Americans prepare hamburgers they usually aren't a quarter pounder.

If one examines the Wall Street Fat Food it uses more quantity of ingredients than normally used in an American home. A quarter pound of beef, super size fies, super size soda or a Jumbo milk shake. Then add barbeque sauce or special sauce or large amounts of mayonnaise and the calories are devastating to the customer, but, a real boom for Wall Street. 

Beef is a commodity. So is wheat. The Big Mac uses three slices of bun with two patties of beef and all the other trappings. When Americans are consuming these foods they are actually filling the pockets of Wall Street and not just the company where they bought it.

As of 2011, Americans alone consume one billion pounds of beef at McDonald's in a year which translate into five and a half million head of cattle. That is only the USA. The current commodity price for beef is $190.25 per head. That is $104,637,500,000. What USA political party and/or state is affiliated with beef?

It is estimated McDonald's feeds 1% of Earth's human population everyday. Currently the world human population on Earth is 7,224,448,976. One percent is 72,244,489 per day. Let's say the average customer spends about $5.00 US. That is probably a very low estimate. That would be a daily take of $361,222,445.00. Daily. That would be $ 131,846,192,425.00 annually.

Apr. 4, 2014 11:37 AM ET

Summary (click here)
  • McDonald’s has returned over 80% of operating cash flow to shareholders since 2008.
  • That means that $131 trillion is nearly pure profit. 20% of that $ 131 trillion is used for operating expenses, including wages.
  • McDonald’s strong brand, stable industry, and fair valuation reduce downside risk.
  • McDonald’s is expected to return $5 billion or 5.18% of market cap to shareholders this year.
McDonald's return will come equally from its dividend yield, share buybacks, and growth in the future. Investors in McDonald's can expect an 8% to 10% CAGR (Common Annual Growth Rate) going forward based on their dividend yield (3.32%), share buybacks, and expected growth rate (3% to 5%).

This is the current stock price.

McDonald's Corp. (MCD)-NYSE

97.87 Up 0.21(0.22%) Apr 4, 4:00PM EDT

McDonald's Corporation performs well during recessions due to their low priced food items. During the recession of 2007 to 2009, McDonald's Corporation earnings per share increased. Their strong brand, global presence, and slow-changing industry provide investors with safety as well as return....

While I am sure McDonald's in the Crimea served a nice profit to the corporation, I doubt the company will feel the pain.

By Natalia Zinets
Fri Apr 4, 2014 5:53pm EDT

(Reuters) - McDonald's Corp (click here) said on Friday it had closed its restaurants in Crimea, prompting fears of a backlash as a prominent Moscow politician called for all of the U.S. fast food chain's outlets in Russia to be shut.
Crimea's annexation by Russia, which Ukraine and the West do not acknowledge, has worried companies with assets in the Black Sea peninsula as it is unclear how the change may affect their business....

Now. When I say local economies can benefit. I mean it. That is a huge market share McDonald's has, it delivers Fat Food and undercuts it's employees. When employees are undercut the local economy is hurt. The employees purchasing power within the local economy is reduced and the chance they need government assistance increases. The local money if spent at Wall Street establishments is channeled to an international conglomerate that spends their money elsewhere. Hello?

My son's friend financed his college education in Massachusetts by opening a small sandwich shop called, "South Beach Wraps." It hired others to work while he was at classes and during study time. He automatically had his part time job while attending college. He served healthy food sandwich wraps and beverages. He was then married, started a family, graduated and sold the business.

Think about it.

Republican programs to raise people out of poverty have not worked.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22).

This is also named the "Welfare to Work Act." In it's basic form it is fairly benign and a good idea, however, the end result is not as benign as the law. 

Those on welfare have achieved goals and moved OFF the welfare rolls, but, once they are on their own there have been severe outcomes. Those benefiting from this program move into a minimum wage environment. Not everyone, but, many have. They don't necessarily have medical benefits. There is no reassure with this program that their graduates will live the quality of life provided to them while within the program. These are the working poor in many instances. 

While on this program children, young children, are taken care of through childcare benefits. Let's say the recipient takes the full five years to achieve an outcome that will provide a job and their children were very young, about one year old, when they came into the program. After five years the youngest are now six years old. 

The six year old child attends school, may or may not have school lunches available to them, but, they will go home to a home without supervision. Their home may or may not be a what would be characterized as 'good neighborhoods.' The parent in these circumstances is probably working two jobs as the very least. So, the time the six year is on their own is substantial. 

There are nightmare stories about these children. In one case, Mom was on the bus coming home when her young daughter was on her way home from school and killed. I don't have to speak to the nightmare in the inner city neighborhoods where parents are not available to their children of any age.

Programs such as Welfare to Work is suppose to lift citizens up and bring them a life worth living. That is called quality of life. The incentive to move from poverty to the Middle Class should be very clear. However, in the 21st Century USA, there is more incentive to hang on to programs and benefits because there is no value that exceeds that in the country for some people. 

Where the Republican programs fail is to limit the time a recipient has to achieve a job and move off welfare. The time limit is creating danger and removing incentive for THE SOCIETY to see the shortfall and address it in ways of raising the minimum wage. The goals of the program have a lot of merit. The USA should not seek to have their citizens on poverty benefits so much as moving into a Middle Class where incomes sustain quality of life including health insurance. It is after all the Middle Class that holds the earliest promise of the American Dream.

There is a lot of incentive for people to maintain their Middle Class status when they finally tap into a quality of life they have only dreamed about. The Middle Class and not the lower Middle Class has this potential. It is the Middle Class and the Upper Middle Class that begin to look to the future to plan for retirement and seek investments to improve their outcomes with their retirements. 

When one evaluates the Republican economic platform to realize their policies are for the wealthy and to continue to impoverish those without wealth their Welfare to Work program is one that victimizes and does not elevate. It is not the program that is the problem it is what the poor have to look forward to when they achieve job status and move off welfare. The problem of victimization takes it's youngest recipients and removes the safety net they have become used to while their parent was within the program.

It is my opinion there should be no limit to the program until the children are old enough to supervise themselves at home if indeed they are young during the program. That is the only option that is realistic to provide incentive to move the Republicans to stop their victimization and actually care about the poor when they do move into a Middle Class status.

The other option is to realize an economy where a program participant can actually move off welfare with sufficient income. Income sufficient to pay for childcare while working ONE job. To pay the rent, food without food stamps and health care as well as birthday gifts and parties and all those wonderful times a family has to be together and celebrate each other. Currently, the impoverished in the USA is extreme. It was created by four decades of Republican priorities. So, they have no right to speak to poverty when it is not removed completely and children suffer adverse outcomes only to become unwed mothers that return to the program at their earliest opportunity.

Absent parents should never be the best outcome of any program within the USA.

When it comes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Republicans have no credibility.

By Glenn Kessler
January 6, 2014 
“It’s official: (click here) #Obamacare debuts with more canceled plans than enrollments” – tweet by House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Jan. 2, 2014...

The Republican Party is FISHING for a reason to be elected. Their rhetoric is their lifeline and they'll contort any reality to achieve some kind of reputation for fighting for the little guy. There is nothing about the Republican Party that states they are for the little guy. Quite the contrary. So, to begin everything the Republicans claim is 'the truth' is automatically in question.

In the article from the Washington Post it is stated the claims by the Republicans have are false both in their context and their focus. The date alone on the article making this perverted claim by Speaker Boehner is a dead give away to it's falseness and it's intent. The intent was to deceive the electorate. Give me a break, this is January 6th. There was NO TIME that passed to understand the focus of the nation on the law. On January 6th there was a +/- error of 100%.

So, when the Republicans jumped on this display of falsehood to win their base, the rest of the nation only looks in disgust to the lack of facts to the statements. The Democrats have to hold the Republicans to these outrageous falsehoods in the November elections. The only fact in these statements is that they were made. The Dems should use that fact alone to demonstrate where the character of Republicans actually live. Like. What character?

The focus of the statement by President Obama was intended for those Americans that had a health care policy that meets the standards of SUFFICIENT according to the law. It probably was better said, "If you health care policy is sufficient to protect your health you can keep it." But, if he said that it would not have mattered, the Republicans would have taken out of context as they do now. The ethical content to Republicans political speech is absent. They aren't ethical. Are ethics important to Republicans and their base? It wouldn't seem to be.  

So, all the money the Republicans are pouring into falsehoods and out of context ads to BRAIN WASH the electorate should be viewed by the Democrats as an opportunity to reach the public so they understand their best interests found in the law.

The reason the Democrats' message sometimes falls flat is because the Republicans speak to 'survival' aspects of life. "Death panels." "Killing women, killing children." The Republicans ASSAULT the senses of Americans too busy to actually have the facts to understand the issue. The Republicans TELL their constituencies they don't understand what the Republicans understand by the underhanded Democrats.

Republicans tell or allow the belief of their constituents that they plug into political money and cater to those cronies in their legislation because it benefits the little guy, not because they are corrupt. The Democrats have to define ethics, truth and anti-corruption and why it benefits the best interest of the citizen. Corruption is expensive. It is expensive in many ways. It assaults the citizen in insideous ways. Through lack of protections (not regulations) of the citizen for their health and consumer products. Regulations exist to protect. Regulations aren't there for the simple reason of regulation. So, why use the word regulation? If the Democrats want to use the word regulation link it to the protections it leverages to serve the citizens. 

The language of the Republicans has to be challenged and if it becomes a battle cry, the Dems need to examine the GOP's use of the words and adjust the definition so the electorate has the power to reveal the falsehoods. It isn't enough to simply dispute the words, there has to be adaptation to the electorate to find their way home to their 'own best interests' that are sincerely their best interests. 

Republican states have poor people. A lot of poor people. When people are poor the fear factor to hold on to survival wages has high priority. If their Republican leaders can lie and get lots of money in their coffers to legislation to pretend to protect that impoverishment, what could be better? 

The fear of losing what one has when there is no residual to their survival day to day has to be dispelled to their best interests. The fear Republicans have to survive is incredible. It is also very unrealistic and there are entire economies in the USA based in that fear. The fear drives citizens to believe they can survive anything if they are smart enough. So, the idea of smart isn't even the same between the two parties.

The Democrats have to define 'outreach' to these poor citizens of this country. The Dems have to find the language. Their candidates in Red States have trouble achieving the goals of speaking about quality of life because they can't surmount the fear as it does not exist in the language of Democrats. 

The Democrats aren't afraid of regulation, why? The Democrats are not afraid of government, why? The Democrats don't fear adversity, why? The Democrats embrace diversity, why? The Democrats demand their economies are based in the truth, ethics and standards of quality of life and longevity, why? 

The language of Republicans embrace guns, death, killing, war, self-reliance as an ego center to life's struggles, every opportunity of wealth no matter the hardship it causes others and forget about worrying about the lives of those outside the USA, that is simply war to get them out of the way. The United Nations never enters the dialogue of the Republicans.  

Do Republicans ever state "Environmental Responsibility?" Never. Why? Look at their cronies. Environmental Responsibility? Quality of life of employees? Employees, who wants them? Education? Education gets in the way of power because "knowledge is power." The electorate of the Republicans are to be powerless, hopeless and in need of prays to make it through the day because there is no safety net for them.

The Democrats have to come to terms to the reality of the Republican dialogue, their sincere priorities and realize they are no one's friend including any bipartisanship that appears to occur from time to time. Harry Reid started something and everyone is warning that he is alienating people because of it's negativity. Negativity. How do you define that? Negativity happens when it diminishes the protections to the lives of citizens and smothers political speech with lies, deceptions and falsehoods.

The USA is suppose operate on one citizen, one vote. The Supreme Court is removing that power from the country's electorate. The Supreme Court is acting unconstitutionally and the US Legislature should be all over that reality. It isn't. The current US House is basking in that unconstitutionality. That is treason. I didn't know the Supreme Court was actually the legislature, because, I don't see the legislature capable of actually taking on the challenge to overcome the short falls of the biased Supreme Court with it's plutocratic priorities.

The Dems have to find the language to have the citizen act at the ballot box in their own best interests and in contrary to the culture of fear that is their reality.