Mediaboss Marketing

President Obama proposed tougher regulations on investment brokers who handle retirement funds, saying it is time to curb hidden fees, "backdoor" payments and conflicts of interest that can cost middle-class Americans tens of thousands of dollars in retirement savings.

Diving into another likely clash with a Republican-led Congress, Obama on Monday billed his proposed rules a revival of an effort quashed amid industry opposition four years ago as part of his renewed focus on a populist economic message.

He dished out tough criticism of financial advisors who are "bilking" clients for their own benefit and selling "snake oil." He delivered the message while standing with consumer advocates, retirees and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a favorite among liberals for her efforts to reform the financial system.

"We've got a lot more work to do to make sure the recovery reaches every single American out there and not just those at the top," Obama said in remarks delivered at the headquarters of seniors advocacy group AARP.

The proposed rules, which the administration can enact without congressional approval, would require some financial advisors to act as what the law calls fiduciaries for their clients. That would require them to put the client's interests ahead of other factors, such as their own compensation or company profits, when recommending or selling investments.

The reforms, long backed by many consumer groups, are designed to crack down on advisors who steer investors to products that provide hidden payments or generate higher fees for the advisor but do not necessarily provide the best returns.

Currently, advisors are required to recommend "suitable" investments for clients, but that standard leaves considerable room for abuses, according to consumer advocates.

A report released Monday by Obama's Council of Economic Advisors estimated that investors receiving "conflicted advice" earn lower returns by roughly 1 percentage point a year than other investors.

That adds up to roughly $17 billion in lost returns in individual retirement accounts each year, the report said. Over time, the losses can build to tens of thousands of dollars for the average worker.

Financial services industry officials disputed those estimates and said new rules would require changes to their compensation structure that would undermine their business model. Professional guidance would become more expensive and out of reach for average investors, they warned.

Continue reading here:
Obama proposes tougher rules for retirement fund advice

Published February 19, 2015

WASHINGTON President Obama defended his administrations approach to the terror threat at a White House summit Wednesday, standing by claims that groups like the Islamic State do not represent Islam -- as well as assertions that job creation could help combat extremism.

Obama, addressing the Washington audience on the second day of the summit, said the international community needs to address grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic and political issues.

He stressed that poverty alone doesnt cause terrorism, but resentments fester and extremism grows when millions of people are impoverished.

We do have to address the grievances that terrorists exploit including economic grievances, he said.

He also said no single religion was responsible for violence and terrorism, adding he wants to lift up the voice of tolerance in the United States and beyond.

Obamas address came as Republican lawmakers and others criticized the administration for declining to describe the threat as Islamic terrorism.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf has also come under fire for suggesting several times this past week that more jobs could help address the terrorism crisis.

On Tuesday, Rob O'Neill, former Navy SEAL Team 6 member who claims to have fired the shot that killed Usama bin Laden, told Fox News: "They get paid to cut off heads -- to crucify children, to sell slaves and to cut off heads and I don't think that a change in career path is what's going to stop them."

Obama also called on Muslim leaders to do more to discredit the notion that our nations are determined to suppress Islam, that there is an inherent clash in civilizations.

See the article here:
Obama says world should address grievances that terrorists exploit

President Obama said Wednesday that using the term Islamic extremism only grants terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State the legitimacy they seek as he called for a broader effort to prevent alienated young people from taking up violent causes.

In his most direct response to date of critics of his rhetorical choices, Obama said the Islamic State and Al Qaeda had been successful in recruiting disaffected Muslims by portraying themselves as holy warriors in defense of Islam, a notion he called a lie.

They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists. And we are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam, Obama said.

The presidents remarks ended the second day of the White Houses Summit on Countering Violent Extremism, which is bringing together dozens of local-level law enforcement groups, community leaders and academics as well as representatives from 60 countries on a long-simmering issue recently thrust to the forefront.

The White House has sought to craft a message that will prevent young people from flocking to become fighters for Islamic State, and to prevent homegrown attacks like those that have hit Europe in recent weeks.

Obama administration officials said the summit was about tackling root causes, such as economic opportunity and education, with no immediate responses or quick fixes. While the White House announced some new policies and commitments from participating countries, including the appointment of a new senior-level coordinator on violent extremism at the Department of Homeland Security, the summit was primarily aimed at having a conversation.

In his remarks, Obama also talked up programs in Los Angeles, Minneapolis and Boston as models for reaching what officials describe as vulnerable communities in the U.S.

These are partnerships that bring people together in the spirit of mutual respect, he said.

For weeks before the summit convened Tuesday, Obama has been criticized for not explicitly labeling the problem Islamic extremism, relying on the phrase violent extremism.

Republicans accused the president of tiptoeing around the issue out of an apparent reluctance to offend Muslims. Some seized on Obamas use of the word randomly in describing the attack last month on a kosher deli in Paris as evidence of the presidents refusal to acknowledge the anti-Semitic motivations in the killings. When Obama spoke of the threat of violence in the name of religion without specifically citing Islam, critics saw him dodging.

Follow this link:
Obama calls for global effort against spread of extremist ideas

To the editor: President Obama, despite facing criticism, has been adamant in making a distinction between Islam and extremism. His words have brought much comfort to Muslims like me in the United States, living in the shadow of Islamophobia. ("President Obama: Our fight against violent extremism," Op-Ed, Feb. 17)

Recent hate crimes toward Muslims are against the American values of freedom and justice. No one should have to die for the way they look or whom they worship.

I am grateful to our president for realizing the importance of separating religion from extremism. Now we can focus on the true causes of terrorism and get a little bit closer in trying to eradicate it.

Huma Munir, San Antonio

..

To the editor: Applying a term like "violent extremism" to today's worldwide Islamic terrorism indicates that our president goes to great lengths to avoid the use of the term "Islamic terrorism."

It is quite obvious that Obama has either not quite understood the nature of this menace or is too politically correct to call it by its real name. In other words, Obama has not even identified this problem and is therefore unable to formulate a solution for it.

Whether it is political correctness or Obama's denial of reality, in either case it appears that we do not have a president who is quite capable of tackling, this complex issue.

Joseph Azizi, Beverly Hills

..

See the rest here:
Obama's reluctance to say 'Islamic terrorism'

President Obama formally asked Congress to authorize military operations against Islamic State, seeking to put lawmakers on record in support of a Middle East conflict that seems likely to intensify in coming months and last beyond the end of his time in office.

After promising for years to curb the parameters of his own powers to wage war, Obama proposed a resolution Wednesday that sets relatively few hard limits on him or the next president. It also would not touch the post-Sept. 11 authorization to use the military against international terrorism, which he has warned leaves the U.S. in a permanent state of war.

The request will open a potentially lengthy argument over U.S. involvement in the fight against militant Islamic groups in Iraq and Syria. That debate is likely to pit the president against his fellow Democrats, many of whom are deeply skeptical of military action.

The request comes as the Pentagon prepares for a stepped-up period in the fight against Islamic State militants. Iraqi government forces are expected this year to begin trying to wrest back major cities from extremist control, including Mosul, Iraq's second-largest.

U.S. commanders have made clear they're likely to ask Obama to authorize American troops to take part in that operation, although not as front-line combat troops. U.S. personnel might serve in roles such as advisors and spotters to guide airstrikes.

Obama contends that he already has authority for such deployments under the 2001 authorization permitting use of force against Al Qaeda, which once had ties to Islamic State, as well as the 2002 sanctioning of the Iraq war. Because of that legal authority, the new proposal would not add to his ability to order troops into harm's way. But, the White House argues, it would force lawmakers to assume more of the responsibility and political heat for a conflict with no end in sight.

As he faces a new Republican-controlled Congress and an ever-shrinking window for action, Obama said it was time to give troops a clear strategy and the support they need to get the job done.

As a nation, we need to ask the difficult and necessary questions about when, why and how we use military force, Obama said Wednesday.

The resolution, which would expire in three years, sets no geographic boundaries on U.S. operations against Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, and uses just five words to limit the type of operations Obama or his successor could order.

A president could not deploy U.S. troops for enduring offensive ground combat operations, the measure states, using a phrase the White House acknowledged was intentionally fuzzy to allow flexibility.

See the original post:
Obama asks Congress for 'flexibility' in fight against Islamic State