The Kevin Trudeau Show: 1-19-13

Today, Kevin explains the importance of eliminating hydrogenated oil, trans fats, and homogenized dairy from your diet.

Self Help:
Steps Toward Perfect Health
Get Vitamin D FREE For Life!
Promote Heart Health
Turn Back The Hands Of Time
Shower The Toxins Away
Protect Your Body

Health:
Butter Is GOOD For You
Eating Fish Cuts Cancer

Government:
School District Bans Jamie Oliver From Promoting Healthy Diets For Children

Unbelievable:
Magnetic Boy Attracts Electronic & Metal Objects

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

 

Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

Working Long Hours Doubles Depression Odds

January 26, 2012

By Matt McMillen

Health.com

Working long hours appears to substantially increase a person’s risk of becoming depressed, regardless of how stressful the actual work is, a new study suggests.
The study, which followed 2,123 British civil servants for six years, found that workers who put in an average of at least 11 hours per day at the office had roughly two and a half times higher odds of developing depression than their colleagues who clocked out after seven or eight hours.
The link between long workdays and depression persisted even after the researchers took into account factors such as job strain, the level of support in the workplace, alcohol use, smoking, and chronic physical diseases.
Although the findings are “consistent with previous studies, the degree of increased risk was surprising,” says Bryan Bruno, M.D., chair of the psychiatry department at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York City, who was not involved in the research. “The biggest condition that I work with is depression, and it is often related to work stressors.”

Read the Full Story

Is the Welfare System Making Americans Incompetent?

August 23rd, 2011

The Huffington Post

By: Janell Ross

Sasha Mandel says she never imagined going on welfare. But her plans for a career and the independence she craved ran headlong into a pair of unforeseen developments — an unplanned pregnancy at 18, and the worst job market since the Great Depression.

In April 2009, freshly unemployed and devoid of savings, Mandel reluctantly walked into a state office in Phoenix to apply for welfare. Her caseworker was sympathetic, swiftly arranging emergency food aid along with cash assistance. But she was also clear on the limits of that relief: Under the terms of Arizona’s welfare program, Mandel could draw a welfare check for no more than three years.

That timeframe was about to get shorter. This April, cash-strapped Arizona tightened the limit on welfare payments to two years. Mandel learned about the change when she received a letter from the state in June. She was only a few weeks away from exhausting her benefits.

“That letter,” she said, “it just said to me that they decided to change the rules when the game for single mothers is already really, really hard.”

Fifteen years after President Clinton joined with congressional Republicans and affixed his signature to a law that “ended welfare as we know it” — imposing a five-year time limit on federal cash assistance for poor families, while allowing states to set shorter limits — the social safety net is failing to keep pace with the needs of struggling Americans, many experts say. Millions of single mothers are falling through the cracks, scrambling to support their families with neither paychecks nor government aid.

Welfare reform, one of the hallmark events of the Clinton presidency, was supposed to be a healthy tradeoff: Single mothers who had grown dependent on government checks would instead go out and work. The federal government gave the states lump sums of money, known as block grants, to create programs that would prepare, prompt and push poor single mothers accustomed to living on welfare into the workforce, providing job training, resume-writing tutorials and subsidized child care.

But the time limits on cash aid were enacted in the mid-1990s, in the midst of one of the most vibrant job markets in modern times. Today, with nearly 14 million people officially out of work and jobseekers outnumbering available positions by more than four-to-one, the logic of those reforms is being overwhelmed by the reality of a stark shortage of paychecks, experts say.

“Today, everybody is expected to work,” said Sheila Zedlewski, an economist at the Urban Institute and co-author of an institute study released last week that examines the consequences of welfare reform during the recession. “The problem is finding a job is incredibly hard.”

Since the beginning of the recession in late 2007, the nation’s unemployment rate has increased by 88 percent, while welfare caseloads have grown just 14 percent, according to the Urban Institute report.

Experts say this disparity reflects the inadequacy of remaining welfare programs in the face of a veritable epidemic of joblessness. During a period of national distress, fewer and fewer people have been able to secure help to meet their basic needs, according to the report.

Between 2007 and 2010 — just as the economy was contracting and joblessness was rising, generating greater demand for public assistance — welfare caseloads dropped in 13 states, according to the Urban Institute report. In Arizona, which faced a particularly powerful blow to its finances in the form of a sustained plunge in housing prices, the welfare caseload dropped by 48 percent during that timeframe.

Many of those who advocated for ending welfare as an unlimited entitlement say the change has been beneficial — the share of single, never married mothers in the workforce climbed from 62.9 percent in 1996 to 72.4 percent a decade later, according to federal data.

“Poverty rates are still lower and work rates still higher than before welfare reform,” said Ron Haskins, who played a key role in shaping the policy as a senior Republican congressional adviser, and who is now co-director of the Brookings Center on Children and Families. “In that sense, welfare reform has been a success.”

But as Haskins acknowledges, the reforms have never managed to address the barriers confronting a small subset of welfare recipients with very limited education, significant physical and mental health problems, or unhealthy children, preventing them from entering the workforce.

The share of people who both live in poverty with no reported income and lack welfare assistance has changed significantly since welfare reform. In 1996, 1 in 8 single mothers fit this profile, according to Zedlewski. By 2008, the most recent year for which this data is available, that figure had climbed to 1 in 5, she said.

In the early days after welfare reform, many states enacted stricter time limits, Arizona included, and beefed up programs offering subsidized child care — a crucial component for single mothers required to work. The budget crisis assailing states has prompted many states to effectively roll back these programs.

States around the country are slashing cash benefits, reducing time limits and, in some cases, imposing strict work requirements on welfare applicants, said LaDonna Pavetti, an expert on welfare who works at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The practices also make it very hard for parents already dealing with a job crisis, a disability or other complications to qualify for cash aid, she said.

In the 2000s, states also began shifting federal funds that could be used for cash benefits for single mothers to cover other costs. Some of the money went to cover the cost of child care or transportation assistance. But large shares were also used to fund state child welfare agencies, which frequently don’t get all the resources they need from states.

In 1997, the first year the reforms took effect in most states, Georgia used 73 percent of its federal welfare block grant to provide cash aid to poor families, according to data the state reported to the federal government. By 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, Georgia spent just 11 percent of its block grant on cash aid. Spending in Florida, Texas and Arizona plunged by similar margins.

The impact of these cuts is easy to discern: Far fewer poor families are being given cash assistance. In 2009, Georgia and Texas each provided cash aid to less than 10 percent of poor families, according to the Urban Institute report.

“You have so many people who were pushed off welfare who didn’t find work in the beginning, and today there are so many people who can’t get welfare at all,” said Peter Edelman, a Georgetown University law professor who resigned from a senior position in the Clinton administration to protest the President’s decision to sign welfare reform into law. “As an anti-recessionary tool, welfare as we know it today is useless.”

Edelman compares the paltry expansion of the nation’s welfare rolls during the recession — from about 3.9 million families in 2007 to about 4.4 million families in 2010 — to what happened to the food stamp program. During the same time period, food stamp program participation rose from about 30 million households to 44 million, reflecting real levels of economic need.

“What we’ve done is make things worse,” Edelman said. “There are now people who cannot find work, and who can not get welfare.”

Click here for the full report from The Huffington Post

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 7-20-11

Today, Kevin explains how government waste is ruining our economy and how just a small modification to where we put our tax dollars could actually fix America’s debt crisis. Plus, get Kevin’s opinion on raw food diets and protein shakes!

Self Help:
Change Your Diet
Hemp Protein

Health:
Hungary Introduces Fat Tax On “Unhealthy” Foods

Media:
Glenn Beck Laughs at Whistleblowers Death

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Stand with KT!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 4-5-11

Today, Kevin explains the importance of eliminating hydrogenated oil, trans fats, and homogenized dairy from your diet.

Self Help:
Steps Toward Perfect Health
Get Vitamin D FREE For Life!
Promote Heart Health
Turn Back The Hands Of Time
Shower The Toxins Away
Protect Your Body

Health:
Butter Is GOOD For You
Eating Fish Cuts Cancer

Government:
School District Bans Jamie Oliver From Promoting Healthy Diets For Children

Unbelievable:
Magnetic Boy Attracts Electronic & Metal Objects

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Support Kevin!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become A Fan of Kevin on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

 

Click below to watch the Kevin Trudeau Show!

We’ve Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

April 4th, 2011

The Wall Street Journal

By: Stephen Moore

If you want to understand better why so many states—from New York to Wisconsin to California—are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two—Indiana and Wisconsin—has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees—twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida’s ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York’s.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world—at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That’s less than half of the state’s 1.48 million government employees.

Don’t expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren’t willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn’t pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we’ve gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services—fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations—through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to “win the future.” The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.

Click here for the full report from the Wall Street Journal

Government Protects Employees Who Watch Porn on the Job

April 1st, 2011

AOL Jobs

By: Lisa Johnson Mandell

It looks like employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) might not be able to get away with murder, but they can get away with downloading and watching massive amounts of pornography while on the job. When word got out that they were doing this, none of the offenders were fired or even reported to or disciplined by their professional associations.

According to Denver-based attorney Kevin Evans, who sued to have as much information on the incidents as possible released, the majority of the employees involved were attorneys, and none of them was fired or reported to the American Bar Association.

Evans is rankled by the situation because these government employees were watching porn on company time, basically being paid by taxpayers to do it. He says that a private practice attorney who deceitfully billed clients like that would not only be kicked out of the American Bar Association and lose his or her license to practice law, but also could also be indicted and prosecuted for fraud.

The government has not exactly been forthcoming about the details of the situation. Just reading about heinous misuse of taxpayer funds upset Evans enough to send him on a search for details. He had to sue to get most of them, which, after a lot of time and effort, included the 24 offenders’ grade, rank, offense and what disciplinary measures were taken, but no names.

“Not one was fired,” Evans told AOL Jobs. “But some were allowed to resign. They received basically nothing more than a slap on the wrist.” One had downloaded so much porn at work his hard drive was full, and he had to burn the porn onto disks, which he stashed around his office.

Evans has been unable to get the SEC to name names, however. The presiding judge stated that “the public has no right to the names of government employees engaged in unlawful activity.”

While Evans believes he’s taken the issue about as far as he can go, he feels his time and effort were worthwhile. “By sheer media attention and public interest, we feel we’ve been successful,” he said. We may not know exactly who bilked American taxpayers for time spent watching porn, but we do know that the SEC is responsible for letting them get away with it.

We also know that it’s not just happening at the SEC. Evans says that since the situation has come to light, he’s received e-mails from employees of many other government agencies claiming that colleagues are watching porn in their offices as well. Your tax dollars at work.

Click here for the full report from AOL Jobs

Employees Spend Half Their Days Doing Nothing

March 3rd, 2011

AOL Small Business

By: Rieva Lesonsky

Does it often seem like you spend your whole day working, but get nothing done? Well, you’re not imagining it. A new survey confirms it — you really are accomplishing nothing. (That uncomfortable office chair doesn’t help matters, either.) Here’s a closer look at some of the latest small-business surveys.

Busy Doing Nothing

Employees at small and midsize businesses spend 50 percent of their day on “necessary, yet unproductive” tasks like filing, communications and dealing with correspondence, according to a survey by Webtorials for business communications company Fonality.

The study of “knowledge workers” — the largest staff component for most SMBs (or the business owners themselves) — found that 36 percent spend their time trying to contact customers, partners or colleagues, find information or schedule a meeting. They spend 14 percent of their time duplicating information (forwarding e-mails or calling to confirm if a communication was received) and managing unwanted communications such as spam e-mails or unsolicited phone calls.

I can so relate to this survey. There are too many days I feel like 99 percent of my time is spent on this stuff, so it’s nice to know I’m not alone.

Discomfort Factor

Are your employees grumpy? Maybe they just need better chairs. One-third of U.S. workers say they would be more pleasant to work with if they had better ergonomic furniture, according to a survey from Staples Advantage, the business-to-business division of Staples.

Eighty-six percent of workers say they suffer discomfort from their current furniture and equipment, which is no surprise, since a whopping 77 percent of companies don’t consider ergonomics when purchasing furniture. But small changes can make big differences: With more comfortable furniture, nearly half of workers say they’d be more productive, and 35 percent say they’d be less stressed.

Sounds like buying your staff new chairs would be a small price to pay for increased productivity.

Maybe They Have Better Chairs?

Despite having a critical view of the economy (rating it 47 on a scale of 1 to 100), U.S. CFOs are showing signs of optimism when it comes to their own companies. Almost half of corporate CFOs (47 percent) say their companies plan to hire in 2011, up from 28 percent last year, according to the CFO Outlook survey by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Forty-four percent plan to hire permanent employees, while 13 percent plan to add contract workers. Some say they plan to hire both. With trends in the past few years favoring contract workers, I’m a bit surprised by the strong showing for permanent employees — but I’m happy to see it. More people working floats all businesses’ boats.

Click here for the full report from AOL Small Business

The Kevin Trudeau Show: 2-8-11

Today, Kevin explains how specific products may help you now, but will end up hurting you in the long run. Plus, find out how a woman was able to use her mind to win the lottery!

Self Help:
Change Your Frequency   
Make Your Dreams Come True     

Health:
FDA Rejects Another Diet Pill    
Women Under 30 Losing ‘Lady Skills’ Like Cooking and Cleaning   
Working Moms More Likely To Have Overweight Children   
What School Lunches Should Be   
Defective Hip Replacements Recalled     

The Mind:
Woman Envisions Winning The Lottery And Won!!   
Use Your Mind To Heal Your Body    

Government:
A Sex Joke and Other Judicial Bad Behavior     

Crime:
Man Guilty of 2nd-Degree Murder for Beheading Wife   

Deception:
90% Of All Medical Studies Are Reversed   
Doctors Go Their Whole Career Without Assessments   
Surprise Witness Admits Julian Assange Is Being Framed   

Wealth:
More Investors Position for Possibility of U.S. Default   

Everything Kevin:
Become An Insider!
Kevin is on YouTube!
Sign Up For Kevin’s FREE Podcast
Follow Kevin on Twitter
Become Kevin’s Friend on Facebook
Kevin’s Film Club
Kevin’s Book Club

Take Trudeau on the Go! Click here to download this show to your iPod, mp3 player, or PC through iTunes!

Click Below to Watch the Kevin Trudeau Show LIVE!

Judge Halts Obama Questioning In ‘Blago’ Trial

June 30, 2010

Chicago Tribune

By Jeff Coen

Sheldon Sorosky, one of Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers, has been trying to drag President Barack Obama into the fray this afternoon, asking union official Tom Balanoff whether the FBI asked him about campaign money going to Obama.

Prosecutors objected, as they have so often during cross-examinations, and U.S. District Judge James Zagel said Sorosky should only ask in general what the FBI had said to Balanoff.

Sorosky tried the question again, using Zagel’s recommended wording. “I know that won’t be objected to,” Sorosky said, causing the nearby Blagojevich to laugh.

But Balanoff didn’t get to give an answer, and Zagel wouldn’t let the line of questioning go on after a private sidebar discussion among the lawyers.

Sorosky did get to ask about Balanoff’s labor group — the Service Employees International Union — supporting candidates for office. He asked whether the SEIU had supported “a young state senator” named Barack Obama as well as Blagojevich in his first run for governor in 2002.

“They cared about working people?” Sorosky asked. Balanoff said that was essentially right.

Click here for the full report.