Jay Bookman

By The Corporal

January 5, 2009 7:14 PM | Link to this

As I have said before, if proven quilty, this much fraud deserves the death penalty.

I would sleep like a baby.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 5, 2009 7:14 PM | Link to this

Heck, he coulda got a democrat Senate seat for that much.

Then all the libs would defend him.

By Paul

January 5, 2009 7:24 PM | Link to this

There’d been talk of pulling back from Sarbanes-Oxley and other internal control-type regulations as they didn’t seem to have much bang for the buck.

Not now.

BTW - next time someone uses the “tax and spend liberals” line, just ask them - how are you going to hire people at the SEC and other places to prevent massive fraud and unethical behavior (I know, unethical isn’t illegal, but maybe we can get a few more laws or regs through) if you don’t raise the money from taxes and spend it on salaries for the investigators?

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 7:30 PM | Link to this

I think Madoff should spend the rest of his life scrubbing toilets for the people that he cheated. I hope someone is able to find the others involved in this scam and punish them as well. I do not think that killing Madoff is appropriate. That’s giving him the easy way out.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 5, 2009 7:31 PM | Link to this

Paul- Most of the recent financial meltdowns and shenanigans happened during the reign of Sarbanes-Oxley.

So did the loss of much wasted capital.

Regulations do what, exactly?

By Davo

January 5, 2009 7:38 PM | Link to this

Greenespan, Madoff, and Blago Investments L.L.C. est.2009

Trust us with your economic meltdowns

1-800-WHT-HOUS

By Paul

January 5, 2009 7:40 PM | Link to this

Management

I’ve my doubts about the effectiveness of Sarbanes-Oxley and the ability of Congress to tweak laws and regs to make them more effective.

But having said that, my main point was that having tough enforcers to keep the crooks from manipulating and swindling the people takes professionals - in auditing, information systems, law, etc. And that means hiring them and paying them. Which means taking the money for that in the form of taxes. And spending it on them.

Just a dig at the tiring “tax and spend” mantra. Personally, I’d rather cut ineffective programs, take the savings and apply it on more effective spending, rather than just continually raise taxes, but that’s a pipe dream, I’m afraid.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2009 7:44 PM | Link to this

Madoff’s plan looked an awful lot like Social Security. Maybe we should just declare the Congressional complex a prison when they convene tomorrow and lock the doors.

By ToMHERE

January 5, 2009 7:47 PM | Link to this

No. He should be walking the streets, a free man. Jail is not for people like him. Jail is for young black men who get caught with a dime rock of crack. Or who break into a school and steal ice cream bars. Jail is for women who sell their bodies, for men who steal a loaf of bread to feed their family. Jail is for people who can’t afford a lawyer and have to settle for indigent defense. Madoff should be walking the streets so one of his victims can walk up beside him and blow his f**king brains out. Go ahead and kill the worthless piece of human excrement.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 5, 2009 7:50 PM | Link to this

Will liberals ever learn that criminals don’t follow laws and no amount of regulation will keep crooked people from stealing other people’s money? Sarbanes Oxley is a massive burden on LAW ABIDING companies (which is nearly all of them…) and has done nothing and never will to prevent the Madoff’s and Enron’s of the world from being what they are.

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 7:51 PM | Link to this

There are lots of reasons why regulations may or may not work. One might choose to not enforce them or one might have too much of a workload to be able to do a good job or the regulation may be so vaguely written that it’s difficult to determine if it has been broken or the so-called enforcers may be incompetent or crooks… That hardly justifies a claim that regulations should just be eliminated. After all, try applying that logic to other things such as speeding, robbery, murder. We’ll never be able to prevent all of the crimes that occur but do we eliminate the laws based on that fact. In fact, with that logic, why not turn Madoff loose. After all he pulled the rug over everyone’s eyes all these years and never got caught so what’s the point in having any laws that might have applied to him. This line of thought is sounding an awful lot like the Limbaugh-Republican’s desired goal of Laissez Faire.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2009 7:51 PM | Link to this

Paul,

If we determine that we need more money for enforcers in the financial sector can’t we look for it in other areas of dead weight we’re already paying for first?

By AF

January 5, 2009 7:54 PM | Link to this

Sounds like Madoff is trying to protect some assets. I don’t care if he has antiques inhereted from 20 generations back. All his assets, his yacht, and his many homes and cars should be sold and proceeds given to those he bilked. He, his wife, children, that niece who married the SEC regulator, his sons in law who sold others on putting their money with Madoff for investment - all of them should have to give up all they have received from Madoff from day one of his scheme.

Madoff needs to go to jail. Now. No bail.

By getalife

January 5, 2009 8:00 PM | Link to this

The face of unbridled greed with no remorse.

He should die in prison.

By AJC/DNC Management

January 5, 2009 8:08 PM | Link to this

Seeing how Madoff donated huge sums of $$$$$ to liberal special interest groups, it’s quite possible that the democrats covered his crimes and we only found out because he blew all the money.

It wouldn’t be the first criminal they covered for.

By Chad Harris

January 5, 2009 8:11 PM | Link to this

Bernie momentos aren’t doing well on ole ebay at all. Somehow Bernie doesn’t emit that Daniel Craig aura of charisma now that it’s known he can’t make money fall from the sky.

Bernie needs to be in Gitmo conditions.

It’s going to be fun watching whether SEC IG David Kotz can do a competent investigation of the SECs clown act during Clinton and both Bush administrations.

Bernie’s assets are slipping away way above and beyond the million in jewelry as every hour goes by. They’re being hidden by off shore tax companies who are under deep cover and out of reach of the Bannana Republic USA.

Who is Ira Sorkin? He’s a consummate bullsh*t artist. Sorkin knows damn well how to go after assets. He did it for years and if it could be proved Sorkin knew Madoff is hiding assets (I expect that fedexed jewelry is just the tip of a huge iceberg) Sorkin can be charged with conspiracy and obstruction.

From the pages of Dickstein Shapiro:

Call Ira and tell him where you feel Bernie should be:

:(212) 277-6576

From 1984 to 1986, Mr. Sorkin was the Director of the SEC’s New York Office, where he supervised approximately 195 staff members, including lawyers, investigators, examiners, accountants, and clerical personnel.

From 1971 to 1976, Mr. Sorkin served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and then Deputy Chief, of the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. While an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he prosecuted numerous cases involving conspiracy, narcotics, organized crime, mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud, among other federal violations. Many of the prosecutions occurred while he was a member of Securities Frauds Unit, where he prosecuted violations of the federal securities laws. As Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, Mr. Sorkin was responsible for, among other things, approving indictments, authorizing search and arrest warrants and helping formulate policy relating to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. From 1995 to 1997, he served as the Chief Legal Officer and a Member of the Board of Directors for Nomura Holding America, Inc. and Nomura Securities International, Inc., a member firm of the New York Stock Exchange.

And what is Ira doing now? He’s anorgasm ically schtupping hundreds of people out of their money including synogogues and a number of Jewish charity organizations.

Obviously Bernie is giving a symbolic middle finger to the court appointed trustee and the already 8000 and growing lossees or claimants.

If a thorough investigation were done, then hundreds of off shore illegal tax shell companies would be exposed, but don’t worry, it’s not going to happen.

The US Attorney in SDNY isn’t remotely equipped to do one and Bush SEC is composed of thumb in their badasss dufusses.

Carolyn Kennedy is back giving :”you know you know you know you know” sound bytes like ya know like?

My wishlist for non-confirmation is growing longer:

Hillary Clinton— a dispicably unqualified choice for Sec State who lied about risk in Bosnia. Thoroughly dishonest and a skank.

Leon Pinneta—Director of CIA needs to be an experienced operative who knows the workings of CIA from years of experience.

Holder— one of the worst choices ever to be Attorney General in a DOJ that is in dissaray at the highest levels with total liars burrowed in as career people.

A big shout out to:

Senator Frankin who called Rush Limpballs a big fat idiot in the title of his book. He did the same for moron Bill O’Reilly. Looks like he’s good enough, smart enough, and will be well liked in the Senate.

The new junior Senator from Illinois who has total legal leverge and quickly said he would not agree to a caretaker two years and will run in 2010. Roland has every legal right to do so.

Roland Burris is going to make a fool out of Reid and Durbin and I’m going to love watching him given them some badly needed CLE.

Coleman’s offices has been locked and he and his staff have been barred from entering. This is a symbol for what should happen to Bush, Cheney and their scumbags immediately.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 5, 2009 8:15 PM | Link to this

taxpayer, nobody said there shouldn’t be laws, but to have created sarbanes oxley and whatever the Madoff crimes will surely create is pointless. Everything Enron did was already illegal. New laws were not needed to make it more illegal. Sarbanes Oxley is a very expensive burden on US businesses and one that doesn’t accomplish anything of value. People who didn’t obey the prior laws aren’t going to obey this one either.

Cheating people out of their money is illegal and has been for hundreds of years in this country. The rest of this crap is window dressing to make well meaning liberals feel good while providing no real value.

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 8:18 PM | Link to this

And yet, not a word about sending the crooks at AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, etc., to jail or to the electric chair. Surely what some of the executives at these companies did should be illegal. How does one justify packaging sub-primes loans together and slicing them up into securities and calling parts AAA rated debt. How does one justify writing trillions of dollars of unsecured CDSs to insure these so-called AAA rated instruments. How do you justify telling customers that these AAA rated instruments are as good as cash to their face but say the opposite when their backs are turned…and on and on. (Actually, it’s easy. You just get people like Phil Gramm to take care of the needed legislation and viola but that’s another story.) These arrogant scumbags and the people that allowed their practices to continue for so long… But it’s OK. They just miscalculated. They just made a few errors in judgment, a few bad assumptions. Life goes on. They’ll blame all those taxpayers that signed on the dotted line for loans that they knew they could not pay off and use that as justification for a taxpayer-funded bailout for themselves and their compensation packages….Madoff was a much-needed distraction for so many other crooks on Wall Street.

By Midori

January 5, 2009 8:34 PM | Link to this

but….but….but….Taxpayer!!!

Those guys didn’t contribute to “liberal groups”!!

Where’s your perspective???

By @@

January 5, 2009 8:35 PM | Link to this

Paul:

I left this for you downstairs. I promised myself that I’d slow down life’s “hectic” in the New Year. Delayed responses and less time on the sites are the result.

It’s been said that no one would take the CIA spot out of fear that Eric Holder, a terrorist’s favorite terrorist, would come down on them hard if they strayed.

This is probably why Obama tapped Panetta.

That and the fact that he sought to drastically cut the CIA’s budget. I didn’t know that Jane Harman (sp?) was under consideration. Turns out her support of some of the Bush administrations policies made her unacceptable.

I’ve always liked Harman when it comes to national security. As far as I’m concerned, she’d have been a better choice.

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 8:36 PM | Link to this

RB,

I do not disagree with you about Sarbanes-Oxley. In fact, I think it is an absolute waste of everyone’s money and it essentially accomplishes nothing of value. So, why did the Republican-controlled Congress and Bush put it into law (I know, it took some Dems to get it through too.). We need effective laws that can and will be enforced and regularly reviewed by people with no vested interest. What we have now is clearly a joke, a joke on us and I wonder how many of “us” even get it. We the people are the only ones being regularly bent over and we even have to pay for the, well, you know.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 5, 2009 8:47 PM | Link to this

I still think it’s interesting nobody has talked at all about what really happened with all the housing issues. First, this thing started with the Clinton admin, however, their intent was noble and honerable. They wanted more people to be able to buy a house. Who wouldn’t want that? However, they miscalculated the morality and discipline of people who fit their target group.

Then what happened? What was the difference 8-12-18 months ago from 5 years ago that made all these people go over the edge and stop paying on loans? These loans have been out there for nearly 10 years. Why the deluge of defaults now? Answer…. energy prices. When gas went through the roof and pushed up food prices, home heating costs and everything else including the fillup at the pump, it pushed people who were on the edge over the edge. I know for me, that $80 fillup vs. the $30 now is real money.

And what are we doing to keep this from happening again? NOTHING!!! Gas went back down and off the radar screen. It will happen again, though, and when it does, we’ll rant and rave and blame and likely again do nothing. The time to prepare for the storm is before it hits, not after (may want to share that with Mayor Neagin).

By Chad Harris

January 5, 2009 8:55 PM | Link to this

@@—

While the AG is very important, the one from DOJ who really comes down on these people and prevents them from straying is the OLC which is above, below and beyond the radar of the MSM or most newspapers.

The history of the OLC under Bradbury who was never confirmed and Goldsmith, Yoo and the people running it the last eight years has been total failure.

Obama’s Impressive New OLC Chief

By Frederick Douglass

January 5, 2009 8:57 PM | Link to this

What’s the world coming to, Santa Claus kills 9, orphans 13, and Bernie Madoff’s filching is all anybody can focus on.

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 8:58 PM | Link to this

Hello Midori,

Businesses and their lobbyists have no problem “supporting” Republicans, Democrats, or any other label in their efforts to get preferential treatment. However, the Republican politicians tend to get targeted more for Wall Street, Oil, and other big business interests because they tend to go along more readily with whatever is asked of them. I assume that it’s primarily due to their party claims that they support small government, free markets, etc., although there certainly is no good evidence to support any claim of uniformity or consistency w.r.t. the implementation of the party line when looking at their actual efforts. In fact, it seems as though the party lines get the most support during elections and very little at any other time. In fairness, the Democrats do get targeted by unions and people wanting clean air and water, for example, more frequently.

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 9:10 PM | Link to this

Actually, if all the CDSs could have been paid off by the businesses that sold them, then we would not have this credit crunch and we likely would not even be in a recession. There may have been a rash of bankruptcies but they would have worked their way through the system without too many problems.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 5, 2009 9:21 PM | Link to this

taxpayer, it all comes back to the real estate market. When the value of the owned property is sacrificed by the lender who is stuck with it in the interest of a quick sale and getting it off the books, it brings down the value of that property and every other one in the neighborhood, including new construction. When there are only a few of these in any given area, the market can absorb them and ignore them as an annomoly, but the volume in this case adjusted too many values and exacted too many losses on the note holders all the way up the chain.

None of that addresses why it all happened at once and at the time it did. What else was different other than energy prices?

By @@

January 5, 2009 9:22 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the link Chad.

I find it odd that Harman was deemed unacceptable because she support Bush’s FISA. As I recall, Obama did too “in the end”.

Oh well…..life’s what happens when libs are making other plans.

By sunshine and thunder

January 5, 2009 9:52 PM | Link to this

JAY

How is this equal protection under the law? The congress does a ponzi scheme that dwarfs Madoff’s little trick. It’s called social security.

I hope now you see that more government regulation doesn’t necessarily prevent this type of thing.

This all happened after SarBox. And it all happened after SarBox sent millions of American jobs overseas.

The SEC was notified many times over the years about Madoff (if you believe the press). How would hiring more enforcement officers make them read their mail any better?

By Chad Harris

January 5, 2009 9:53 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer-

The CDS market went from $900 billion to $45 trillion in the last 8 years, and has been totally unregulated and pretty much an enigma enshrouded in a mystery during that time.

I predict that this market is going to buckle during the coming months of the onslaught of defaults because of companies like AIG over-valuing them using computer models.

During the credit market upheaval in August, 14 percent of trades in these contracts were unconfirmed, meaning one of the parties in the resale transaction was unidentified in trade documents and remained unknown 30 days later. In December, that number stood at 13 percent. Because these trades are unregulated, there is no requirement that all parties to a contract be told when it is sold.

How are buyers of CDS going to track down the designated payer when they try to cash these in?

A lot of the supposed payers of claims won’t be able to pay them and who they are is unknown.

Did the players advise the trading partner in swaps when they assigned the contracts to someone else as the NY Fed advised in 2005 I really doubt it.

Like a homeowner who has a hard time finding out who is supposed to pay their claim during a disaster, the buyers may find that the new holder of the CDS contract can’t pay.

At the end of the 3rd quarter in 2007 the top 25 banks held credit default swaps, both as insurers and insured, worth $14 trillion. Hedge funds have swarmed in on these babies.

I see big trouble coming in the CDS market, especially if the computer models that value them are way off.

As usual, so called AJC aka Andy’s delusional picture of Madoff donating only to “liberal groups” who covered for him is ludicrous. While Bernie donated to Schumer and Lautenberg, and Wyden, many groups Madoff donated to were run by very conservative individuals for the most part, and the Madoff economy flourished under the idiots of non-regulation—that’d be the Greenspan Bubble, the Phil Graham Bubble, the Chris Cox Bubble, and nearly all of the Republicans in the Senate for the last 20 years.

The prism that Andy/AJC sees through is systemically selective. Andy apparently only sees what he wants to see as a self fulfilling prophecy. None of it is ever accurate.

By Chad Harris

January 5, 2009 9:56 PM | Link to this

Madoff Investments Bought Influence on Both Sides of the Aisle

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 9:59 PM | Link to this

RB,

Energy prices only exacerbated the problem and even the higher energy prices were partially a result of the greedy on Wall Street trying to make up for losses in other areas. When the purchasers of the last round of houses got stuck holding the bag and could not find buyers before they had to start forking over hefty mortgage payments, the walls started to crumble. The failures of the hedge funds at Bear Stearns and other similar problems started the credit-crisis ball rolling on Wall Street by exposing some of problems with the mortgage-backed security ratings. Then S&P, Moody’s, etc., started taking a closer look and had to start covering their rears and the downgrades started rolling out in rapid succession. That led to the collateral calls from companies that had bought CDSs, etc. Companies had to start begging for money to cover the calls and then it started pulling in more downgrades of more debt securities and companies and that triggered more calls for more collateral and calls to pay off on CDSs that were triggered by downgrades and price drops and whatever else they had been written on. It was a death spiral on Wall Street and it was of their own making for allowing things like CDSs to grow out of control. The Fed and the Treasury had to step in and figure out how to stop it and I commend them on that effort. The sad part is that I think it could have been avoided with proper regulation and enforcement. One day we may even be told just how bad things really were. Of course, that’s assuming that they at least have control of the on-going de-leveraging process. We’ll see.

By The Corporal

January 5, 2009 10:09 PM | Link to this

Trouble in Paradise

Feinstein rips Obama on CIA-Panetta pick: ‘I was not informed’…

Ooops! A woman scorned ….

By Chad Harris

January 5, 2009 10:16 PM | Link to this

Corporal—

Any President following this total clusterf*cked Bush administration ain’t in paradise. They be in extreme purgatory.

DiFi’s phony performance and voting with Bush on nearly every important issue doesn’t merit her being notified of jack.

She should have her big butt removed from SSSIC. She was informed that Telcoms were illegally wiretapping and she did nothing about it when she could have voted against immunity. She is possibly the most poorly qualified member of SJC aside from several Republicans like the idiots Kyle and Brownback, and the chronic liars Sessions and Graham.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2009 10:20 PM | Link to this

The way I understand it is the the CDS number is way less than what’s been reported because each time risk is laid off to a different person that’s covering the risk the number gets added up as if it’s more risk.

For instance if there was a CDS worth 10 million and it was passed along to five different people covering it, it gets reported as a 50 million dollar risk, but it’s really just the same 10 million being passed back through the chain of five people.

By getalife

January 5, 2009 10:28 PM | Link to this

Rahm needs to make Feinstein and Rockefeller an offer they can’t refuse.

Set an example to get the Dems in check.

By @@

January 5, 2009 10:30 PM | Link to this

Oops! Forgot to comment on topic.

Madoff should go to jail. The charitables should receive restitution and the investors should suffer the consequences/losses for their greed and stupidity.

The red flag was up and flying as far back as ‘92.

It’s too easy to be green.

By Paul

January 5, 2009 10:30 PM | Link to this

getalife 8:00

I agree.

Wholeheartedly.

@@

back to you tomorrow. Texas just took the lead.

RW-(the original

Buffalo chicken wings and Texas in the lead. Doesn’t get any better -

By JAY BOOKMAN

January 5, 2009 10:32 PM | Link to this

Social Security a Ponzi scheme, Sunshine?

If benefits and cost of living increases are allowed to continue as planned, and if no increase in SSI payroll taxes is enacted, the SS Trust Fund will pay 100 percent of benefits until at least 2042. That’s 33 years from now. After that it would be able to pay roughly 75 percent of scheduled benefits.

With relatively slight adjustments in benefits and taxes allowed to play out over many years, that 2042 date would be extended indefinitely.

Besides, what’s your alternative? Private accounts? I’m sure the people turning 65 this year are heartbroken at what has happened to their private 401(k)s, and quite happy that their SS benefits are intact.

As to SEC enforcement, if you have insufficient personnel and probably more important, insufficient political support from the top, you use your manpower to take on the easy cases and don’t even think about the tough ones such as Madoff. That’s just standard SOP in every bureaucracy and law enforcement agency.

By sunshine and thunder

January 5, 2009 10:39 PM | Link to this

CHAD HARRIS - RW

Derivative amounts are waaaaaayy over quoted.

The vast majority of them are interest rate swaps where a company, municipality or other entity sells a bond issue, say, 100 million dollars face.

They then swap the fixed payment liability they have incurred to a Wall Street dealer so that they now have a floating rate liability.

Now you have created 100 million of a derivative but in case of a default the only damage is the issuer doesn’t have a floating rate liability any more - it reverts back to a fixed rate.

So all the talk about 45 trillion dollars worth of “derivatives” is a lot of bluster. There isn’t that much money at risk in principal only in notional amounts.

By RB from Gwinnett

January 5, 2009 10:42 PM | Link to this

Jay, have you seen anyone do a comparison of what a person retiring this year would have if their SS money had gone into a personal investment vs. to the gov? Even with the recent declines? That would be an interesting look. I get the market decline, but that doesn’t answer the question.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2009 10:49 PM | Link to this

Off Topic

Paul,

10-6 with 3 minutes left in the third??? Obviously Big 12 football is an illusion when it’s being among it’s own members. I suspect that when the Gators trounce the Sooners people will be asking why Utah got jobbed.

Back on topic

Jay B,

I know you’re discussing this with S & T, but Social Security may be viable in the short term because people are forced to invest, but it’s most assuredly a ponzi scheme since the money to pay recipients comes directly from the new “investors.”

By Paul

January 5, 2009 10:50 PM | Link to this

Texas 17. Ohio 6.. 3rd quarter.

The universe is in balance.

Life is Good.

By getalife

January 5, 2009 10:55 PM | Link to this

Florida will be #1 and Andy has to post pro Obama for a week.

By Paul

January 5, 2009 10:56 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

I am looking forward to Fl vs Ok. Ok should take - and I moved from Dallas from FL. Long story - but two sons went to FL State and FL take it waaaay too seriously.

RB

SS is not just a private investment - it’s like an insurance scheme. Take a young head of household, dies at age 25. Benefits paid to the spouse and kids? You don’t get that from an investment starting at 21 -

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2009 11:00 PM | Link to this

…being played among*

Geez

RB from Gwinnett,

The left likes to make the claim that if the Bush SS plan had gone through then people would be devastated by the recent market losses. but what they leave out is that it would have been a small percentage of money from people that aren’t anywhere near retirement. Worse than that they pretend the market would have dropped as far as it has with that money being pumped into it. The reality is that money would have propped up the market and kept the current retirees from seeing the sudden declines they saw.

By sunshine and thunder

January 5, 2009 11:04 PM | Link to this

JAY

The SS system is not a ponzi game? How do you define it?

Let’s see, current beneficiaries are being paid out of future beneficiaries’ payroll taxes. How is it NOT a ponzi scheme?

So in 2042 it will only be able to pay 75% of benefits (which are really low already) and I assume you’re taking into account SS cost of living increases which are based on wages and NOT CPI.

Well you just turn around and tell your kids that when they start working and have to fork over 7.5% of every dollar they make that they’ll get 25% less than they were expecting when the time comes to cash out.

Yeah. A ponzi scheme sponsored by a wealthy government can easily go another 33 years. Oh. Did you remember to add in the liabilities under medicare since those retirement benefits won’t come close to covering proper medical care?

My alternative? At least SOME private accounts. SS trust fund earns about 3%. But that’s if it gets paid back after congress has stolen it all.

Do I think private accounts are riskier than theft? No.

You are a riot. The SEC had insufficient political support from the top. Meaning IT’S ALL BUSH’S FAULT. Stop, I can’t take it anymore LOL.

Just one more enforcement officer that could have been hired if Bush hadn’t cut funding would have rooted out the Madoff scheme in ten minutes. Right, Jay. And pigs fly.

The SEC will never find every shyster in a free market. I know that most of you guys think free markets are bad. Well, guess who pays the bills?

By RB from Gwinnett

January 5, 2009 11:05 PM | Link to this

Paul, you’re right, you don’t, but man pays into SS all his life and dies at 65 gets nothing for his investment.

Can you tell me of any government run entity you would trust to manage your personal finances using the same diligence they manage our tax dollars?

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 11:08 PM | Link to this

You are right, RW. The size of the CDS market on mortgage-backed securities is something like 55 trillion now but that does not mean that 55 trillion would ever be paid out. Have you read some of these reports from WaPo? They did a good job but there is still a lot to learn.

By Paul

January 5, 2009 11:11 PM | Link to this

RB

I don’t look at it as what I paid in - it’s a transfer to others - family members on SS - I just looked at it as how I was helping them via gov’t collection - personalized it. At least it generally goes to some who need it - and for that I’m okay -

Game’s back - later, sir -

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2009 11:17 PM | Link to this

Taxpayer,

I guess in a perfect world it really would be 55 trillion being paid back even though it would just be the very same dollars going from hand to hand to hand to hand.

On second thought I hope Democrats never do figure this out or they’ll tax the same transaction at every transfer.

By Paul

January 5, 2009 11:23 PM | Link to this

RW-(the original)

Don’t give them any ideas…

By Chad Harris

January 5, 2009 11:33 PM | Link to this

Rahm needs to do whatever he can to ensure that Feinstein and Rockerfeller aren’t reelected and to put them in a box for the remainder of the time they’re in the Senate. They’ve been garbage and Bush puppiedogs the entire past 8 years. Check their voting record and what they’ve done on SSCI and Feinstein has also done on Senate Judiciary. The moron who isn’t a lawyer and Schumer were the only two to vote for Mukasey which is representative of Feinstein’s reprehensible conduct in the Senate. She’s been a Bush ruberstamp despite her rhetoric.

By Taxpayer

January 5, 2009 11:34 PM | Link to this

Remember, RW, when all those CDS transactions start getting taxed, we can all look back to this date in history and say they we saw it in your post first. Do you want to ask Jay to pull it just to be safe. I mean the idea has been planted and Paul has seen it and he’s all the way out in Texas (I think). It’s already half way across the US in a matter of minutes.

By RW-(the original)

January 5, 2009 11:35 PM | Link to this

Off Topic

Why would OSU even bother to go for 2 at this point?

By RW-(the original)

January 6, 2009 12:12 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer,

There isn’t any tax scheme I could think up that Democrats aren’t already glomming onto, but thanks for the thought.

Goodnight all!

/Does Andy get to rollover all his unused bullets?

By AJC/DNC Management

January 6, 2009 5:40 AM | Link to this

Democrats’ Factions Could Stall Grand Plans-WSJ

You reckon?

I think the various US and State’s attorneys will have more of a say with the “grand plan,” but for now, hair pulling will work for me.

Tis a disgusting spectacle.

ew

By AJC/DNC Management

January 6, 2009 6:59 AM | Link to this

Topic from and old thread-

The first to notice something lost in the translation was Dr. Bernadine Healy, the former head of both the Red Cross and the National Institutes of Health. Today she serves as health editor for U.S. News & World Report. And in her dispatch on this study, Dr. Healy pointed out that “virginity pledging teens were considerably more conservative in their overall sexual behaviors than teens in general — a fact that many media reports have missed cold.”

What Dr. Healy was getting at is that the pledge itself is not what distinguishes these kids from most other teenagers. The real difference is their more conservative and religious home and social environment. As she notes, when you compare both groups in this study with teens at large, the behavioral differences are striking. Here are just a few:

These teens generally have less risky sex, i.e., fewer sexual partners.

These teens are less likely to have a teenage pregnancy, or to have friends who use drugs.

These teens have less premarital vaginal sex.

When these teens lose their virginity they tend to do so at age 21 — compared to 17 for the typical American teen.

We should have none that the liberal media was slanting the story.

• And very much overlooked, one out of four of these teens do in fact keep the pledge to remain chaste — amid much cheap ridicule and just about zero support outside their homes or churches.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 7:12 AM | Link to this

“Social Security a Ponzi scheme, Sunshine?”

Of course it isn’t, Jay. However, surely you realize that our online conservative community are sworn to always

a) use the term “Ponzi scheme” whenever SS is mentioned, and

b) mention SS whenever a real-life Ponzi scheme is mentioned.

Hence its inclusion here.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 7:23 AM | Link to this

“Jay, have you seen anyone do a comparison of what a person retiring this year would have if their SS money had gone into a personal investment vs. to the gov?”

Paul touched upon this, but I’ll take it a step further. People who constantly harp upon their “return” from payment into SS are missing the point. The “I” in FICA doesn’t stand for “Investment,” it’s Insurance.

SS isn’t going to provide a substitute for a well-managed investment portfolio designed to provide retirement income. It’s a safety net—it may be all that some people have to live on in their golden years.

I don’t know why that’s even remotely controversial and, frankly, it isn’t really to most Americans; based on my observations over the years, mostly SS seems controversial to a blustery sub-set of conservatives who think they’ve found some financial Northwest Passage to riches and ponies for all if only we were to eliminate that dad-gummed social security.

And anyway, having said all that—I would seriously suggest you look at the statement that you are sent every year by the SS administrtion, wherein they tell you precisely how much in FICA taxes you’ve paid so far, and then do a bit of calculating yourself. I think you’ll find that you don’t have to live terribly long to get a decent return on this “investment.”

By sunshine and thunder

January 6, 2009 9:07 AM | Link to this

DB Gwinnettian

Either you don’t understand the SS system as it currently exists or you don’t get out much.

Google the Chilean retirement system and read all about a private system that works.

Also, Google the Galveston, Texas retirement system. It works vmuch better that SS (they opted out when you still could) and doesn’t have stock market risk.

By DB, Gwinnettian

January 6, 2009 9:22 AM | Link to this

S&T, no. I will not “google this” — if you’ve got a case to make, make it.

(And yeah, I’ve already heard the case for those isolated examples you cite, and they’re laughably unsuited to apply to replacing a successful, well-oiled machine like SS.)

By freidenker

January 6, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this

the slug should be sentenced to life in the dish room at an IHOP or Huddle House or behind a McDonald’s counter, his minimum wage pay placed in a kitty and distributed to co-workers. what a slug.

By Sam

January 6, 2009 10:05 AM | Link to this

Madoff was “investigated” by the SEC in two out of the last three years. Thats the SEC with over 3000 “regulators” protecting us from naked short selling…NOT.

There already is a regulation for this - it’s called FRAUD! Sarbanes-Oxley, just like the IRS - you’re guilty ‘till proven innocent.

Are you a loyal Nationalist-Socialist? Must be.

Stuff happens - get used to it human animal.

By cliff zeider

January 6, 2009 10:57 AM | Link to this

Hey, I think jail is out of the question, he should swing from a tree. cz

By Jake

January 6, 2009 11:17 AM | Link to this

Drawn and quartered on Wall Street at lunch time, serve as a warning to the rest of that pack of scumbags.

By Cindy

January 6, 2009 11:22 AM | Link to this

By AJC/DNC Management

January 5, 2009 7:31 PM | Link to this

Paul- Most of the recent financial meltdowns and shenanigans happened during the reign of Sarbanes-Oxley.

So did the loss of much wasted capital.

Regulations do what, exactly?

They do absolutely nothing when the regulators are asleep at the switch and the administration that they serve just winks and nods at their malfeasence. Vigorous enforcement requires support and resolve from the folks in charge. Put one politically apointed lackey in the right position and you can effectively stonewall an entire system.

By Richard

January 6, 2009 11:22 AM | Link to this

Tomorrow I’m leaving on the Birthright trip, a free trip to Israel for anyone under 27 years old. This trip is heavily funded by Madoff and is going to soon be cancelling their trips because Madoff lost all their money.

Interesting how my upcoming trip is not treatened by Hamas and the attacks in Gaza at all, but Madoff can destroy the whole program with illegal actions.

Does that make him worse than terrorists?

By Doug

January 6, 2009 11:27 AM | Link to this

How many people are doing hard time for selling a few dime bags while the Madoffs of the world roam free? Our whole legal system needs to recognize what is truly serious and treat it accordingly.

By RetLTC

January 6, 2009 11:33 AM | Link to this

Richard, all is not lost. Those folks can join a branch of the IDF Reserve and get that “birthright” trip without Madoff’s dirty money. From what I understand they can leave today. Better yet, send Madoff on a “birthright” trip of his own, but drop him off in Gaza. Now that might be justice.

By Richard

January 6, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this

RetLTC,

I like your idea, but not the part about joining the IDF.

I feel bad that a ton of kids are going to miss out on this opportunity because of this scumbag. On the otherhand, Birthright doesn’t maintain people’s livlihoods unlike some of his other charities.

As for his punishment, I’m normally a fan of letting the punishment fit the crime (like letting Vick fight his own dogs), but I don’t know what would work here. Maybe letting everyone affected by his actons kick him in the balls…

By Observer

January 6, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this

Yes. Charge him with involuntary manslaughter. His crimes have directly resulted in at least one death by suicide. His reckless disregard of people’s lives as he is stealing their money while lying to their faces, knowing he is creating the ruination of entire families should result in charging him with crimes more than just stealing money.

By Observer

January 6, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

He is a Hannibal Lector preying on people through the financial world, knowingly ruining their lives by stealing their money. This is like a serial killer getting an adrenalin rush from taking generations worth of equity, charity money, literally money from widows and children’s funds, colleges, retirement funds. As a financial expert, he indeed did know there would be crisis for these people and that it would literally ruin them. He is patholigical and deserves time in jail, right now, just like a suspected serial killer would. This is no petty theft.