Any comments about Mr Madoff?
If it seems to good to be true, it usually is.
Any comments about Mr. Meoff and his porno scheme?
(That's Jack Meoff)
You just have to shake your head. How much worse can it get? 50 Billion in fraud? WTF? Were there any regulators at all? Or all they all surfing the web when they should be regulating?
They've all been spending too much time in the Cellar.
They're sorry, it won't happen again.
They've all been spending too much time in the Cellar.
They're sorry, it won't happen again.
:D
I think it's funny that his name is Madoff. HA HA. He really 'made off' with their money, huh? This is why I chose to spend all my money on magazines and candy--no one can hurt me that way. I'm bullet proof.
At the risk of sounding like tw, the foxes have been regulating the henhouse for a while, and the hens have been thinking "Holy smokes! look at all the corn we've been getting! Much better than when that miserly Farmer Brown was looking after us." And as the nearby hens fell to the foxes the remaining hens just watched and said to themselves "It can't happen to me..."
Ahem...since we're all in here together right now...why the hummus quote? Of all the funny damn things I've said and you quote me on a salad bar issue? :lol:
:blush:
When someone wears your quote, that means you're going steady.
So foot's like, a dating Mormon?
YOU MEAN I'VE BEEN DUMPED?!
foot's given you the boot. (Did you see his sole?)
No. I don't approve the use of Ouija.
foot's given you the boot. (Did you see his sole?)
Just don't spit on my sole...
So foot's like, a dating Mormon?
You're my wife now, Dave...
Shawnee there was something sweet and innocent about it and it makes me smile, I don't know why.
Was "drowning a fish" one of Jim's sock puppets?
and his Ponzi scheme?
Enough details of the fallout were emerging yesterday to begin to judge the mayhem this one-time chairman of Nasdaq, and Democratic Party and Jewish charity benefactor, has wreaked. Those likely to have lost everything include a Jewish charity that had its $7m assets lodged with Mr Madoff's firm, and had to lay off its staff on Friday, and Manhattan and Florida socialites.
He was a rather large contributor to some prominent D's - This info didn't come out till over the weekend. Then again this is probably fodder for another thread.
Link to recipients
I feel bad that I somehow find it more difficult to feel bad for the mainly ultra rich who lost boatloads of money in this. Although I hate how it is affecting "regular" people who also invested into some of the same things he had some money in and still more who are losing their jobs.
You're my wife now, Dave...
Shawnee there was something sweet and innocent about it and it makes me smile, I don't know why.
Was "drowning a fish" one of Jim's sock puppets?
Well shucks.
hummus hummus hummus hummus hummus...
:)
At the risk of sounding like tw, the foxes have been regulating the henhouse for a while, and the hens have been thinking "Holy smokes! look at all the corn we've been getting!
So why fear what accurately describes a problem for about a decade now?
Problem in this particular example is information. Currently not clear is whether any regulations existed to enforce. SEC received numerous tips on this particular hedge fund. SEC has been starved for funds for over a decade. Even after Enron, the Congress tried to double the SEC budget and Harvey Pitts refused to accept the money. Not even known if the SEC investigators had sufficient knowledge or experience to see or understand this fraud. All we know is the SEC did investigate this hedge fund previously due to tips - and did nothing.
Did nothing because their people are not smart enough - have enough experience? Or did nothing because the fraud was legal? Well, one would think after LTCM and that massive emergency $billions bailout, then some regulation would exist. Nope.
Instead, the powers in power stifled regulation, refused to increase the SEC budget, and were promoting more deregulation as the solution to our economic ills. What we now know - those ills were created because finance people must be highly regulated. Even Enron accounting is alive and well.
You're my wife now, Dave...
:grinnylov
tw is Cheech?
Cheech is Cheech. And Tommy is Chong. All I wanted to be is the bong. Everyone loves the bong.
People are evil, money grubbing fuckwads, and most of them don't care much who gets screwed as long as they have plenty of cocaine and young bitches with flat bellies to snort it off of.
This dude Ponzi'ed *charitable endowments*, amongst other things. Did he care one fuck about anyone but himself? Nope.
If he had an ounce of decency, he'd slit his own throat.
Everybody seems to think me hopelessly pessimistic when I say "Its all about the money". Except that it *is* all about the money. Nothing else. Ever. At least, not for the people who are in the drivers seat. They're only there because there's something in it for them, some cream to be skimmed, some advantage to be had. No one does it because it is noble, or beneficial for the greater good.
Line the pockets, get out, live good, fuck everyone else.
Line the pockets, get out, live good, fuck everyone else.
That was the mission statement for all of the health care facilities I ever worked for. Weird, huh?
Elspode, I think you're a litttle harsh on humanity. There are quite a lot of people who are NOT like that. True, there are quite a few who are (which, incidentally is why I disagree with Radarian Libertarianism) but don't lose hope.
I read they let Madoff out on bail. Is that right? The only reason he should be out is so he can go take a long walk of a small ledge on a tall building. Jump, #$%@er!
It takes a lot of people who don't suck to make up for the relatively few who suck so incredibly heinously.
Absolutely. In an altruistic community, it only takes a few parasites to wreck it, just a couple of percent. Pricks. Gotta weed them out.
There is a belief that hedge fund investors are smarter than the average bear/wealthy enough to not be adversely affected by risk so they are not tightly regulated from the "protect the investor" vantage point. Most hedge funds have pretty hefty initial investment thresholds designed to filter out those not well-off enough to be able to absorb the risk.
In reality, most Ponzi schemes are pretty easy to spot given enough information. And there was enough information available to have led several prominent analysts to publicly question the accuracy of the fund's financial reports.
Hedge funds are risky in an all-or-nothing way. Many times its either a home run or a strikeout.
Hedge funds shouldn't be used as primary investment vehicles anyway. Their primary purpose is to hedge against risks that cannot be offset by diversification such as exchange-rate risk.
Hedge funds shouldn't be used as primary investment vehicles anyway. Their primary purpose is to hedge against risks that cannot be offset by diversification such as exchange-rate risk.
Are you investing to solve a problem in the economy or provide a company with a solution? If investing to advance mankind and society, then a profit is earned. If simply investing to make a fast profit, then the resulting losses were deserved. Others argue silly nonsense such as greed. A responsible investor instead sees real assets, services, or products.
Hedge funds that should be profitable invested in risk directly attached to existing real assets. Such funds also would be transparent to investors.
Part of Madoff's trick was to deny direct investment. Investments were made through feeder funds. The investor then (foolishly) thought that broker was a financial guru. In reality, that feeder fund was nothing more than a salesman whose profits were larger when recommending Madoff. They never bothered to learn what Madoff was doing. Why would they? So many actually believe brokers are more than a salesman. Why bother to actually do the work when how the sale is made is more important?
Do you invest in a feeder fund who in turn invests in Madoff who in turn invests in equities too far removed from actual assets? No wonder the ponzi scheme lived on so long. Victims were too busy realizing 'profits' rather than first looking at what the fund was actually investing to advance mankind, the economy, and society.
Buy shares of Intel and actually see your investment is doing something productive and therefore profitable. Invest in an agricultural future so that the farmer can hedge himself (survive) from catastrophic risks. Do investing in regulated markets that are forced to operate ethically. The meltdown is directly traceable investments promoted only by myths; assets based only in paper and sometimes even in secret, private deals.
Madoff simply used additional 'layers' to play that game. To take investments from those too far removed to actually see what they were investing in.
Read the JP Morgan article. How do you know a problem exists? One gives bank money to invest. The bank takes a 2% service fee. Then the bank invests in another fund which also takes a service fee. That is an investor all but asking for trouble. A broker (or bank) should be the only service fee. The bank even quickly pulled out their own money but never bothered to inform investors who were even paying a 2% service fee.
Such investors are all but asking to be taken - just like investors in Bernie Madoff who could only invest through feeder funds. Just like anyone who pays a financial adviser a service fee to invest in mutual funds which then take more service fees.
Madoff list: Celebs, athletes and ordinary people
NEW YORK (AP) -- The scope of Bernard Madoff's alleged fraud is detailed in 162 pages of minuscule type -- a list of the disgraced money manager's once-trusting customers, including a bevy of the rich, famous and powerful.
In between, though, are all the others -- the names you've never heard. A retired teacher from the San Francisco Bay area. An emergency room doctor in Oregon. A carpenter from upstate New York. Thousands of mostly ordinary people, until now all but overlooked. Their voices reveal the true toll of Madoff's scheme, one that cannot be measured in dollars alone.
To do so, would overlook the anger, despair and silent shame they share.
"My wife says, 'keep yourself busy and get your mind off it,'" said Alan English, a Florida business owner whose life savings were lost to Madoff. "But how can I take my mind off something that has destroyed my whole life?"
English is one of thousands of Madoff customers whose names were made public late Wednesday in a filing with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan, and serves as testament to the sweeping nature of Madoff's alleged $50 billion fraud.
The list includes scores of famous names, from Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax, to World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein to actor John Malkovich and CNN host Larry King.
But on a list with 13,000 entries, they are the exceptions. Run a finger down the list and what's most noteworthy is that so many of the names are people who might be just another neighbor or co-worker or friend.
They are people like Dr. Bonnie Sidoff, 56, an emergency room physician in West Linn, Ore. Years ago, her mother told her if she ever wanted to invest some money, she couldn't do much better than Bernie Madoff. Evelyn Rosen had never met Madoff personally, but in her circle of Florida country club friends, having money with the New Yorker was "considered an honor," Sidoff said Thursday.
So when Rosen died in April 2006 at the age of 80, her daughter left the $100,000 or so in her account with Madoff. Not only that, she took the money her mother left her in other accounts and invested that with Madoff.
In December, the day before the Madoff scandal broke, Sidoff and her husband Mike, both emergency room doctors, wired another $150,000 for Madoff to invest. The day after they learned the devastating news, the couple received a letter confirming the deposit.
"That was pretty heartbreaking," Sidoff said.
An analysis of the list shows that the people come from 44 states and at least 40 countries, from the Cayman Islands to Kenya to Switzerland. Florida has nearly 2,200 entries.
I still say the dude should slit his own throat. He's scum.
I can't agree more. It is wild to think of the number of people who have gone from fame and fortune to destitute. It certainly has shades of the day of the crash in '39.
Cheech is Cheech. And Tommy is Chong. All I wanted to be is the bong. Everyone loves the bong.
And I would have guessed it was Sheldon who wants to be sucked by Phelps....
Did anyone catch the hearings with Harry Markopolos? He's the man who tried, for YEARS, to get the SEC to do something about Madoff. He gave pretty scathing testimony about how inept they are earlier this week.
I hope we get some sensible regulations on business again. I have a feeling that a LOT of people will going to prison over the next few years, for fraud, or not doing their jobs (of providing oversight), or causing the collapse of the entire world economy.
I can't agree more. It is wild to think of the number of people who have gone from fame and fortune to destitute. It certainly has shades of the day of the crash in '39.
That would be '29. But not really. '29 was a collapse of the entire market. This is just a case of a con man being unmasked by a market collapse.
And who the hell gives their entire fortune to
one guy to invest? Didn't these knuckleheads ever hear of diversification? I feel bad for the people who lost their life savings to Madoff but they could have given at least some of it to... I dunno, Fidelity or T Rowe Price or any number of reputable investment firms.
Why didn't they? Because Madoff promised returns higher than those offered by reputable investment firms. Now why would any sane person think that Madoff is smarter than the entire portfolio investment brain trust at TRP/Fidelity/etc.?
Too bad P. T. Barnum or Ben Franklin aren't here to answer that question.
Did anyone catch the hearings with Harry Markopolos? He's the man who tried, for YEARS, to get the SEC to do something about Madoff. He gave pretty scathing testimony about how inept they are earlier this week.
It has been noted here for years. During the Enron hearings, both Democrats and Republicans wanted to double the SEC budget. Harvey Pitts, the SEC Chairman refused the money. Even at the start of 2000s, the political agenda was to subvert oversight in the name of deregulation.
Previously, Clinton also tried to increase the SEC Budget. Congressional Republicans were united in their threat. If Clinton tried to increase SEC powers, then the political agenda would remove all SEC funding. Clinton backed down.
Some ask if this about philosophy. Reasons for outright fraud were apparent even in LTCM, Enron, and the mythical CA energy crisis. Even First Energy created the NorthEast blackout. Even First Energy violated a long list of operational requirements and was exonerated as lies about an obsolete grid, instead, were promoted. Even First Energy operated a nuclear reactor with a hole in its cap and other complications that could have taken out Toledo. Technical violations were all but encouraged by deregulation. Deregulation designed to eliminate oversight and responsibility to the product in the name of profits short term profits.
Madoff is only another example of what we encouraged and created at the highest levels of government. Engineers were even denied facts necessary to save the Columbia because managers were more interested in their politics and image rather than in technical facts. My god. The President even outrightly lied about Saddam's WMDs when facts said otherwise were even withheld. These are accidents? Hardly. We did not even hold him responsible. Why should SEC investigations of Madoff be anything different?
Those SEC investigators were only doing what we wanted the administration to impose on them. Least paid government employees were in the SEC. That political agenda was painfully obvious when Harvey Pitts testified before Congress and refused to take a budget increase. Where were you when the problem was so painfully obvious?
Government did what we wanted for the past 10 years. Where is the investigation of Morgan Stanley and other for manipulating oil prices? When do we prosecute others for intentionally creating the CA energy crisis? Why is Madoff any different? In those other cases, we considered these accidents? Even the State of Oklahoma had to embarrass the Federal government and file suit against Enron before the Feds would finally prosecute.
They didn't do what I wanted. I have wanted more regulation of business since Reagan started systematically deregulating everything in sight.
I'm shocked that no one here made a smart ass comment about how the federal government has been actively participating in and forcing a ponzi scheme on us all for YEARS.
You mean the one called Social Security?
Some people would not survive without SS and Medicare. Those are not schemes, they are successful programs. Is there some waste? Yes, but the whole health care industry is full of it. So you can't really blame Medicare...
Correction: they are rapidly failing programs. "Some people" need SS and Medicare, just like all social programs. It's when you try to pretend that everyone will receive reasonable and fair benefits when they retire that it becomes a Ponzi scheme. The money simply isn't there.
That's not true. The absolute worst case scenario for Social Security is that all of the beneficiaries split up all of the contributors' tax contributions. This could (depending on the ratio of workers to retired/disabled) be less than is currently promised, but will never be zero. It will never fail. And the rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits can be adjusted for the times.
A Ponzi scheme with only two levels, in which everyone (who doesn't die early) gets to be in the top level eventually, isn't really a Ponzi scheme.
It will never fail. And the rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits can be adjusted for the times.
Ok, I've not thought of it this way before, I recognize that there will be little to nothing when I retire and try to plan accordingly.
But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?
Ok, I've not thought of it this way before, I recognize that there will be little to nothing when I retire and try to plan accordingly.
You recognize incorrectly, then. As stated, there will definitely not be "nothing". The actual amount is dependant on many varibles, including the ratio of workers to retirees and the state of the economy (how much total salary there is to tax).
It will probably be significant, but it is always good to plan to have more, if you can.
But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?
It depends on whether you opted to enter the program early at a reduced payout.
SS is supposed to be enough to keep you out of the soup line. It'll probably do that but not much more. That's not really what its for.
So I now have PERS, and I paid into FICA since I was, I think, 16. I don't think I had to pay into that until I turned 16; I worked on a produce farm in the summers and they didn't take out any taxes until then. I've been in PERS instead for 7 + years.
Anyway, I hear that you can't get both. How does that work? I thought I heard of a guy who retired early and took a payout on PERS so he could still get SS. Of course he lost some PERS, but...
Anyone know anything about this?
I don't know exactly what PERS is, but if it's a state-run retirement program, then in general the rule is you can't take both. My mother-in-law is a teacher: in Illinois, teachers pay into the normal SS system. But in Texas, where she moved later in life, teachers pay into a special state retirement program. She cannot collect both. At this point, her teacher retirement payout will be much more than SS, so obviously she knows which one she's going to choose to take, but she has basically just lost those ten years or so that she was paying into SS.
Public Employee Retirement System.
There is a teacher's version, I know faculty has a bit different retirement than staff.
But I wonder about the retire early...actually I mean resign early, take a payout of PERS and collect SS. Is this legal? I mean, I paid into SS for a long time. It just seems one could get benefits from both.
I should probably find out, huh? :)
SS is supposed to be enough to keep you out of the soup line. It'll probably do that but not much more. That's not really what its for.
Yea, but not until you are old or your spouse/mother/father(if you are a minor dependent child) kicks in. Otherwise it is more like the governments life insurance policy, they keep your money and bet you can't make it to an age where you will be able to use it. And just think of all those who pay into it and get squat in the end because they never make it. Yea, the gobberment keeps that money.
Yea, the gobberment keeps that money.
Well, hopefully they actually give it to some old people, often to the spouse of the person who died.
Correction: they are rapidly failing programs. "Some people" need SS and Medicare, just like all social programs. It's when you try to pretend that everyone will receive reasonable and fair benefits when they retire that it becomes a Ponzi scheme. The money simply isn't there.
And I believe people who don't need the money when they hit retirement age (Gates, Buffet, etc.) should be allowed to not take the money, so that money could be divided among the people who DO need it, but they aren't allowed to do that. If they were though, that would go a long way toward increasing benefits for those who do count on that money to survive.
I don't know exactly what PERS is, but if it's a state-run retirement program, then in general the rule is you can't take both. My mother-in-law is a teacher: in Illinois, teachers pay into the normal SS system. But in Texas, where she moved later in life, teachers pay into a special state retirement program. She cannot collect both. At this point, her teacher retirement payout will be much more than SS, so obviously she knows which one she's going to choose to take, but she has basically just lost those ten years or so that she was paying into SS.
That is just wrong. If you pay into both, you should receive a % amount for the years you paid in. 10 years worth wouldn't be much, but still, she paid in, she should be paid out.
That is just wrong. If you pay into both, you should receive a % amount for the years you paid in. 10 years worth wouldn't be much, but still, she paid in, she should be paid out.
Yes, thanks for the response.
That is just wrong. If you pay into both, you should receive a % amount for the years you paid in. 10 years worth wouldn't be much, but still, she paid in, she should be paid out.
I'm assuming you mean "wrong" from a moral standpoint? Because from a factual standpoint, I assure you it's true. It's called the Windfall Elimination Provision, and while they don't strictly calculate it as "one or the other," it's a
pro-rated reduction of your SS benefits which depends on how many years you paid in, and what year you turn 62. In her case, the reduction amount is equal to (or greater than, I don't know her exact numbers anymore) the amount she would have received, so the end result is no SS payout.
If you pay into it you should get something out of it, regardless of what you make or how much money you have. It is not the fault of the people who pay in that the gobberment has screwed up the process.
I'm assuming you mean "wrong" from a moral standpoint? Because from a factual standpoint, I assure you it's true. It's called the Windfall Elimination Provision, and while they don't strictly calculate it as "one or the other," it's a pro-rated reduction of your SS benefits which depends on how many years you paid in, and what year you turn 62. In her case, the reduction amount is equal to (or greater than, I don't know her exact numbers anymore) the amount she would have received, so the end result is no SS payout.
I'm talking about from an ethical, moral standpoint. If you pay in, you should get something back, even if it's a very small amount. Otherwise, it's like stealing.
Agreed. I shall get screwed upon my retirement.
Always screwing the working folks...
If you pay in, you should get something back, even if it's a very small amount. Otherwise, it's like stealing.
How does that compare to Medicaid (the one for poor people, Medicare is for old people,) welfare, food stamps, or any other social program? I pay into all of those, but get nothing out of them.
They're all a great big Ponzi scheme.
They're all a great big Ponzi scheme.
Incorrect.But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?
It depends on whether you opted to enter the program early at a reduced payout.
Lets use the above example and say I stop working and die at 79. How much am I getting after contributing my whole life? No, I am not opting for a reduced payout.
You think this thread is confusing? Consider Japan. Part of the reason that the govt's popularity is in the 10% range is that, with Japan's dangerously aging population, over the last 30 or 40 years the state-run pension savings scheme has managed to LOSE (or not even keep in the first place) millions of peoples records of how much they paid in. Millions of aging salarymen, who have been putting money in all these years, are suddenly finding the system has no record of their deposits!
Any other country/culture, and they would ahve burned the government buildings by now.
Man that sounds bad. I must admit that I fear something similar as we move to a more digitally based record keeping in most things. "I'm sorry sir, there is no record you were ever born." Some low level IT staffer forgets to put a record in, someone forgets to back up a data base, The Illuminati in concert with China steals the identity of millions of Americans and puts them in a virtual Chinese Re-education camp.
I heard somewhere last week that Madoffs wife took 15 million the day her son turned him in. Anyone know if they found it?
I heard somewhere last week that Madoffs wife took 15 million the day her son turned him in. Anyone know if they found it?
Her son turned him in? I don't know, I just remember hearing she withdrew millions the day before he was arrested. I didn't realize her son turned him in. If she did withdraw money, I believe that makes her complicit. I believe she is anyway, because Bernie also allegedly put the house in her name right before he was arrested, as did that Fuld guy from Lehman Bros (CEO), right before they went down. If that's the case, the wives should definitely be held accountable as well, if there is an investigation. I don't believe you should be able to hide your assests in your spouses name when you do things that might be considered illegal, in order to keep them.
I read she made 2 withdrawals totaling 15 million, one the day before the arrest and one a couple of days before that.
yes sugarpop, they didn't catch him, he admitted to his sons it was all bullshit and he was bust. They ratted him out. May have been a ploy to cover the boy's asses when he knew he would be found out eventually because of the Wall street meltdown. Let the old man take the heat, he was still influential enough to probably not be jailed and even if he was he's a very old man anyway.
So far it's worked... house arrest in a multi-million dollar palace.:rolleyes:
yea, it's pretty sickening isn't it. Too bad the public outrage hasn't had more of an effect, like poor Paris Hilton having to go to jail. IMO, whenever white collar crinimals are caught, all their wealth should be confiscated to make up for their sins, and that would include any wealth transferred to relatives or off-shore banks.
Wow really? Take away everything when they are caught??? What about that whole "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
It is hard to stay mad a capitalism when it throws up things like this:
[ATTACH]21933[/ATTACH]
It may be only a small toy but it's making appearances on live television and the front pages of newspapers around the world.
It's an action figure of US broker Bernard Madoff, who has been accused of perpetrating possibly the largest investor fraud ever committed by an individual.
Madoff was arrested in December for allegedly running a huge Ponzi scheme, which cheated millions of investors out of $US50 billion.
In an unusual twist, the Madoff toy comes with a golden hammer, so the buyer can gleefully smash the figurine into pieces.
The toy's creator, Melbourne man Graeme Warring, moved to the US three years ago and fell into the toy-making business "by default".
He said he decided to create the now famous 'Smash-Me Bernie' doll after an Australian mate who lived in San Francisco lost money in the Madoff scandal.
"He lost quite a bit of money and he was pretty grumpy about the whole thing," Mr Warring told ABC News Online.
"So I made him this little action figure of Bernie Madoff. Bernie had a devil's body and a pitchfork, and I put a hammer in the box and I said, 'Listen, when you get this thing, just smash it to pieces - it'll make you feel better, and then go bury it in the backyard and put it behind you'.
"So he did it, thought it was terrifically funny, and then he started telling some of his mates about it and before you know it, everyone's started to order these things.
"People were ringing me up, saying, 'Can I get some of these, I want two, I want three, I want four', so I started making more and believe it or not, I had absolutely no intention of really showing it as a toy at the toy fair."
Dominating the press
Mr Warring is referring to the New York Toy Fair, which is the largest in the western hemisphere and attended by all the major international toy companies.
"There's thousands of exhibitors and it's spread over several levels of this enormous convention area that makes anything that we've got in Australia look like a garden shed," Mr Warring said.
"What's bizarre about the whole thing is you've got these massive companies like Mattel and Hasbro and all these other ones that are big, publicly listed companies that go to this toy show and they've got booths the size of Afghanistan.
"And here's this idiot from Australia sitting there in the corner with this little Smash-Me Bernie thing, and it's dominating the press - it's just unbelievable."
Mr Warring says the toy has generated media interest from all over the world, from the local New York news to the BBC and news services in Israel.
"The first thing that happened was that Reuters turned up and started shooting and the next thing I know I'm whisked off in a limousine to Fox Studios," he said.
"I was on the Shephard Smith show, where we smashed a Bernie on Fox News, and then I went on the panel of The Strategy Room and then we did CNN and NBC, and this morning it was on The Today Show.
"Honestly, it's just been insane. I've never seen anything like it before.
"And all of this publicity has more to do with Americans' contempt of Madoff than it does with my good idea; people look for an outlet to vent and little Smash-Me Bernies become the outlet."
'An accidental triumph'
Mr Warring says the toy's success is an example of Australian humour striking a chord in the United States.
"We've got such a quirky sense of humour when you compare it to the typical American sense of humour," he said.
"Some stuff we do just is funny - we think it's just normal but these people think it's a bit out there - and this is a classic example of that."
Mr Warring says the toy has "generated a life of its own" and he's now producing a whole line of Smash-Me dolls, customised for whoever orders them.
But he admits the Bernie Madoff doll was an unexpected success.
"Sales have been going very strongly - but if I'd sold two of them, I would have sold one more than I thought I would have sold, because it's a pretty tasteless sort of item," he said.
"These poor buggers have lost their money [in the Madoff scandal]; you don't want to be seen to be profiting from people's bad experiences.
"I literally didn't expect to sell more than one and even then, I didn't expect to sell it, because I gave it to a mate of mine and the next thing you know, everyone's started to want them.
"The whole thing's just an accidental triumph."
Wow really? Take away everything when they are caught??? What about that whole "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
No, when they are proven guilty. Sorry I misspoke there. :blush:
Seems like a few more of these are coming out ...
Stanford Ponzi Investigations: 22 Years Old
Barrington firm's assets frozen by feds
Oh and then the story with him starts to unravel.
Did Madoff Buy Any Stock?
Disgraced money manager Bernard L. Madoff might not have used any of his clients' billions of dollars to buy any securities for 13 years, according to the man tasked with finding the former Nasdaq chairman's remaining funds.
"For some substantial period, perhaps as much as 13 years, no securities were purchased in client accounts," Picard said.
So what does that mean for duped investors in Madoff's suspected $50 billion Ponzi scheme?
Picard said he has been able to recover roughly $650 million so far from Madoff's holdings, including funds in foreign and domestic accounts. Investors can also apply to collect up to $500,000 from the federal Securities Investor Protection Corp., which controls a type of reimbursement fund.
But of the $23 billion in losses reported by investors so far in mid-December, more than half came from those who invested in Madoff through feeder funds, Time magazine noted. Those types of investors aren't typically eligible for the federal securities insurance program.
(Picard said today that 2,350 claims have been processed so far and they expect the number of claims to double, The Associated Press reports. If the claims doubled and each investor got an equal share of the $650 million collected so far, it would work out to $138,300 per claimant.)
It is hard to stay mad a capitalism when it throws up things like this:
The funny thing is that people will actually buy these. I think CNN said they were around $22 each. Just so you can pay someone else and make them rich so you can smash them. Where is sugarpop's outrage on this one? :D
Why would she be outraged?
Why would she be outraged?
Because they are not diverting wealth to those that never came up with the idea.:D
Lets use the above example and say I stop working and die at 79. How much am I getting after contributing my whole life?
Why are you confusing insurance with something completely irrelevant to Madoff? You obviously know the difference. Why are you confusing investment with insurance - two completely different topics?
Thousands of people contribute to insurance and get nothing so that the one gets reimbursement. Madoff was not an insurance company regulated by a state (ie NY). Madoff was an investment banker regulated by the organization gutted by a political agenda: the Security and Exchange Commission.
Nice diversion tom, but you FAIL-ed to answer the question.
The point I was making is that as they change the rules they can justify that SS is solvent when reality is quite different. wacko bean counters...
Nice diversion tom, but you FAIL-ed to answer the question.
I accurately defined the game you just played. The discussion is about investements - not about insurance. And not about Social Security. SS also is not investing. You have simply thrown a hand grenade into a discussion that was not about SS and not about insurance.
I accurately defined the game you just played. The discussion is about investements - not about insurance. And not about Social Security. SS also is not investing. You have simply thrown a hand grenade into a discussion that was not about SS and not about insurance.
#1 - You are the one that brought up insurance, not me.
#2 Happy Monkey and I were specifically discussing this EXACT scenario
#3 - Our discussion began back on page 3, with post #45. You sir, are incorrect. No hand grenade. At best you have detected thread drift which is perfectly normal.
#4 - If you don't read or cannot follow a thread and are just going to tailpost on assumptions and attack posters, then please don't comment on
my posts. thank you very much.
... the federal government has been actively participating in and forcing a ponzi scheme on us all for YEARS.
You mean the one called Social Security?
Ponzi schemes are investment scams. Social Security is insurance. Happy Monkey also defined SS as insurance; not a ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi scheme with only two levels, in which everyone (who doesn't die early) gets to be in the top level eventually, isn't really a Ponzi scheme.
Clodfobble then listed other insurance.
How does that compare to Medicaid (the one for poor people, Medicare is for old people,) welfare, food stamps, or any other social program?
Again classicman continues confusing insurance with investments.
They're all a great big Ponzi scheme.
Lets use the above example and say I stop working and die at 79. How much am I getting after contributing my whole life? No, I am not opting for a reduced payout.
Like most who contribute, you get a reduced payout because it is insurance.
The topic is investments and Madoff. classicman even discussed a rumored $15million removed by his wife from an investment firm - not an insurance company. classicman also discussed investment firms such as Stanford and Barrington. Why post irrelevant nonsense about insurance?
Social Security is insurance. Get over it. Opting for a reduced payout is acceptable and expected. Insurance has not an investment. Ponzi schemes are investement scams - not insurance.
Stick to the facts without your usual personal attacks. Investments and insurance are two completely different structures no matter how you confuse it with venom. Social Security is insurance - not something to invest in. Is that easy enough for you? Or is this something you learned from clown school?
Tom, are you seriously trying to say that you cannot see there are multiple conversations going on? You conveniently omitted import posts. Some of which were half in jest. None were directed to you. Where is the example that HM laid out? There is also a response from him and another from me. You have taken much of a conversation that didn't include you out of context and added some that has no bearing just to manipulate it into something you can bitch about. That is something only a wacko extremist would do. You don't want to start with the name-calling again do you?
What is your real issue? Are you feeling ignored? Don't answer that, I don't care.
We have gone down the "tit for tat" route too many times. Do you really wanna lose your composure again and start defecating all over the board? Are you next going to call my family nasty names? Is that your goal?
Please put me on ignore and don't comment on my posts.
The topic is investments and Madoff. classicman even discussed a rumored $15million removed by his wife from an investment firm - not an insurance company. classicman also discussed investment firms such as Stanford and Barrington. Why post irrelevant nonsense about insurance?
If you'd like to stay on the subject, Which of the above is not relevant to the conversation? The part where Madoff's wife withdrew 15 Million the same day that he was turned in or the fact that the other was being called a
mini-madoff???
Tom, are you seriously trying to say that you cannot see there are multiple conversations going on? You conveniently omitted import posts. Some of which were half in jest. None were directed to you. Where is the example that HM laid out? There is also a response from him and another from me.
He's not wrong, though. You do seem to be figuring out a situation where insurance doesn't pay out, and treating it as a "gotcha". You might as well say "what if I pay for car insurance my whole life and never have an accident?"
As I said before, SS's solvency is based on the ratio of workers to retired people. If it got to the point that solvency required the retirement age to be 80, that would mean that there were enough retired people over 80 to counterbalance all the workers under 80. That would indicate an increase in average lifespan, making the scenario of dying at 79 less likely than under present conditions.
And that brings up a strength that Social Security has over other insurance, and even over investment. What if you live for much
longer than the average lifespan? Most insurances in that type of situation would raise your rates. Investments will run out if you live longer than your financial planning anticipates. Social Security keeps paying out as long as there are still people who haven't retired yet.
You do seem to be figuring out a situation where insurance doesn't pay out, and treating it as a "gotcha". You might as well say "what if I pay for car insurance my whole life and never have an accident?"
If it got to the point that solvency required the retirement age to be 80, that would mean that there were enough retired people over 80 to counterbalance all the workers under 80. That would indicate an increase in average lifespan, making the scenario of dying at 79 less likely than under present conditions.
The solvency of SS is based upon the parameters as you aptly stated. My point was, and still is, that they can embellish, for lack of a better word, the solvency by raising the minimum age at which one receives full benefits.
If they keep the age at 65 (for example) then the solvency is quite different than if they raise the age to say, 80 as in your example. By raising the age they are eliminating many people who have paid money in. This works because, as any amortization tables shows, the rate of death over 65 increases dramatically, thus allowing all the dollars put into the system by those now deceased individuals and spreading it a fewer who remain alive to/after the increased age. Your assumption that it will be based upon a longer life expectancy is not necessarily true. It may and probably will be raised just to keep it solvent.
By increasing the minimum age they effectively reduce the number of recipients while keeping the number of people putting into it. Is it illegal? No. Is it wrong? I certainly think so.
That is my point. If all remains as it is, there will still be money there for all who retire, I guess so. Will it be $1.00 or $100.00 - who knows. The reality is that in order for it to have some measured benefit for most recipients, the rules of the game are going to be changed.
The best thing they can do for it is raise the ceiling for contribution limits from around 95k or what ever that is, up to 110k.
Your assumption that it will be based upon a longer life expectancy is not necessarily true. It may and probably will be raised just to keep it solvent.
It only
has to be raised if life expectancy increases. Solvency is not a problem unless there are too many retired people for the working population to support. And, as TheMercenary pointed out, there are much easier (both politically and practically) ways of increasing funding than raising the retirement age. Of the three methods I mentioned (rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits), the retirement age is the one I would expect to, politically, need a life expectancy justification.
Raising the retirement age to 80 simply could not happen, politically, unless people were regularly living well past it. Raising the maximum yearly limit would, comparatively, be a cinch.
I agree. The most pressing issue will be as the baby boomers come of age. I know this is starting to a very small degree, but in the next 15 to 20 years there will be a greater disparity in the number of recipients versus that which has been put in by the working population charged with supporting them.
I agree. The most pressing issue will be as the baby boomers come of age.
All that is predictable and easily planned for by actuarials. SS problems are trivial. Solutions include increasing income levels of contributions (to compensate for inflation), reduce benefits, or simply do what Reagan did. He hyped tax cuts while raising SS contributions percentages.
Difference between investment scams (ponzi schemes) and insurance? Insurance problems are easily predicted in advance and easily corrected. Investments scams, (Enron, LTCM, AIG, Bear Stearns, Madoff, etc) are not easily found until major damage occurs too late. Why was AIG careful to keep risky investments away from insurance regulator oversight? In today's America, investment scams became easy by something that politicians called deregulation.
Just another reason why investment finance needs heavy oversight by an SEC not subverted by a White House. SS was never going to deplete both the Federal Reserve and Treasury. Investment scams have almost done that in only a year AND may have put insurance companies even at risk.
Discussing insurance is nonsense when people such as AIG and Madoff are a far greater threat to the American economy.
The thing that annoys me most about Madoff is that he ruined it all before I could get in on the game.
I could have been rich, rich I tell you!
The thing that annoys me most about Madoff is that he ruined it all before I could get in on the game.
Steven Greenspan, a psychiatry professor at the U of CO wrote a book about the factors and psychology of a scam. After his book (Annals of Gullibility)was published, "with supreme irony", he lost half his retirement investments with Madoff.
Greenspan wrote:
The basic mechanism explaining the success of Ponzi schemes is the tendency of humans to model their actions, especially when dealing with matters they don't fully understand, on the behavior of other humans."
Greenspan explains the Madoff ponzi scheme AND Saddam's WMDs.
Greenspan also noted the scam is particularly powerful within an ethnic or religious group as Ponzi demonstrated in 1920 Italy. Religious people particularly because: if another believes your religion, then he must be trustworthy. Nonsense. Rarely are the most religious also the most trustworthy. Just another example of why religion justifies so much of what those same people would otherwise call 'evil'.
How to identify the greatest ‘evils’? Let religion be a basis of any decision. Madoff was particularly influential – could promote his lies easiest - among other older Jews.
Because they are not diverting wealth to those that never came up with the idea.:D
You completely misinterpret (or misunderstand) my outrage, and at whom it is aimed.
The best thing they can do for it is raise the ceiling for contribution limits from around 95k or what ever that is, up to 110k.
I don't get why they even HAVE a ceiling...
It only has to be raised if life expectancy increases. Solvency is not a problem unless there are too many retired people for the working population to support. And, as TheMercenary pointed out, there are much easier (both politically and practically) ways of increasing funding than raising the retirement age. Of the three methods I mentioned (rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits), the retirement age is the one I would expect to, politically, need a life expectancy justification.
Raising the retirement age to 80 simply could not happen, politically, unless people were regularly living well past it. Raising the maximum yearly limit would, comparatively, be a cinch.
I still don't get why it needs to be raised. Just make people pay in based on what they actually make.
That discussion you quoted was on paying OUT not IN.
I don't get why they even HAVE a ceiling...
It's the law. I guess if you never make enough money to reach it you really could not give a shit about anyone who does pay into it.
:rolleyes:
It's the law. I guess if you never make enough money to reach it you really could not give a shit about anyone who does pay into it.
:rolleyes:
Class warfare? Give me a friggin' break. IF they are going to tax people's income for SS, they should tax the WHOLE income.
And laws are not always right. If they were, we would still have slavery, and women wouldn't be allowed to vote.
Steven Greenspan, a psychiatry professor at the U of CO wrote a book about the factors and psychology of a scam. After his book (Annals of Gullibility)was published, "with supreme irony", he lost half his retirement investments with Madoff. Greenspan explains the Madoff ponzi scheme AND Saddam's WMDs.
Greenspan also noted the scam is particularly powerful within an ethnic or religious group as Ponzi demonstrated in 1920 Italy. Religious people particularly because: if another believes your religion, then he must be trustworthy. Nonsense. Rarely are the most religious also the most trustworthy. Just another example of why religion justifies so much of what those same people would otherwise call 'evil'.
How to identify the greatest ‘evils’? Let religion be a basis of any decision. Madoff was particularly influential – could promote his lies easiest - among other older Jews.
Good stuff. I've often taken an interest in the work of con artists and the mechanisms behind the process. Its amazing how much of an effect the right image can have on someone.
I still don't get why it needs to be raised. Just make people pay in based on what they actually make.
That's my point. It really doesn't need to be raised, though it does make some sense to keep it in line with life expectancy. Life expectancy for those reaching 65 increased
2-5 years between 1940 and 1990. and the retirement age is going up 2 years.
Its amazing how much of an effect the right image can have on someone.
Even on the expert who wrote the book.
That's my point. It really doesn't need to be raised, though it does make some sense to keep it in line with life expectancy. Life expectancy for those reaching 65 increased 2-5 years between 1940 and 1990. and the retirement age is going up 2 years.
And it's been raised since 1940, no? Wasn't it raised just a few years ago? Or in the past 15 years or so? (My memory is faulty on this...)
Class warfare? Give me a friggin' break. IF they are going to tax people's income for SS, they should tax the WHOLE income.
And everyone should get taxed the same regardless of how much or little you make. When the minority of income earners pay income taxes there is a huge problem.
And everyone should get taxed the same regardless of how much or little you make.
Which means tax rates on the rich would have to increase.
That's my point. It really doesn't need to be raised, though it does make some sense to keep it in line with life expectancy. Life expectancy for those reaching 65 increased 2-5 years between 1940 and 1990. and the retirement age is going up 2 years.
And it's been raised since 1940, no? Wasn't it raised just a few years ago? Or in the past 15 years or so? (My memory is faulty on this...)
That's what I meant.
Which means tax rates on the rich would have to increase.
Why? If the rate is currently 36% & going up to 39% how is a flat tax of 15% an increase?
I think he's saying that with all the loopholes and accounting tricks, the rich don't actually end up paying 36-39%, they pay a much lower percentage when all is said and done.
I thought so as well, but you never know with him and god forbid I make an assumption... :eyebrow:
Why? If the rate is currently 36% going up to 39% how is a flat tax of 15% an increase?
You can't be that naive. With tax breaks and other money games, the rich are paying a lower percentage. Again, as Warren Buffet so often notes bluntly, he is paying less taxes than his receptionist. The rich have low taxes. Americans have some of the lowest tax rates in the world. That reality is not popular where right wing extremists hype myths. But the reality - if the rich are paying tax rates that high, then they must be ignorant or have really bad financial planners. Estimates put the average 'rich man' tax rates at somewhere between 20% and 23%.
Even more stunning is a study performed for the Senate by the GAO at the request of Sen Leven. At least 50% of American corporations pay no taxes. Again this is not popular among those who also knew Saddam had WMDs. These 'oppressive taxes' do not exist once a political agenda is replaced by facts. Classicman plays dumb about a 36% tax rate. He's not that stupid.
I think he's saying that with all the loopholes and accounting tricks, the rich don't actually end up paying 36-39%, they pay a much lower percentage when all is said and done.
That is a true statement. It is called taxable basis. If you elimintate all the loop holes for everyone and no one gets a break from paying taxes, and everyone pays the same, in the end you will collect more.
Which means tax rates on the rich would have to increase.
Why? If the rate is currently 36% & going up to 39% how is a flat tax of 15% an increase?
Estimates put the average 'rich man' tax rates at somewhere between 20% and 23%.
These 'oppressive taxes' do not exist once a political agenda is replaced by facts. Classicman plays dumb about a 36% tax rate. He's not that stupid.
OK, So according to YOU, the average "average 'rich man' tax rates average out at at somewhere between 20% and 23%. I'm not a mathematician, but thats still more than 15% last I checked.
No, I'm not stupid at all, in fact I am smart enough not to make assumptions about what you mean when your post is so vague. Lets try to stay on topic though - mmmkay?
OK, So according to YOU, the average "average 'rich man' tax rates average out at at somewhere between 20% and 23%. I'm not a mathematician, but thats still more than 15% last I checked.
Your numbers were 36%. Now you are posting 15%? What is the group only paying 15%? Get you head on straight. What are your numbers? Forcing you to do something you rarely do - commit to something - provide facts.
I would like to know WHO Bernie paid off to STILL be living in his penthouse and not jail, which is where he belongs; eating empty-calorie carbs and pooping in front of an audience.
And everyone should get taxed the same regardless of how much or little you make. When the minority of income earners pay income taxes there is a huge problem.
HUH? WTF are you talking about?
That's what I meant.
Oh OK. :)
You can't be that naive. With tax breaks and other money games, the rich are paying a lower percentage. Again, as Warren Buffet so often notes bluntly, he is paying less taxes than his receptionist. The rich have low taxes. Americans have some of the lowest tax rates in the world. That reality is not popular where right wing extremists hype myths. But the reality - if the rich are paying tax rates that high, then they must be ignorant or have really bad financial planners. Estimates put the average 'rich man' tax rates at somewhere between 20% and 23%.
Even more stunning is a study performed for the Senate by the GAO at the request of Sen Leven. At least 50% of American corporations pay no taxes. Again this is not popular among those who also knew Saddam had WMDs. These 'oppressive taxes' do not exist once a political agenda is replaced by facts. Classicman plays dumb about a 36% tax rate. He's not that stupid.
Dammit, I wish I could remember where I heard this. Apparently there is a
really rich guy in NY (like, multi-multi-multi-millionaire) who hasn't paid any taxes, in YEARS. He actually brags about it. Does the IRS go after him? NOOOOO. Sorry I can't remember who he is or where I heard that.
True story, back in the 80s, my sister lived in NY. My parents and I went to visit her. We were out on the street, and this guy was asking for spare change. My mom started to give him some money when a cop stopped her. He told us the man begging was filthy rich, and that he did that on the side and raked in the bucks doing it.
I would like to know WHO Bernie paid off.
His lawyer. He could afford a good one.
HUH? WTF are you talking about?
What do you mean? You don't believe that a minority of income earners pay the majority of income taxes?
What do you mean? You don't believe that a minority of income earners pay the majority of income taxes?
I don't understand what you're saying. I'm probably having a Homer moment. :D
I believe most of the money paid out in income taxes comes from the majority of the people - you know, the middle class, the working class, and upper middle class - not the people at the top who end up paying less because of tax loopholes and offshore accounts.
What do you mean? You don't believe that a minority of income earners pay the majority of income taxes?
I don't understand what you're saying. I'm probably having a Homer moment. :D
I believe most of the money paid out in income taxes comes from the majority of the people - you know, the middle class, the working class, and upper middle class - not the people at the top who end up paying less because of tax loopholes and offshore accounts.
So what did you mean by this?
When the minority of income earners pay income taxes there is a huge problem.Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid 2006
Top 1% $388,806 39.89%
Top 5% $153,542 60.14%
Top 10% $108,904 70.79%
Top 25% $64,702 86.27%
Top 50% $31,987 97.01%
Bottom 50% <$31,987 2.99%
These were the latest figures I could find.
"Dear Mr. Madoff,
I hope you sit on a sno-cone."
Love, America
These were the latest figures I could find.
OK that is really confusing. Does the top 50% include the other tops? What are the income levels?
Sorry - I forgot to include the
link
The column headers are:
1st - Percentiles Ranked by AGI
2nd - AGI Threshold on Percentiles
3rd - Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
OK that is really confusing. Does the top 50% include the other tops? What are the income levels?
Read it like this: The top 10% pay 71% of all income tax collected, the top 25% pay 86% of all income taxes collected, etc.
Also an interesting side statistic - 90% of Americans make less that 108k
Also an interesting side statistic - 90% of Americans make less that 108k
That's why they end up paying less of the total amount I suppose. But, they DO pay a bigger PERCENTAGE of their actual salary. Unless they are self-employed, and they can write off a bunch of expenses.
You know, really, if you make a half billion dollars, you can afford to pay a large chunk of it. It really wouldn't affect your lifestyle because you would never miss it. Who can spend that much money? No one. If you make $50,000, you WOULD miss it. It
would affect your lifestyle. Or if you make $30,000, or $20,000, or shit, $10,000. It's much harder to give away part of your earnings when you're barely making money, and let's face it, those salaries, that is not much to live on. $500,000,000.00 though? Come on. You (not you personally classic) can't honestly say you think they should have the same tax rate as someone who only makes $30k? That is insane!
Look at it if they both paid 15%.
Do you think its fair to take almost 40% of someones income on federal taxes, not to mention any applicable state, local, county and/or city taxes? That puts their gross tax rate well over 50%. How would you like that? Does that seem fair to you? :eyebrow:
Look at it if they both paid 15%.
Do you think its fair to take almost 40% of someones income on federal taxes, not to mention any applicable state, local, county and/or city taxes? That puts their gross tax rate well over 50%. How would you like that? Does that seem fair to you? :eyebrow:
If they have a billion dollars, yea, I do. And EVERYONE pays all those other taxes. You make it sound like only rich people pay them. We are taxed to death in this country.
And how many people have a billion dollars? GTFOH.
Also an interesting side statistic - 90% of Americans make less that 108k
Individuals or households?
Look at it if they both paid 15%.
Do you think its fair to take almost 40% of someones income on federal taxes,
Which is why the people who pay a higher percentage - the average income earning - do not pay 40%.
A flat tax does not become fair until the numbers are more like 23%. Then the rich will pay more taxes.
40% is the myth classicman keeps promoting. A 15% flat tax is only another mythical tax cut as defined by Buffet. Since the only tax cut also cuts spending, then a 15% flat tax only makes more recessions - as demonstrated repeatedly by history.
If the flat tax required the rich to pay 23%, then the rich suffer a tax increase. Flat tax is not the problem. Problem is a mythical and economically destructive number - 15%. A number not possible due to unpaid bills such as $1trillion for "Mission Accomplished".
And how many people have a billion dollars? GTFOH.
I don't know, exactly, and I was exaggerating, sort of. But, there are quite a few billionaires in this country. Quite a few. And there are many people who have hundreds of millions...
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/22/4734This is so good, I think I'll just post the whole article...
Published on Monday, October 22, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Billionaires Up, America Down
by Holly Sklar
When it comes to producing billionaires, America is doing great.
Until 2005, multimillionaires could still make the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans. In 2006, the Forbes 400 went billionaires only.
This year, you'd need a Forbes 482 to fit all the billionaires.
A billion dollars is a lot of dough. Queen Elizabeth II, British monarch for five decades, would have to add $400 million to her $600 million fortune to reach $1 billion. And she'd need another $300 million to reach the Forbes 400 minimum of $1.3 billion. The average Forbes 400 member has $3.8 billion.
When the Forbes 400 began in 1982, it was dominated by oil and manufacturing fortunes. Today, says Forbes, "Wall Street is king."
Nearly half the 45 new members, says Forbes, "made their fortunes in hedge funds and private equity. Money manager John Paulson joins the list after pocketing more than $1 billion short-selling subprime credit this summer."
The 25th anniversary of the Forbes 400 isn't party time for America.
We have a record 482 billionaires -- and record foreclosures.
We have a record 482 billionaires -- and a record 47 million people without any health insurance.
Since 2000, we have added 184 billionaires -- and 5 million more people living below the poverty line.
The official poverty threshold for one person was a ridiculously low $10,294 in 2006. That won't get you two pounds of caviar ($9,800) and 25 cigars ($730) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The $20,614 family-of-four poverty threshold is lower than the cost of three months of home flower arrangements ($24,525).
Wealth is being redistributed from poorer to richer.
Between 1983 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1 percent of households grew by 78 percent, reports Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University. The bottom 40 percent lost 59 percent.
In 2004, one out of six households had zero or negative net worth. Nearly one out of three households had less than $10,000 in net worth, including home equity. That's before the mortgage crisis hit.
In 1982, when the Forbes 400 had just 13 billionaires, the highest paid CEO made $108 million and the average full-time worker made $34,199, adjusted for inflation in $2006. Last year, the highest paid hedge fund manager hauled in $1.7 billion, the highest paid CEO made $647 million, and the average worker made $34,861, with vanishing health and pension coverage.
The Forbes 400 is even more of a rich men's club than when it began. The number of women has dropped from 75 in 1982 to 39 today.
The 400 richest Americans have a conservatively estimated $1.54 trillion in combined wealth. That amount is more than 11 percent of our $13.8 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) -- the total annual value of goods and services produced by our nation of 303 million people. In 1982, Forbes 400 wealth measured less than 3 percent of U.S. GDP.
And the rich, notes Fortune magazine, "give away a smaller share of their income than the rest of us. [COLOR="Red"]HA! Why is that not surprising.[/COLOR]
Thanks to mega-tax cuts, the rich can afford more mega-yachts, accessorized with helicopters and mini-submarines. Meanwhile, the infrastructure of bridges, levees, mass transit, parks and other public assets inherited from earlier generations of taxpayers crumbles from neglect, and the holes in the safety net are growing.
The top 1 percent of households -- average income $1.5 million -- will save a collective $79.5 billion on their 2008 taxes, reports Citizens for Tax Justice. That's more than the combined budgets of the Transportation Department, Small Business Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Tax cuts will save the top 1 percent a projected $715 billion between 2001 and 2010. And cost us $715 billion in mounting national debt plus interest.
The children and grandchildren of today's underpaid workers will pay for the partying of today's plutocrats and their retinue of lobbyists.
It's time for Congress to roll back tax cuts for the wealthy and close the loophole letting billionaire hedge fund speculators pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries.
Inequality has roared back to 1920s levels. It was bad for our nation then. It's bad for our nation now.
Holly Sklar is co-author of "Raise the Floor: Wages and Policies That Work for All of Us" and "A Just Minimum Wage: Good for Workers, Business and Our Future." She can be reached at [email]hsklar@aol.com[/email].
This essay was distributed by McClatchy-Tribune News Service.
Copyright © 2007 Holly Sklar
Which is why the people who pay a higher percentage - the average income earning - do not pay 40%.
They pay the % they are required, how much of their income is taxable is, I believe your issue. Poorly written or intentionally misleading?
A flat tax does not become fair until the numbers are more like 23%. Then the rich will pay more taxes.
Cite please.
40% is the myth classicman keeps promoting. A 15% flat tax is only another mythical tax cut as defined by Buffet. Since the only tax cut also cuts spending, then a 15% flat tax only makes more recessions - as demonstrated repeatedly by history.
Cite please. You're back to making all these statements without a shred of proof or support ... again.
Problem is a mythical and economically destructive number - 15%.
Problem is mythical posts without ANY substantive data to back them up.
I noticed you've not posted much recently - Convenient is how it was right after you were last asked REPEATEDLY to support your claims with evidence and you wouldn't or couldn't?
Cite please.
Citations were already provided. Posting repeatedly without any citations is classicman's mythical 15% number. A number that has zero basis in economic reality and only means an increasing national debt. That 15% is promoted by those who are so dumb as to want even more tax cuts ... as if we have not done enough damage to the economy.
We still have many extremist lies to pay for: ie "Mission Accomplished". A $1trillion bill that will do to the American economy what Nixon did to the 1975/1979 economy. No money game - ie 15% flat tax - will cure a problem created by economic perverts who thought tax cuts are good.
Buffet was blunt about such stupid people. “The only tax cut is one that cuts spending.”
We cannot cut spending. Cheney created massive deficits while bragging, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." We will be paying for fiscal mismanagement for the next ten years. And now some want to make it worse with a 15% flat tax? How much longer do we have to listen to extremists propaganda?
Tax cuts, in the long term, create a worse economy. 15% flat tax is nothing more than another tax cut. We are now seeing the 'wealth' created by wacko extremist tax cuts and other economic incentives. The only solution to long term wealth includes a balanced budget. Something we almost had - and then wackos started inventing money games to *stimulate* the economy.
A balanced budget means the world does not get rich funding American deficits. To fix a mess created by George Jr and his Project for a New American Century administration will probably take the next ten years. And still fools are promoting another destruction of America - a 15% flat tax.
Maybe it might be possible. But first we must to pay for the George Jr disasters starting with the most obvious of lies including "Mission Accomplished" and a zero effort to get bin Laden.
Citation for that 15% tax cut: endorsed by extremists. And still some don't acknowledge that is a source of economic perversion.
Another bill created by George Jr economic stimulus - Madoff. He could not have done it without government cooperation - such as ignoring a long list of whistleblowers.
July 18, 2008
Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data
by Gerald Prante
Fiscal Fact No. 135
The latest release of Internal Revenue Service data on individual income taxes comes from calendar year 2006, a year in which the economy remained healthy and continued to grow, increasing individual income tax collections along with overall average effective tax rates.
This year's numbers show that both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs. In 2006, the top 1 percent of tax returns paid 39.9 percent of all federal individual income taxes and earned 22.1 percent of adjusted gross income, both of which are significantly higher than 2004 when the top 1 percent earned 19 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) and paid 36.9 percent of federal individual income taxes.
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.
The IRS data below include all of the 135.7 million tax returns filed in 2006 that had a positive AGI, not just the returns from people who earned enough to owe taxes. From other IRS data, we can see that in 2006, 92.7 million of the tax returns came from people who paid taxes into the Treasury. That leaves 43 million tax returns filed by people with positive AGI who used exemptions, deductions and tax credits to completely wipe out their federal income tax liability. Not only did they get back every dollar that the federal government withheld from their paychecks during 2005, but some even received more back from the IRS. This is a result of refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which are not included in the aggregate percentile data here. (For more on the limitations of the data on this page, see the notes below. For a detailed paper on the distribution of the entire U.S. fiscal system, including all federal, state and local taxes, read Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991 - 2004.)
Number of Returns with Positive AGI
AGI ($ millions)
Income Taxes Paid ($ millions)
Group's Share of Total AGI
Group's Share of Income Taxes
Income Split Point
Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers
135,719,160
$8,122,040
$1,023,739
100%
100%
-
12.60%
Top 1%
1,357,192
$1,791,886
$408,369
22.06%
39.89%
> $388,806
22.79%
Top 2-5%
5,428,766
$1,185,828
$207,311
14.60%
20.25%
17.48%
Top 5%
6,785,958
$2,977,714
$615,680
36.66%
60.14%
> $153,542
20.68%
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.htmlCitations were already provided.
WHERE? If true, then post a link to them.
Posting repeatedly without any citations is classicman's mythical 15% number.
I post cites with virtually EVERY POST. If I am posting my opinion it is clearly apparent that it is my opinion and obviously no cite is needed. tw however has been posting
his opinions as facts for years. Since getting called on it, tw has been unsuccessfully trying to use this as a diversionary tactic with other posters. Take a look at your last 50 posts, tw and post how many of them had cites to back up your "facts" -
read opinions. I already know the answer.
Now back to the topic at hand...
The 15% was an arbitrary, hypothetical figure mentioned for discussion - a starting point, nothing more. That figure was chosen as it has been discussed in the past. Nothing was etched in stone as tw would have some believe. Perhaps the number is 10%, 17% or even 25% - That is not the point. The point being discussed when that was brought up which was as usual, missed by tw, is
the concept of a flat tax versus the current structure.
15% flat tax - will cure a problem created by economic perverts who thought tax cuts are good.
Buffet was blunt about such stupid people. “The only tax cut is one that cuts spending.”
Thats not at all what Mr. Buffet said this morning on CNBC. In fact, he thinks we need to do both. He repeatedly stated that doing exclusively one or the other is foolish. He continued that using both means is not only necessary, but the most prudent. Guess that bluntly makes
tw stupid.
A 15% flat tax is nothing more than another tax cut.
As previously stated - this is off topic, but if that is true, then why are the rich so adverse to it? Because it removes all their deductions? Because, in fact, it really wouldn't be a tax cut if done properly, for example the right percentage?
The only solution to long term wealth includes a balanced budget.
With this, I agree 100%
Madoff victims' lawyers converge on New York
The alliance, formed last month in Madrid, comprises 34 law firms and 5,000 lawyers from countries stretching from Chile to Israel and Austria to the United States.
The huge grouping is attempting to coordinate a response to Madoff's alleged Ponzi scheme in which investors worldwide lost their money in a decades-long scam.
However a deal might mean that relatives heavily involved in his business -- such as his two sons -- and who have not been charged, might win more protection, observers say.
Another figure that Madoff may be seeking to shield is his wife Ruth, who also has not been charged.
Victims of the Madoff investment collapse raised eyebrows at accusations that she withdrew 15.5 million dollars from a brokerage linked to her husband just before his arrest and alleged confession in December.
Ruth Madoff's lawyer has also taken steps to try to prevent victims or prosecutors from seizing 70 million dollars in assets that she claims are solely hers and not shared with her husband.
cough\
BULLSHIT/cough
My guess is that the whole family was in on it and things were going just peachy until the recession kicked the crap out of the scam. Old Man Madoff decided to take the fall on his own because he doesn't have that much time left anyway. His boys get away scott free having turned in dad to take the fall for all their crimes.
/adjusts tinfoil/
I heard on the news that he was making a deal so his wife could keep the $7 million condo (or house, whatever) in NY and the $65 million they have. I certainly hope they don't let her keep it. That would just be wrong.
Psst - hey Sugah see post 141 ;)
Apparently he is pleading guilty, which means he is under no obligation to help the prosecution in any way find the money. I hope they investigate his sons and wife as well, and investigate every single person at his firm.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aFyAnotdg7oo&refer=us
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/madoff-lawyer-responds-to-177-billion-forfeiture-demand/?hp
His wife is getting her own attorney
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29598391/I too hope they investigate AND prosecute all of them. Perhaps seize their assets as well and put it towards those who were wronged.
Additionally, I'd like to see all those "regulators" or whatever who were basically informed of what was going on and did nothing investigated and prosecuted as well since that was their responsibility.
If he's pleading guilty without making a deal with the prosecution, then I think it's likely he is falling on his sword to protect his family. I would hope any investigation would include the family, and if there is enough evidence found to implicate them, they should be charged as well.
It irks me that the family should retain any wealth at all. They should lose virtually everything and be put in a position of starting over from scratch, assuming they don't go to jail too.
The bloomberg article link from sugarpop (post # 145) is very good.
I agree glatt, I think he is trying to protect his family and whomever. Sickens me that he is basically gonna get away with it. The money, if it really existed, is already gone.
I too hope they investigate AND prosecute all of them. Perhaps seize their assets as well and put it towards those who were wronged.
Additionally, I'd like to see all those "regulators" or whatever who were basically informed of what was going on and did nothing investigated and prosecuted as well since that was their responsibility.
yeparoo, espcially they since they were warned, over and over and over by that Markopoulis guy. He tried for what, 12 years? to get them to investigate? Lazy bastards never did anything. If they had done their damn job, from the beginning, none of this would have happened. People who have oversight get way too comfortable with the people they are supposed to be regulating and watching. It's almost incestuous.
If he's pleading guilty without making a deal with the prosecution, then I think it's likely he is falling on his sword to protect his family. I would hope any investigation would include the family, and if there is enough evidence found to implicate them, they should be charged as well.
It irks me that the family should retain any wealth at all. They should lose virtually everything and be put in a position of starting over from scratch, assuming they don't go to jail too.
Well my take is, since he didn't make a deal, they are not protected. I believe (hope) they will be investigated, and I agree, in cases like this, people who acquire wealth should have to lose all of it to help make retribution and start over.
Well my take is, since he didn't make a deal, they are not protected.
Yes and no. While it's true that there is no official protection from the government now, any deal he would have made would have required him to divulge information about the entire scam and would likely have implicated his family. So making a deal for a lighter sentence would have hurt his family more than pleading guilty and shutting his mouth. He is protecting the family from the government as best he can by staying quiet. They are more protected this way.
I suppose time will tell. If he had a made a deal, he might have been able to get them immunity. But then again, maybe not. IF they are guilty, I hope they go down as well. Too many people and organizations were hurt by his actions.
Billionaire Stanford to take the 5th in fraud case
DALLAS – Texas billionaire R. Allen Stanford and one of his top officials have asserted their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the federal government's fraud case against them and Stanford's companies, according to court documents filed Wednesday.
Stanford said he will "decline to testify, provide an accounting or produce any documents" related to the Securities and Exchange Commission's civil case, which accuses him of running a "massive Ponzi scheme."
Finance chief James M. Davis, using similar language, also asserted his right not to incriminate himself.
Anyone for waterboarding?
Yeah, I have a comment. He's been wearing a bullet-proof vest going to court, because so many people are so angry, but his big giant pasty head is hanging out there like a beacon. Why don't people ever get bullet-proof ski masks or something?
Should I have put a smilie on that Pie?
No. It's still a little too close to the bone for me to take it as a joke.
But to quote you -- "Hey, my views aren't popular, they're just mine."
Well it was intended as a joke.
I too hope they investigate AND prosecute all of them. Perhaps seize their assets as well and put it towards those who were wronged.
I agree glatt, I think he is trying to protect his family and whomever. Sickens me that he is basically gonna get away with it.
But... but...
Hypothetically speaking, if Madoff's kids weren't involved with defrauding billions from investors, but they clearly benefited financially, are they guilty of anything?
No
What if they don't return the money once they find out about the fraud? Are they guilty then?
No
WTF? Please explain.
Guilt to me acknowledges some culpability and/or responsibility. As the questions were worded, I had to answer them the way I did. I have no control over another person.
There is a difference between guilt or remorse and empathy. If someone was wronged by my great grandfather, for example, thats on him not me. What could I have done about it? I wasn't there I wasn't born yet. I feel no responsibility for the actions of someone else, what difference does it make if they were/are a distant relative or a complete stranger? If my cousin kills someone, should I go to jail?
Just making sure I understand... So your desire to see his wife/children prosecuted stems entirely from the hypothesis that they are also guilty? And their guilt rests entirely on whether they *knew* Madoff was doing illegal things, not necessarily participating in the business? And then based on that, you would support confiscating "their assets as well" (say, his wife's salary from some unrelated job) because they are guilty to begin with so their punishment can be in any form?
So if I steal a million dollars, and just walk up and give it to a stranger on the street, that stranger doesn't have to return it?
If someone was knowingly doing something illegal, yes. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to punish everyone who worked there? As far as confiscating the wife's salary from another job or other unrelated sources.... I dunno how to figure all that out. Thats a little beyond me. I guess if we could say that she is responsible for x dollars illegally then she should surrender that same amount. Could/should we add a punitive amount on top of that??? I don't know how to calculate all of it. What do you think?
Person A owns a car.
Person B steals it and sells it to person C, who does not know it is stolen.
Dunno about you lot, but down here, C is not guilty of any crime, but must give the car back to A.
General principle: you can't keep stolen stuff even if you didn't know it was stolen when you got it.
So for the Madoff family, they should be stipped of all assets that the didn't earn themselves. IMHO YMMV etc...
The whole family were officers in Madoff's operation. It's impossible for them not to have known.:eyebrow:
The bottom line is this, his family is living off money he stole from other people. Regardless of wether they were complicit in that theft, they should still have to return the money. Why should they get to keep it when there are people out there who literally lost EVERYTHING? shit, he even bankrupted some charities, did he not?
So are the families of all the employees at the company and and and...
If someone was knowingly doing something illegal, yes. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to punish everyone who worked there?
The recipient is held partially responsible for knowing that profits / money are not from ill-gotten enterprises. It’s not fair. It’s legal. But the family could never have been that ignorant.
If you see a crime and don't report it, then you are an accessory to that crime. Can also be and should be prosecuted.
I turned the knob and someone screamed in pain. But I was told to turn the knob. Therefore I was not responsible for killing him. Conservatives don't like this requirement for responsible actions. Being responsible (and regulations that require it) would infringe on my god given freedoms.
How does what you said differ from my post? Aside from the fact that it took you three paragraphs to answer a closed ended question?
Dude is going to jail. His story ends but it sounds like the investigation is just beginning.
I hope so. I also hope they didn't "wait long enough" for everyone to hide what they already got.
[SIZE="4"]Madoff accountant charged with fraud
David Friehling arrested, accused of helping Madoff defraud thousands[/SIZE]
Bernard Madoff's longtime accountant was arrested on fraud charges Wednesday, accused of aiding the man who has admitted cheating thousands of investors out of billions of dollars in the past two decades.
The charges against David Friehling, 49, come as federal authorities turn their attention to those who they believe helped Madoff fool 4,800 investors into thinking that their longtime investments were growing comfortably each year. Friehling is the first person to be arrested since the Madoff scandal broke three months ago.
Friehling ran an accounting office in a nondescript suburban building north of New York City, and quickly drew scrutiny. Experts in accounting said it would be preposterous for such a tiny firm to audit properly an operation the size of Madoff's.
He had served as Madoff's auditor from 1991 through 2008 while he worked as the sole practitioner at Friehling & Horowitz. He was paid a tidy sum by Madoff: Prosecutors said he made between $12,000 and $14,500 a month from 2004 to 2007. That works out to $144,000 to $174,000 a year.
Friehling faces up to 105 years in prison if he is convicted. He is charged with securities fraud, aiding and abetting investment adviser fraud and four counts of filing false audit reports with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Hopefully this is only the first domino to fall.
Wow. This is a guy who could have blown the whistle at any time, who knew exactly how many millions Madoff had--and Madoff was paying him less than $175,000 a year? I wonder if he had some other kind of blackmail on the guy...
that or he paid him millions in offshore accounts or something. :shrug:
Wow. This is a guy who could have blown the whistle at any time,
We don't know he did not. Many did blow the whistle on Madoff. Since the political agenda demanded deregulation and no government oversight, those numerous blown whistles were ignored.
A poltical agenda could not have been more apparent. Both Democrats and Republicans offered to double the SEC budget. Harvey Pitts (representing the George Jr adminstration's political agenda) refused to accept that money. That was the 2002(?) Enron hearings. It only got worse because the political agenda was to deregulate everything. Later, laws were passed to make regulations of derivatives illegal.
For all we know, Madoff's accountant did blow the whistle. What we do know is the George Jr administration ignored numerous Madoff whistleblowers. Even refused to prosecute Skilling and Lay for Enron until embarrassed by the state of Oklahoma. We do not yet know if this accountant tried to blow a whistle. We do know that if he did, he would have been ignored.
For all we know, Madoff's accountant did blow the whistle. What we do know is the George Jr administration ignored numerous Madoff whistleblowers.
That is true the previous administration did nothing. Perhaps that is because all the warning went to Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd or Barney Frank the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Also why is it ok to blame the George Jr. Administration here whereas it is not ok to mention transparency and accountability with anyone other than Obama himself? Seems rather hypocritical albeit typical for some posters. :eyebrow:
That is true the previous administration did nothing. Perhaps that is because all the warning went to Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd or Barney Frank the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Again you are reading wacko extremist mantra. Numerous whistle blowers went to the SEC. Some SEC investigators actually did look into Madoff. But when the lowest paid regulators in Washington are also manipulated by the political agenda, then the SEC never bothered to do any serious investigation.
So the wacko extremists instead lie right here in the The Cellar. Extremists again blame Dodd and Franks. Not blame the SEC that was defanged by an extremist political agenda. Amazing. This time Obama was not blamed.
That is true the previous administration did nothing. Perhaps that is because all the warning went to Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd or Barney Frank the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Also why is it ok to blame the George Jr. Administration here whereas it is not ok to mention transparency and accountability with anyone other than Obama himself? Seems rather hypocritical albeit typical for some posters. :eyebrow:
Yes, yes, we know. The Bush administration danced with the angels.
:lol:
I wonder if Madoff knew the scheme was going to blow up in his face soon and told his children to turn him in to save them from jailtime?
I think he'll have a terminal illness and be gone within three years. His kids turned him in so they wouldn't get charged.
I think he'll have a terminal illness and be gone within three years. His kids turned him in so they wouldn't get charged.
That's a good prediction, lookout. He probably IS ill...right now.
I think he'll have a terminal illness and be gone within three years.
[Church] Well, isn't that
conveeeeenient. [/Lady]
at least we'll save a few bucks not having to keep him alive.
Oh no, you're not seriously wishing a terminal illness on anyone, are you? :eyebrow:
Nope. I think he already has something and knows it. The scam was coming to an end and he figured he's going to croak so they hid any evidence the boys knew about the scam and then had them turn him in. They get away and he goes to prison for a little while before his ticket is punched.
i'm not a conspiracy guy, but this one makes sense to me.
Well that does make some sense. He'll live out his days at Club Fed.
and you get to pay for his medical care in his final days. he gets the last laugh.
I think he'll have a terminal illness and be gone within three years.
Or Bubba will give him aids.
In Club Fed, it will be Biffy who gives him aids.
He is not eligible for incarceration at a white-collar crimes prison according to one of the talking head DA's on the tube.
[SIZE="4"]UPDATE[/SIZE]
Bloomberg has a special section on their site dedicated specifically to the Madoff case for those of you who would like to follow what is happening with this situation.
I don't understand why people (hedge funds, banks, etc) that pulled their money out of Madoff's fund before it imploded, are being sued to give it back?
Should people that sold their real estate holdings before the bubble burst have to return the money?
Cheaters to prey on Bernard Madoff
“Whatever (Madoff hid) offshore, I think he’s going to get cheated out of,” Markopolos told a conference yesterday at Boston College, his graduate-school alma mater.
“If I’m his private banker in Panama, (I’m thinking): ‘I know Mr. Madoff isn’t getting out of prison to collect the money, and I know his family denies having anything to do with this scheme, so they’re not going to show up, either. So guess what: It’s my money now.’ I call that ‘cheating the cheater’ - and that’s sort of poetic justice, I think.”
"How many of Bernie's investors would oppose his waterboarding to get to the truth ? "
So, there's like money floating around in the ocean, off the shore?
(grabs scuba gear and books a flight)
The victim's can get a discount.
LOL!
Ahh, the free market, for all its problems, I still love it.
Does this thread die for two years when the trial starts?
Or will he die before that?
Yeh Zen - I wonder what town that sign was from. Capitalism is the greatest!
I'd only say, capitalism is less screwed up than a central command economy.
Bernard Madoff gets maximum 150 years in prison
10 minutes ago
By TOM HAYS and LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writers
(AP:NEW YORK) Convicted swindler Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison Monday for fraud so extensive that the judge said he needed to send a symbolic message to those who might imitate his fraud and to victims who need relief.
Applause broke out in the crowded Manhattan courtroom after U.S. District Judge Denny Chin issued the maximum sentence to the 71-year-old defendant, who said he sought no forgiveness and knew he must live "with this pain, this torment, for the rest of my life."
Chin rejected a request by Madoff's lawyer for leniency and said he disagreed that victims of the fraud were seeking mob vengeance.
"Here the message must be sent that Mr. Madoff's crimes were extraordinarily evil and that this kind of manipulation of the system is not just a bloodless crime that takes place on paper, but one instead that takes a staggering toll," Chin said.
The judge said the estimate that Madoff has cost his victims more than $13 billion was conservative because it did not include money from feeder funds.
"Objectively speaking, the fraud here was staggering," he said.
Before Chin announced the sentence, Madoff, wearing a dark suit, white shirt and a tie, sat and listened as emotional witnesses described how he spoiled their security.
"Life has been a living hell. It feels like the nightmare we can't wake from," said Carla Hirshhorn.
"He stole from the rich. He stole from the poor. He stole from the in between. He had no values," said Tom Fitzmaurice. "He cheated his victims out of their money so he and his wife Ruth could live a life of luxury beyond belief."
Dominic Ambrosino called it an "indescribably heinous crime" and urged a long prison sentence so "will know he is imprisoned in much the same way he imprisoned us and others."
He added: "In a sense, I would like somebody in the court today to tell me how long is my sentence."
"The sheer scale of the fraud calls for severe punishment," the prosecutors wrote.
The jailed Madoff already has taken a severe financial hit: Last week, a judge issued a preliminary $171 billion forfeiture order stripping Madoff of all his personal property, including real estate, investments, and $80 million in assets his wife Ruth had claimed were hers. The order left her with $2.5 million.
Thats 2.49999999 million too much to me.
Finally the next phase has begun. There are many more to follow after this first round.
10 others to be charged in Madoff probe
NEW YORK (AP) - Federal authorities are pressing a probe of 10 associates of Bernard Madoff despite a sentence that means the mastermind of one of the biggest financial frauds in history will spend the rest of his days behind bars, The Associated Press has learned.
The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, wouldn't detail potential charges or say whether the 10 would include Madoff's family or former employees. So far, only Madoff and an accountant accused of failing to make basic auditing checks have been criminally charged in the multibillion-dollar hoax.
In court Monday, the 71-year-old Madoff admitted it was impossible for him to excuse deeds that U.S. District Judge Denny Chin noted had cost investors $13.2 billion by conservative estimates and $50 billion by the estimate Madoff gave his sons in December.
"I don't ask any forgiveness," Madoff told Chin. "Although I may not have intended harm, I did a great deal of harm."
Later, he turned around to look at the victims lining the first row of the gallery.
"I will turn and face you," he said mechanically. "I'm sorry. I know that doesn't help you."
The judge then took his turn.
"This is not just a matter of money," Chin said. "The breach of trust was massive. Investors—individuals, charities, pension funds, institutional clients—were repeatedly lied to, as they were told their monies would be invested in stocks when they were not."
Cheaters to prey on Bernard Madoff
I love it! To bad he got it through cheating others. But hey, I wouldn't put it past some of them to make the money disappear.
Personally, I think he should be put to death. In fact, I think that should be the new penalty for white collar crime. For one thing, it does A LOT more damage to a LOT more people than violent criminals, and those people really just never have any remorse, well, beyond being caught that is. Maybe it would be a deterrant once a few of those Wall Street execs were seen hanging from the big board with their eyes popping out of their heads.
You should move to the middle east - seriously.
You should move to the middle east - seriously.
Wait now. She might have to wear a Burka. Then life might not be so rosy.
Good grief. It was a joke. I don't believe in the death penalty.
Well, here is what should happen:
Madoff is the worst kind of scum. Having his flesh flayed from his bones with a rubber hose is too kind for him.
Well, the irony here is that if Mr. Madoff had screwed over middle and working class victims, when he got out he would still be welcome at the country/yacht club. Since he screwed over his peers, he's never going to get out and would be a pariah if he did.
For an amoral person the lessons are 'pick your targets' and 'never crap where you eat'.
By comparison, the architect of
Foundation for New Era, a $500 million dollar pyramid scheme in the Philadelphia area that targeted
charities was only given a 12 year sentence and server about 10.
Granted, part of this may be that charities that had made 'profits' pooled their assets which recouped most of the money.
Madoff is the worst kind of scum. Having his flesh flayed from his bones with a rubber hose is too kind for him.
Madoff is only another example of what happens when the purpose of a company is profits. No different than the Mafia whose purpose is exactly same.
Why is Madoff any different than the top executives of GM or the entire corporate structure in Lehman Bros or Enron or AIG? These companies also did what so many Americans advocate only because they were told to believe it.
Madoff told explicit lies - claimed to have made trades that he hadn't, claimed to own shares etc that he didn't, etc.
The motives of Lehman etc were much the same, but a few small but significant points of method seem to matter - at least to some.
The motives of Lehman etc were much the same, but a few small but significant points of method seem to matter - at least to some.
What is the difference between Enron accounting by Madoff and Enron accounting by Lehman Bros. Lehman began overt lying on the spread sheets in 2001. And their accountants (Ernest and Young?) were aware of it.
Madoff was done by a few people. Lehman Bros was done by hundreds in a major corporation. Other than that, what is the difference? Both were intentionally lying and stealing massive sums with an attitude of entitlement. Enron accounting is still ongoing – all but legal. Complete with massive rewards to those most complicit.
An interactive map of the Madoff investors ...
Man - look at Long Island.
http://madoffmap.com/![Link to recipients]("http://politicalvindication.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bernard-madoff-contributions.gif"){kind=link}