Madoff has been accused of operating the largest Ponzi scheme in history. That is not correct. The largest Ponzi scheme is Social Security. Using the Madoff scandal as a justification for not allowing taxpayers the choice of investing some of their money somewhere besides Social Security is just plain foolish. People choose to invest the money they earn. The government takes taxpayers' money and use it in whatever way they decide. The only thing that has kept the Social Security system a float is that more people were pouring more money into the system than was being paid out. Once there are not enough people pay into the system to support the earlier "investors" in social security, the whole system collapses - just like Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The only thing different between the Government's Ponzi scheme and Madoff's is the government can print money to give the allusion their scheme is legitimate.

Michael -
Good use of FAUX News talking points. None of what you say is true - but, spoken like a true believer. What else you got for us? Let me guess, Tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs - war with Iraq was necessary - torture keeps us safe - all Muslims are terrorists - Obama was born in Kenya - Ooooo - please share more of your nonsense insights

There is not one word in this post that is factual. Go look up Ponzi in the dictionary. We know you john birch/neocon/republicans want to do away with social security but the nail in your coffin was when Bush said he wished he had. We know he never got one thing right so that destroyed you follish argument.

KC,

"in a few years it will happen again".

It's already been happening for the last 2 1/2years! Notice the market "experts" were warning people away from the market from Jan. of 2008 through june of 2010.......then they jumped in the day after the "fat finger flash crash" and pumped stocks sky high over the last 4 months and suddenly everything is wonderful and they start telling everyone NOW is the time to buy stocks.................WRONG.......the time to buy stocks was back in 2008 unless you are a day trader!

7.2 billion in profits, I believe his initial investment was a total of less than 100 million; if he did not know he was involved in a scam, he would have to be dumb as a rock;he knew from the start it was a fraud!

Social Security is currently in the hands of politicians who dip their hands into it no matter which party they belong to. Even the official Social Security website has info on how it will be in the red by 2013. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Good use of FAUX News talking points. None of what you say is true

Sounds like a liberal talking point to just use name calling and no refutes on the actual facts. Let's take them 1 at a time and you tell us where the lies are.

1) The government takes taxpayers' money and use it in whatever way they decide. (IOU's are a known fact)
2) The only thing that has kept the Social Security system a float is that more people were pouring more money into the system than was being paid out. Once there are not enough people pay into the system to support the earlier "investors" in social security, the whole system collapses. (Money doesn't grow on trees & Social Security admits this on their own website fiscal report)
3) The only thing different between the Government's Ponzi scheme and Madoff's is the government can print money to give the allusion their scheme is legitimate. (how much $$ has Obama and the last 4 yrs of Democrat control printed?)

Money doesn't grow on trees. You can call it lies all you want, it doesn't make it true when the facts show otherwise.

saxon, what if that money was invested in some unknown at the time company that turned out to be the next Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Google, Facebook or some other company that hit it big in a short amount of time?

Would that be considered fraud?

For all of you that lost your life's savings in that 401k OR IRA when the Market burst, feel glad that you still have some SS benefits. If certain Politicians had had their way, NO FALL BACK.

Just think how many billions it would have bilked people of, if the privatization of Social Security had been approved!

LMAO! I hate to let you in on a little secret about Social Security and every other government run state and federal pension plan...The government is running the largest Ponzi scheme in history!!! You, I and everyone else have already been "bilked". Stop kidding yourself! I guess as the old saying goes...There's one born every minute!!!

Bush and Cheney orchestrated and implemented the biggest Ponzi scheme in history.

nwnative, I hate to let you know but Bush and Cheney had nothing to do with Social Security. Social Security was concieved and executed under the FDR Administration with the 1935 Social Security Act.

Whether you are a Democrat or Republican you should know that the Social Security Administration is the largest Ponzi scheme ever. This is not an opinion but fact.

We are robbing Peter to pay Paul. While social security checks to the needy and retired are "kind and just" the system will not be in the future. The money taken in by the SSA is not being locked away or invested. The money is taken and replaced with IOUs for other projects, wars, bailouts, etc.

I really don't give a damn about a bunch of greedy rich people getting ripped off by another greedy rich person.

68Namvet and logdump: So if Social Security isn't a somewhat similar to a Ponzi scheme, please explain how it works.

From my understanding when it started you had 15 people paying into a system that supports 1 retired person, now we are getting to the point there is only 2 or 3 people putting in for every one person taking out, and the program is losing money. There are no accounts were my money goes, no lock box, just us sending money in to pay for those who are taking money out. If twenty years from now no one pays in you will have no money to take out no matter how long you have been contributing, if there are only two people putting in for every one taking out your check will be around $500 a month. Sounds like a Ponzi scheme to me.

For all of you that lost your life's savings in that 401k OR IRA when the Market burst, feel glad that you still have some SS benefits. If certain Politicians had had their way, NO FALL BACK

cherokee: First of all I had money in both an IRA account and 401k, they both went down 50 or 60 percent but have sense come back 35 to 50 percent. So actually I'm only down around 10 to 20 percent right now from my high. You don't lose money in the market until the day you sell, you go up and down but those are just projected numbers if you were to sell that day. Social Security is on track to go broke. There is no "up" potential, just a lot of down.

The greatest Ponzi scheme of all time is the Federal Reserve Bank/Federal Reserve Note aka the U.S. dollar. Before 1933 the dollar was backed by gold at twenty dollars an ounce. Under The Gold Confiscation Act of 1933, all privately owned gold in the United States was seized and used to back the dollar at thirty-five dollars an ounce. Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1972 when foreign central banks demanded their debts be repaid in gold. In 2010 the dollar is valued at fourteen hundred dollars an ounce and sinking in value. A contemporary dollar is valued at 1/70 the value of a dollar before 1933 (1400/20 = 70). This means three cents in pre-1933 dollars is worth about two of today's dollars. Bernanke argues that deflation is a threat to the economy, that we need more inflation through policies like Quantitative Easing (creating money from nothing and giving it to both foreign and domestic private banks, and mega corporations). A gallon of gas is three dollars. Ten years ago it was less than a dollar. Deflation is not the problem, parasites sucking the lifeblood from America's dying corpse are. They should be arrested and held accountable.

That is because of the crooked politicians in Washington and the idiots who elected them. There are no more "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" Politicians, only scam artists. Political Party doesn't matter.

Don't believe? Just look how much campaigners pay to get elected to office. Same for State Politicians. Bought and paid for.

I didn't hear anyone complaining when Madoff set up the Social Security System.

Oh, wait, no one complained about Madoff's more recent Ponzi scheme until it collapsed.

I can't help but think that if people could have been forced to keep investing in it, and not allowed to remove any principle, it would still be afloat like Social Security.

At least for a little while...

Longhair; that individual investor was a very sophisticated business man; in his statements he could know of the returns, from where the money was supposed to be invested, he knew from the beginning.

When social security was started, there were millions of workers age 18 to 45. So money started pouring into the fund and in reality, nothing would be going back to the people for 30 to 40 years when they retire. So the government sees this huge cash cow and in their infinite wisdom, put the Social Security money in the general fund and spent it. So 40 years later they realize there might be a problem and do what they do best. Let's ignore the problem and see if it fixes itself or goes away. Guess what? It didn't go away. But the government idea of ignoring the problem didn't go away either. So here we are.

Here's my suggestion, put Hilary Clinton in charge of it. In 1978 Hillary Clinton invested $1,000 in commodities futures and 10 months later had turned it into $99,540. Madoff would be envious

Something to think about.

Bush proposed letting people invest 1% of the money they pay into SS in their own accounts.

We were told that would collapse the SS system.

So were are within 1% of collapse?

When are we ever going to get Gov't "Benefits" that we can opt out of? Funny, if the "Benefit" is so good, why would you have to force people to use it?

How is it the individual investor was suppose to know it was a scam when the SEC didn't even know it was a scam. If you showed me a great return, 20 plus years of being on wall street, and then told me you had been audited by the SEC yearly with no findings, who wouldn't invest. If the people in charge of uncovering these things can't figure it out I think it is unfair to say the investor knew.

Great Post - Ryan in Texas! I will be interested in seeing if anyone will try to respond.

With all the extra money that has gone into Social Security the system should be self supporting! Wouldn't it have been nice to have a retirement secure and not have to pay anything into it? But our government stole it; let them eat cake!

LogicRequired - I was thinking the same thing about your post. No one knew it was a ponzi scheme. Even this guy who lost this civil judgement for 8 BILLION - was still investing in it to the end.

I would have probably done the same. He wasn't doing this in the shadows, he was a well known guy around Wall Street. Like you said, he was audited nearly every year by the SEC.

If the SEC didn't know after looking at it, then how could anyone else be expected to know?

That's how the wealthy get their hard earned income by ripping off others and then allowed special income tax deductions. How just many of them or Congress members spend time in jail when involved with tax evasions, fraud, and various other crimes? Not nearly enough, that's for sure!

relytkof - Easy answer.

Millions of Americans would be far better off with the money they put into SS in their own hands.

If you are 25 right now, you are losing money every time you put into it.

Now if you and people like yourself want to have your own Social Security system, great. You pay in, you get out.

I think everyone can agree with that idea.

Of course, don't come crying to me about negative returns on your money. Don't tell me how bad it is that the average payer in gets $.70 on the dollar now.

If it were an actual investment, SS would be one of the worst, and everyone would have moved their money out by now.

Of course, that's the problem with it. It's not your money, and you can't move it out of that sinking ship.

It's just like a Ponzi scheme that forces you to keep buying into it. Madoff would still be in business if he could have done that.

I'm not overly familiar with Fox (or any of the other newscasts either for that matter) so I'll be the ridiculous one. To quote that great philosopher, Forrest Gump, "I'm not a smaht man".

I agree, had SS not existed a huge portion of the population would have had a reduced lifestyle, or in many instances, not survived. Then again, 60 yrs ago families took care of each other and SS wasn't needed, but I digress.

I think the point many are making, and I would concur based on previous educational experiences in college as well as the real world, is that SS is very similar to a Ponzi scheme. Money that comes in from one source is in turn given to another to reimburse for the original investment. Simplistic when applied to the govt but kinda true. The return on my original investment is pretty good. The system as it was designed was to be somewhat self-sufficient.

I wish they would waterboard Madoff so we could find some more of that cash for people who lost there money. Don't quite get the equating of Social Security with a Ponzi scheme. Wjthout Social Security there would be a lot of homeless people. I think it's just a ploy to show Social Security in a dim light so buisness owners won't have to pay the matching funds for retirement of the poor. They complain that they don't get out of Social Secyrity what they put into it. Nobody will unless you count the ocasional centurian. What are you going to do say hey your Social Security ran out so hit the road? People die and get a one time death benefit. They dodn't get there money's worth. The truth is it's never enough for the right wing. Realistically this democracy or republic (same thing) if it keeps moving toward the right we will all be up the creek without a paddle when the time comes and you just can't work anymore.

For Ryan. Ah the wonders of borrowing money. SS was perfectly fine until someone came along and decided to pull the money out of it and spend it on other things. Unfortunately now that the money has been "borrowed" from SS it will need to be paid back. Only way to pay it back is over time with reduced benefits from those putting money into it. It's a perfect example of doing something now that bites you later.

You can't exactly decide to quit paying into it because then you will end up defaulting on all of those that actually put money into the system. It's not like you're the investor putting money into a ponzi scheme, you're one of the people running it since it's your government. Another analogy would be that you borrowed money many years ago from a fund and now you have to start paying it back.

Now, don't sit there and say "no I never borrowed any money, my parents did" because that argument doesn't work for a country. If a country borrows money from a fund, that borrowing doesn't go away when the next generation takes over. This is one of the major differences that people can't seem to grasp between country and individual. The country has to be far more forward thinking then the individual when it comes to these things. Unfortunately that becomes rather difficult when the average person or the average politician can't think of an plan that lasts longer then 4 years.

Oh, and a little SS history.

It was started to move people OUT of the workforce during the Depression.

There were not enough jobs to go around so FDR had another one of his kindergarten level socialist ideas and decided the best way to get unemployed people back to work is to get those who have jobs out of theirs.

The only way to do this was to pay people not to work at wage earning jobs. He decided on the elders.

Before that, as people aged, they continued to work (unless they had saved enough not to) but in jobs that decreased in difficulty over time. They still contributed to society, but with less hours or strenuousness.

So Grandma would watch grand kids and cook (instead of us paying to send them to daycare and paying to buy prepared food). Grandpa still went to work, but he was not on his feet all day running around anymore. Sure, it didn't pay as well as what he once made, but there are jobs, big and small, that have to be done by someone.

The Ponzi scheme began with borrowed money dropped into it by the Gov't. Those drawing from it drew very modest amounts. As there were many more people at the bottom of the pyramid paying in at the beginning, there were low rates on the people paying in.

A war came and finally got us out of the Depression as we went to full capacity and EVERYONE was working on some level.

People liked the Ponzi scheme, just like they liked Madoff's Ponzi scheme in it's early days.

But over time (just like every Ponzi scheme) there had to be more and more people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep the top ones getting their payoffs.

Luckily, at just about this time, the baby boomers were flooding the bottom of the pyramid with numbers and earnings.

So for a while, everything seemed OK.

But then, as that large number of people began to approach the top of the pyramid, the old problem came back. Less and less people at the bottom, and more and more at the top.

Which is where we are today.

Now, any good con has to keep the con going. It would be the end of the game to let anyone know the real situation. (Just ask Madoff). So what you do is vaguely speak of reductions of payout some time way off in the future. Of course, something will happen, and that time frame will become drastically shortened, but no need to spook the mark now.

When the pyramid collapses, you just act surprised and say "No one ever knew this would happen."

And by then they will be too old and broke to rise up anyway.

So being young and having no say whether we started this program called Social Security, and having no say on how the money was kept, used, wasted, I'm suppose to be ok with the fact money is taken from me to pay into a system that is scheduled to be bankrupt by the time I'm eligible to use it? At best I will get some pathetic amount of money at a very old age because that is what needs to be done to keep SS alive, cut benefits, raise retirement age. So I'm suppose to be ok with it because it helped the poverty level in the 50's and 60's? Because the money I'm paying in is going to my parents? I'm not happy, my generation is going to get f%$#* on this deal, and you want me to take one for the team? What sacrifices have the baby boomers made? What sacrifices are you going to make? I don't want this Ponzi scheme to be thrust onto my children like it has been placed on me.

P.S. - Stop with the fox news crap, it's just annoying. You want me to put you in box. Grow up, some people do a lot of research into these things not to be dismissed over some cable news channel.

BillN973970 you need to do a little research, and get your facts straight before o passing inaccuracies off as being fact. social security monies have never gone into the general fund. some people just believe anything they get in a fowarded email. do you believe that illegals can draw social security to?

doggy - that is the difference between a liberal and a conservative. A liberal has no problem handing down debts from Gov't overspending. A conservative wants to hand down an inheritance, not debt.

A liberal would say you can't be responsible for paying for what you consume, someone else should have to pay for it. A conservative would say we are all responsible for what we consume, and we should only consume what we can pay for ourselves.

Social Security is a flawed system that will eventually fail. Look, even Madoff went 20 years, and he would have gone longer if the market hadn't tanked for a couple of years.

So when you are as big as the US Gov't, you could probably make your pyramid scheme go 100 or 150 years.

Check out usdebtclock.org. It will blow your mind.

Actually Ryan that's false. I'm a liberal. I wanted the surplus in 2001 to be used for reducing these debts because I have a basic understanding of econ. Instead there was a tax break that caused them to skyrocket. This isn't a liberal and conservative issue. This is a greed issue. Someone wanted to the money in the current SS system at that moment. They then used it without any thought about the later consequences. Then someone else wanted the money from taxes at that moment. They got it as well. Nothing left to actually pay debts owed.

For Logic.

This is something that most citizens just can't seem to get.... As a US citizen, you are stuck with what your previous generation has done. It may seem unfair, it may seem nasty, and it may seem like you are getting screwed in the ass. Unfortunately, there is not getting around it.

What happens when a father gets a huge debt and dies while in debt? That debt dies with him. You may not end up getting his inheritance but you won't be saddled with his debt. Unfortunately this DOES NOT work on the scale of a country. You are saddled with your countries debt after the older generation leaves. There is no real way around this but to pay the debts that are owed before the interest payments on them crush your budget. Unfortunately, everyone has this attitude of "it's not my fault so not my problem" each generation since the 50s has had this attitude which is why we're in the mess we're in now.

For this generation, we also have this attitude. We had a surplus in 2001 and what did we do? We spent it on a tax break instead of paying down this crushing debt or putting it into SS. This problem got bigger in 2010 and what do we do? Extend tax breaks. This generation is as bad as the baby boomers with their irresponsibility towards paying for things they used. We're doing the exact same thing to the next generation as the baby boomers did to us.

doggy - There was no year in the last 40 that the Federal Gov't did not borrow money to pay it's expenses.

In one year during Clinton's term, we came within $17 billion of BREAKING EVEN.

But in no years during the Clinton Administration did the Federal Gov't spend less than the previous year.

Surplus? Again, there was no year in the last 40 where we were in the BLACK.

Don't confuse Conservatives with Republicans. Bush was pretty liberal. He passed one of the largest Gov't expansions of expenditure: The Prescription Drug Entitlement. (But do note: that budget buster had plenty of Democrat support).

No one would have starved without Social Security. In fact, our "poor" are the only "poor" in the HISTORY OF MAN THAT FACES OBESITY AS THEIR NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM.

Simply burying our heads in the sand and passing an ever growing debt down to my kids IS NOT AN OPTION.

2/3 of Federal Spending is Entitlements.

40% of all Federal Money Spent is now borrowed.

Only 1 in 3 Americans Work Full Time.

Less than Half Pay any Income Tax.

Total Assets per Person: about $250,000

Total Debts and Liabilities per Person: about $350,000

Were people starving in the streets in 1990? All we have to do is go to those 1990 spending levels (adjusted for inflation), and we would actually be in the black (for the year).

The problem isn't Government Revenue, which is at the highest in history, it's Gov't spending, which is at the highest in history.

But if you want Gov't to spend more, here's a novel idea: You send in extra money.

They won't refuse it.

Otherwise - don't dare think that giving a free cellphone (with 200 minutes) to the "poor" is something worth my kids going into debt for.

Tell 'em Ryan in Texas! I like what you are say'in!

Come to think of it... I can't think of a conservative republican president in the past 30 years... The more conservative spenders have been democrat presidents.

If you look at the rest of the Clinton years you see a steady drop in spending. Here we go

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Always have to remember to adjust for inflation. Also have to remember that inflation doesn't usually go down. So, yes there was a year where we spent less when adjusting for inflation.

We could have also continued such policies to maintain the drop each year or at the very least prevented it from skyrocketing. Instead we had a huge tax cut and 2 wars.

Let's turn back the clock to Regan. Both he and Bush I did a rather nice job of more then doubling the debt. Then Bush Jr. comes along and doesn't measure up to his predecessors by not quite doubling the debt. That's not for a lack of trying mind you. He did his best but just couldn't seem to spend enough money.

Don't worry about Barbara Pickower, since her husband conveniently died during the time when there was no estate taxes in force at all in this country, and since the tax relief for all of the poor billionaires has been extended for a couple of years, she should be able to pay this $7,200,000,000.00 back out of one of her many household accounts!

Just how freakin' rich are the rich.....hmmmmm?

Ryan in Texas @ #1.34:

You forgot the increases in life expectancy from 1929 until now that really screwed up the con game, I mean the actuarial tables! Our increased ability to keep people of limited viability alive for extended periods of time, has also increased pressure on all of the "entitlement" gifts of the government, which is why there is no way to catch up on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, any other freebie, etc....however there has not been a politician born and probably never will be that has a big enough set of stones to broach that subject aloud to "We The People", for fear that we are not able to comprehend or appreciate that the entire stinkin' mess doesn't work on a basic mathematical level. Based on the low quality greed that has been displayed for the past couple of decades, (mostly the past ten years did the most damage), by many of the citizens in this country, I suspect the politicians know exactly what would happen if they fessed up that this stuff doesn't work....and I'm guessing they don't think they look good in feathers...and tar!

Good Luck in Texas by the way....I heard your governor finally had to admit that y' all were actually a broke state government like every other state in this country....that's a miracle and it must have been a big blow to Rick and company. I wouldn't suspect he's running for re-election again if he had to tell the truth and all, but they grow 'em big down there so we will see.

Madoff investors should profusely thank Mr. Picard. They were not going to get a dime back but now, thanks to Picard, they will get about 1/2 of what they lost.

Because these investors were so stupid in the first place, they are lucky they are getting anything.

Some people already know that you can not get something for nothing.

Greed.

Yes It will be tried - Yes Again and again and again - and each time a new "twist" will be used and for some time they will get away with the theivery. But really who honestly believes that they can consistantly in the ups and downs of the market have a solid 15% or better return?

Come to think of it... I can't think of a conservative republican president in the past 30 years... The more conservative spenders have been democrat presidents.

That's because a president can't spend a dime without congress. You should have learned that in high school political science class.

"That's because a president can't spend a dime without congress. You should have learned that in high school political science class."

You should have learned in your history class that Congress rarely appropriates more than a president requests. You would have also learned about a little thing called the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 aka the deficit reduction act. This act raised taxes by about 4% on the top 1.2% of earners. It also gave corporations a 35% tax rate among other things. On a related note, every single republican voted against this act.

Who would have thought that raising taxes to pay for things would reduce the deficit but dropping taxes and increasing spending as was done with Bush Jr. significantly increases debt....

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 aka the deficit reduction act. This act raised taxes by about 4% on the top 1.2% of earners

Not that I agree with Republicans but they probably voted qagainst it because not one country in the history of the modern world has grown their coffers by raising taxes. They did it by lowering taxes. Just look at Russia in the last 10 years for example. They have continually had a surplus and have annually lowered taxes as a result.

If congress follows the president then what happened to Wild Bill in his second term. Certainly he wanted to spend but congress prevented it with the Contract with America. Also, ole GW's spending wasn't reduced by a Democratic congress?

I don't think he killed himself out of guilt. I think it was more about shame. Suicide usually cannot be justified but if anyone should have killed themselves it should have been Bernie. I had assumed Bernie would have killed himself just before he had to surrender to police.

He was being sued for millions by the rep for the victims. I'm guessing he didn't want to live to see himself and his family in financial ruins.

As for the widow who forfeited over $7 billion: I'm surprised and gladdened by her decision to skip litigation. Wow. Her forfeiture totals nearly 1/3 of the money they hope to recover. With what they already recovered, they're halfway to taking care of the victims of this fiasco. They're much further along than I would have thought possible. I just hope all of this money goes to the right people and doesn't end up tied up in more shady business.

THX:

The lawyers get a third of the money recovered.

Go Irving Pricard! Get all the investors to stand trial on any investment they had with Madoff where they withdrew more money than waht they actually invested. Any idiot will relaize something is wrong if you give $10 and take $20 back in profit and still expect your $10 to be returned to you when you want to withdraw from the scheme.

Grant....HELLO!!! Picard is not the prosecutor!!

Receiving stolen goods/property is a crime punishable by the people.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE.

AS FOR THE RICH-OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.

bobbysoxx - Did you ever wonder why companies are leaving our country and taking their jobs with them?

Maybe they found a better place without threats of class warfare.

It can't really be stolen property. Madoff didn't take their money away from them, they gave it to him.

I do agree with them giving back any ill gotten gains, but that would also include any taxes paid on those gains - as those would also be ill gotten.

Somehow, I'm guessing the Gov't won't be so charitable.

Funny, you hate the rich and powerful, but I bet you have no problem with the only monopoly that enforces it's power at gunpoint: our Gov't.

Picard is doing a job that is about justice. There should be no pity for the rich who let their greed suck them in. They got only partially what they deserved. Greed caused Madoff to steal and greed caused the victims to be victimized. Everyone involved were brought down by their own greed.

Leo that statement is incorrect. Take for example the dot.com boom and the intel processor advancements in the 90s. Many places tripled investments during that time. If I recall correctly Intel nearly tripled in stock price in the 90s for many investors. So, no if you triple your investments it doesn't always mean something is amiss.

So only those with zero knowledge that "were ruined" should be! Those with zero knowledge that took the crazy profits and ran should just keep the bogus fraudulent stolen monies!

Ryan,

Companies are leaving this country for the same reason - GREED! They all want more profit and do not want to pay a living wage. They want to live off the common American worker sweat shops but we are suppose to make do with what they are willing to shell out.

Dexter - You are right - Greed casued Madoff to steal and greed caused the rich to be victimized.

Only thing is these people TRUSTED Madoff and Trust is suppose to be Honorable!

PEGGYANN - So what are we doing to be competitive on costs? What incentives are we giving them to stay?

If they can produce a product at a cheaper prices elsewhere, then so can their COMPETITORS.

I guess we could force them to stay here, go bankrupt, and then when that industry is gone, then what?

If Government regulations and taxes give our companies a competitive disadvantage, then WE NEED TO CHANGE. You are not going to convince our foreign competitors to play down to our level.

Only real way you're going to make companies competitive with foreign companies is to drop the wages to that level or switch to producing a different product. So minimum wage now becomes what... about $2 an hour or so? I think I like the second option more.

Jeffery, nope, the legal fees are set by the Bankruptcy judge, there are several high profile law firms hired by the trustee, so far their fees are less than 5% of the money recovered !

5% of $9.8 billion (the total they've collected so far) is $4.9 million. If they manage to collect all of it, the trustee's fees will total roughly $10 million.

It's good to be the king trustee.

Spoken like a true lawyer, "saxon". Hey, I wish I had spent the extra 24 months and gone to law school too...maybe then I could be over-billing and under-serving my clients! Good for you!

thx; better check your math, the atty fees at 3% is 294 million; the trustee fee's are 2% of amount collected around 200 million; I believe there are 5 or 6 large firms working for the trustee, so their fees will be around 50 million a firmI would like to be one of those; however no one would get any money back if the trustee and firms did not force people to give it back!

So the people who are supposed to fix this mess, should work for free? A person who has gotten significant education (college and law school),and amassed a lifetime of experience should work to recover billions in stolen assets for minimum wage? That's silly. I'm not a neocon by any stretch, but the notion of a meritocracy seems legitimate to me. Without him, or someone like him, the recovery is $0. You wouldn't pay $10M to recover $10Bill? That's the very definition of penny wise and pound foolish.

I hardly call two years of law school, "significant" education. I think it takes about the same amount of time to get your beautician license, the only difference is that they actually serve a purpose. lawyer are the root of everything wrong with this country. They are miserable and angry and are only respected by other lawyers yet they think that somehow they are respected outside of their industry, this is the arrogance they must have amassed during law school. The law profession is a womans profession, the men that work in them are really women in suits.

That was very noticable and kinda weird...maybe he had a heart attack in his pool and drowned.....

Picower drowned after suffering a heart attack in the swimming pool

I think he was having a heart attack( gasp gasp gasp) drowning did not kill him, that was after the fact...

To answer your questions, Hear attacks aren't always fatal. A heart attack is when the blood supply to the heart is interrupted and the heart cells die. This doesn't always lead to death for the individual. However, it can lead to inability to move properly, go unconscious, and/or shortness of breath. All of which can cause you to drown while trying to swim.

Interestingly, heart attack without having any symptoms like chest pains for example occur in about a quarter of the time. Check out Wikipedia for more details.

In order to milk things like this you do have to pay people. A lot of the lucky ones who got in and got out made money off of this. Maddoff did not get away with 58 billion. His part was substantial but with 58 billio he could have bough a small country and refused to have himself extrdited

Let me tell you, the stock market is like gambling, plain and simple, if you put your money down on red and the little ball lands on black you lose, you either win or lose, but when someone takes your money and runs, which Madoff did alot of, he paid his brother well his sons including himself very well which they should start with them and take everything they have, but the winners like the losers all knew the risk. so when you lose don't come running to me because gambling is entertainment to me, I don't expect to win, if I do great, if not then a picture show is going to cost me money too.

Soon to be tied up in litigation.

You have that right!! Now not sure about how Mcdonalds comes into play. But can someone tell me why the corporations still get the big bucks?

Semper FI

What have you been smoking? If you are talking about TARP, the federal government made close to $35 billion dollars after the corporations paid back their loans.

UNFORTUNATELY FRANK, that little fact you posted has not been reported AT ALL on fox news. So there are 3 million fox news drones that either don't know the truth (that we made money on the loans) or simply have allowed themselves to be condition to think only fox tells the truth,thus making them grossly uniformed, (sad for that 1% of the population that is the total audience for fox)

Unfortunately the FEDS bailed out the banks in the first place. My house was bought by Fannie Mae, after they were bailed out. No one help me or the millions of other families. They payed back the loans by foreclosing on Americans, who, by the way, were the actual bank for the bail out. So some of us know that the pay back occured but few realize how they got the money to pay it back. Think about that one.

David let me start out by saying I am not accusing you of being in the following category, BUT if someone were to analyize those borrowers that caused this economic crash by getting a house they could not afford, by using their home as an ATM money machine, that basically went hog wild with no care for the fact that they were taking a gamble on refinancing in a few years because there would be no way they could afford the payments on the ARM loan, then one would find that the majority of those people are equally to blame for screwing the economy over, and that blame is on par with the banks for laxing their underwriting standards, you can also bunch in regulators, rating systems, and the govt and wall street.

To blame the banks as the sole crooks is pathetically stupid because those borrowers that bought what they could not afford are just as to blame.

Now its borrowers that are loosing their homes or have lost them due to job loss, reductions in hourse as a result of the economy which are the ones that are suffering thru no fault of their own.

couldn't agree W/U more. The goverment, THE LEGALIZED MAFIA- is playing the biggest ponzi of all. Their fights over issues are JUST A MEDIA SHOW for you & me, the public.

And Cheney, yes he's another big player, and if he would at least stop snearing at us!

now if we could just figure out how to get back the 100's of $billions stolen from the taxpayers by Citicorp, B of A, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, G.E., McDonalds, Verizon, Toyota and the rest - audit and close the chief fraud organizer against the U.S. - The FED - we could get the country back to economic health

Hey Gomers, the feds have made billions off of their TARP investments. The only part of the recovery programs that are projected to lose money is the program to help individual homeowners, the VAST MAJORITY of who lost their homes anyway. if you take a look at the fraud committed by huge numbers of homeowners it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they couldn't afford their home in the first place. The only way the government can help them is to buy their house from the bank and give it to them.

UNFORTUNATELY FRANK, that little fact you posted has not been reported AT ALL on fox news.

PS, to you liberal Gomers, I bet if you look it was in fact reported on Fox News. I don't watch Fox but a lot of the web sites where I have seen the information cited Fox as their source for the information.

I hope to hell that they don't give one dime to the coprorations and give it all back to the people who lost their shirts. Ditto to 68Namvet your comments are right on...

Fraud was one of the biggest reasons people could no longer aford their homes. They lied about income and lied again when they refinanced. That does not make for an "innocent" victim. Are you really disabled or are you one of those people who make the disability program one of the most abused federeal programs running?

We know someone who did not invest with Madoff, don't we?

What did you want for punishment--a slap on the hand? Two much of that has, and is occurring, in sentencing. No more concurrent sentences, add multiple guilty verdicts consequently for ALL crimes.

Madoff stole from rich people. Of course he was doomed if he got caught. "Most hated man in America!" he's known as.

The ones who steal from us middle class people get huge bonuses when they're caught. "Brilliant CEOs!" they're known as in the corporate world.

Haven't seen any "Robin Hood" lawyers fighting tooth and nail to get OUR stolen retirement investments or real estate losses back for us!

Anyone notice how quickly a rich persons money that has been stolen is recovered? I'm sure if it was a middle or poor class individuals money it would NEVER be recovered. DISCRIMINATION and SOCIAL INJUSTICE at its best here.

OK, if the police were looking for a Million dollar stolen diamond and they were willing to put 1% of it's value into the cost of investigating, they would have a $10,000 budget.

But when you are looking for a $1000 stolen diamond, the same budget would be $10.

I'm sorry, but that's how it works.

It's not discrimination or injustice, in fact, in both scenarios they would have exactly equal protection by the law.

HUH!? Are you saying that fraud should not be prosecuted ?really? are you related to madoff ?

What gets me about the legal system is that a man who steals money gets 150 years (Madoff) but a man who kills a man and tries to hide it gets community service (Father O'brien). Every day you see something in the news about a child predator or a serial rapist or a murderer going free after just months of detention but they throw the book at this guy. Unbalanced justice for sure. Not saying that Madoff shouldn't be punished but seriously: Our justice system needs an upgrade and bugfix worse than Windows ever has.

It is a sorry time in US history. The fact that we are at ends with each other over this when our government is still supporting the banks that caused a world wide economic colapse. The rich get special treatment because they donate to our elected officials, donate by the way is code for bribe. The elected officials create laws that protect their wealth at a high cost to the peasants, us. that is the criminal activity that needs to be put to death. They talk about millions like we do about hundreds. They have no clue what we are going through in times like this. Why won't the elected officials be required to use the new health care plan if it is soooo good? What about the 3.8% tax on house sales that was hidden in the health care bill? what about that idiot pelosi saying you can read it after you pass it?

"Madoff stole from rich people. Of course he was doomed if he got caught. "Most hated man in America!" he's known as."

Rich people only? You better look again, he stole from charitable organizations, schoolteachers, policemen, you name it. The vast majority of the people defrauded were middle class, even lower middle class.

The only reason the Federal Gov't had to bail out the banks is the Federal Gov't is drowning in debt itself.

It has no "rainy day fund" to ease liquidity problems.

It cannot have a "run on the banks" because we are so far in debt, there isn't enough money in the banks to pay it out.

And on a larger scale, that includes the Federal Debt.

If banks had to borrow REAL money to cover their loans, there would be no money left to buy treasuries.

So they just keep the con going, at any cost. They upped the bet on a bad hand just so no one could see their cards.

But man, when this thing falls, it's going to be so bad. It's going to make the Depression look like a day in the park.

lucien; on the first 715 million the law firms recovered, their total fees for expenses and earnings were 37 million !, around 5% .

I work near where Madoff is housed. Trust me, it's no country club.

Glad to hear that, thanks for making my day.

because the money was stolen from other depositors, not returns on investmest. In a court room charges would probably read guilty after the fact, ie he did not know it was stolen but once he did he would not return it.

bob, the law is very harsh, even if you prove it was impossible for you to know it was a fraud, they will seize all your assets to pay back all money you made plus interest; it has wiped out lots of people !

Many charitable organizations are voluntarily returning any profits they withdrew from Madoff's fraudulent investment fund. They understand that they were not true profits -- that if they kept them, they would actually be taking the life savings from other individuals and other charities. So, those charities are returning those "profits" because it is the right thing to do.

Bob 279:

UNLESS that is not the truth but just a public statement. In most civil forfeitures there is NEVER any guilt admitted to by the party. At least the Picower wife did the right thing thank you.

Al- Yes, you paid into it and are now collecting, but it's still somewhat solvent. I've been paying into it for 23 years but by the time I retire I won't see a penny of it because there will be no funds left. So congrats on being in the right place at the right time. And actually the definition of Ponzi Scheme IS the same as the social security structure: "a fraudulent investment operation that pays quick returns to initial contributors using money from subsequent contributors rather than profit." It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I think the above is a good example. If, as Al says, he's payed in SS and feels he won't see a penny of it, are all the people who have drawn on SS be expected to return the money?? As I said, I don't condone what Madoff did, but if one or more of his original investors legitimately made returns from Madoff's investments (which he claimed were originally made and then things fell apart) why not be expected to keep the returns?

So, if someone steals your car and then sells it to someone should that someone get to keep it just because they didn't know it was stolen? No, that is life. In financial fraud even those who got out early have to pay the penalty....

Jane, most of that "stolen money" is from those that draw Social Security and Supplemental Disabiliy Income without merit. Go figure that about 1/4 could work but don't cause they can draw off others paying into the system.

Lots hate the health care plan but gee dont you think we should all have to pay into it as a benefit of using it one day? Same with Social Security

You have to be an idiot to make a statement like that. I have worked for 50 years and now collect my SS. It is something that I have earned.

It's obvious, simple math is beyond you. You could save the money you put into social security and put it into a basic savings money marketing account and been better off. And that is something your family would get the after you die. Or how about all the people that die before they collect? they get the death benefit of $250 dollar, sounds fair.

Al Spinelli...

I hate to be the one breaking the bad news to you, but "maxthedog" is correct. I too draw SS and like you, have worked many, many years and believe that I have earned it.

"But", unless changes are made, SS will not make it for very much longer. If you do just a little bit of research, you will find that beginning in 2013, more money will be leaving the SS trust fund than is being paid into it. Even though the Feds owe untold billions to the SS trust fund in the form of IOU's, there is also the fact that there are not enough people paying into the fund to cover the amount that is being paid out. This means that in 2030+, the fund will be broke.

I believe that in all fairness, this is indeed a "PONZI" scheme especially since the politicians have been sneaking in all kinds of "welfare" giveaways to people who have not paid the first "Red Penny" into the SS fund.

Do some research !!!!!!!

Just saying.....

plain and simple, they come from the same banana...Madoff and Social Security!

Al- Yes, you paid into it and are now collecting, but it's still somewhat solvent. I've been paying into it for 23 years but by the time I retire I won't see a penny of it because there will be no funds left. So congrats on being in the right place at the right time. And actually the definition of Ponzi Scheme IS the same as the social security structure: "a fraudulent investment operation that pays quick returns to initial contributors using money from subsequent contributors rather than profit." It's just robbing Peter to pay Paul.

NYCHAD

I wouldn't call 50 years of labor a short period of time. I trully believe that the SS benifits will be there when you retire. Best to you and Happy Holidays.

I kind of think of SS as more of a country borrowing money and then having to pay it back later. If a country goes into to debt then the next generation will have to pay it back. In a ponzi scheme it's more of a fraudulent investment. SS wasn't really a fraudulent investment to begin with. It was a decent investment for those that really couldn't mange their own money well. Unfortunately, those in control of it started using the money for something other then making more money for the future. Hence borrowing it. Also, in a ponzi scheme the idea that it's stealing money from Peter to pay Paul is hidden from those investing in it. Nothing was really hidden about taking the money out of SS. People just didn't care about it when it happened because they wouldn't be the ones with the bill.

SS is never really going to be fixed without an influx of money into the system to replace what was taking out of it. But....no generation wants to deal with that problem so what will most likely end up happening is that in the next 10-20 years payments will be drastically reduced. Incidentally, these same types of problems also exist with the national debt and are fixed in a similar fashion.

But..... instead of fixing these problems with the surplus we give out tax breaks instead. Then, instead of fixing them when they start getting bigger we give out another tax break. And yet people still wonder and get upset about why the fund will be empty in 2030....

"It's obvious, simple math is beyond you. You could save the money you put into social security and put it into a basic savings money marketing account and been better off. And that is something your family would get the after you die. Or how about all the people that die before they collect? they get the death benefit of $250 dollar, sounds fair."

Max, I hate to bust your bubble but the vast majority of those drawing social security COULD not have invested in savings and been better off. Before you holler about simple math you need to learn some yourself. The SS formula allows those at the lower end to earn a little better return. Plus it allows people with non-working spouses to draw some too when they paid little or nothing into the kitty. No way in hades a lower scale worker could expect to invest and make what they can off social security.

Wanna guess how many people who had invested money and thought they had retirement covered are now on social security alone because they lost their nest egg to the rcent financial crash? Thousands, even hundreds of thousands. All they got now is SS. Remember when Gomers like you were screaming let GM go bankrupt? Tens of thousands of pensioners all over this country lost millions even billions invested in GM stocks and bonds. Get an education before you accuse someone else of ignorance....