31
May
2014
Madoff on Social Security Bask
Hey kids: I’ve heard people claim that Bernie Madoff referred to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme–and he should know! However, I can’t find an actual citation. There are a billion articles of people talking about SS and Madoff, but I can’t find Madoff himself talking about it. Any help?
This is the closest thing I can find, but not exactly what you’re looking for. http://nymag.com/news/features/berniemadoff-2011-3/index8.html
“It’s unbelievable, Goldman … no one has any criminal convictions. The whole new regulatory reform is a joke. The whole government is a Ponzi scheme.”
Here he says the entire government is a ponzi scheme:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/02/28/bernie-madoff-the-whole-government-is-a-ponzi-scheme/
Here he criticizes the Fed:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303722104579242703723473552
so if social security is a ponzi scheme, does that mean the debt held by the govt trust will no longer count towards the debt ceiling? didn’t think so.
who is playing the role of ponzi in these social security ponzi scheme?
The supreme court has ruled that payroll tax payments do not create a contractual claim to social security payments. In contrast, you have contractual rights on any money given to Maddoff.
pity the billionaire and give them a tax cut.
Hmm, let’s see what my working colleagues would think if I told them that if it is their turn to retire, that they have no right to any cent of pension, and the government can just stop paying it without them being able to do anything. And that that would be perfectly fine from a legal standpoint.
I somehow think they feel a little different about their “well acquired rights”, and the so called “inter-generational contract” politicians tell us about all the time to reassure us to keep quiet and pay up…
*SIGH*
The debt ceiling is an internal limit that the US government imposes on itself. What counts or doesn’t count is entirely a matter for internal accounting, based on the rules laid down by the House, Congress, etc. It is utterly and completely unrelated to the long term sustainability of Social Security.
You are correct that there is no contractual claim to SS payments. For that matter there is no contractual claim to other government pensions, including veterans, or past Presidents, or public employees. However, there is a very strong expectation that these things will be paid.
This is also unrelated to billionaires and how much tax they pay. Although taxing the rich may score some feelgood points, it will not be anywhere near sufficient to fix the current payments problems. I’m aware that you don’t believe me, and in a few more years when this becomes obvious you will no doubt blame some Koch Bros plot. It’s my job to give you the opportunity to get a clue, after that you must do the work yourself.
Can we please ban joe’s latest pseudonym?
Madoff is a pathological liar.
One can believe Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme, but then lie about what one believes and say it is a Ponzi scheme, and *still* be factually accurate about SS being a Ponzi scheme..
social security isn’t a Ponzi scheme of course. But I don’t expect you to think rationally about it as you simply get too much emotional satisfaction from saying things like “social security is a Ponzi scheme”.
Let’s see how much emotional satisfaction people get when one day they find out that they paid much more (in terms of purchasing power) into it than they are getting out of it.
buy gold, hyperinflation is coming.
How much emotional satisfaction did you get from that statement?
Philippe felt emotional satisfaction in writing that SS is not a Ponzi scheme, and because he was thinking about his own emotional satisfaction, he then projected that onto Austrians.
This is how Philippe thinks. If he thinks one thing after another, then regardless of their origin, they are somehow causally related.
I already have long ago, and did nicely so far.
Yes Philippe you are the only one thinking rationally. Buy bonds, I heard another 30 year bullmarket is just on the way.
“buy gold, hyperinflation is coming.”
Non sequitur.
Right!
Austrian enthusiasts’ ability to make credible predictions about the future is hampered by their lack of knowledge of any economics that does not conform to their very narrow and extreme political ideology. Hence we get laughable Austrian enthusiasts’ predictions about the future which display a complete inability to understand what is actually going on, and which fail completely and utterly in every respect.
Philippe:
Anti-Austrian enthusiasts’ ability to make credible predictions about the future is hampered by their lack of knowledge of any economics that does not conform to their very narrow and extreme political ideology. Hence we get laughable Anti-Austrian enthusiasts’ predictions about the future which display a complete inability to understand what is actually going on, and which fail completely and utterly in every respect.
First of all, you keep using that word …:
Sen. Chuck Schumer calls GOP ‘extreme’ during Dem pep talk
Unaware that reporters were listening in, Schumer put his foot in his mouth this morning during a conference call — instructing other Democratic senators to call Republicans “extreme” when it comes to proposing budget cuts.
…
“I always use the word extreme,” Schumer told Sens. Barbara Boxer, Benjamin Cardin, Thomas Carper and Richard Blumenthal. “That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.”
And second, …:
The Austrian School on Business Cycles: 100 Years of Being Right | Mark Thornton
[www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HegiGuJlzTQ
Also:
Keynesian Predictions vs. American History | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
It is really interesting how Philippe constantly changes the issue of the debate, but really likes to accuse others to do that.
Philippe:
Paying more purchasing power into SS than one gets out of SS, does not necessarily require or necessitate “hyperinflation.”
You are of course dodging the argument and getting emotional satisfaction yammering about Austrians and hyperinflation.
Philippe:
Social security is a Ponzi scheme of course, but I don’t expect you to think rationally about it as you simply get too much emotional satisfaction from saying things like “Social security is not a Ponzi scheme.”
So is a politician.