There is NO RISK in privatizing SS and investing in stock market!!!

[Dad2three]

Bernie Madoff never promised any particular rate of return on paper to his customers either.

Except that 'Made-Off' wasn't doing anything close to legal. Bushes SEC knew it and didn't do anything to stop it.

AND Dubya actively fought ALL 50 states who were trying to reign in subprime lenders, invoking a civil war era rule saying feds ruled

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes. Two random dates that don't show the market crashed in 1988. So what?

That was the dates of the crash. ie; from-to. So either year is applicable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. Two random dates that don't show the market crashed in 1988. So what?

That was the dates of the crash. ie; from-to. So either year is applicable.

Sorry, the crash wasn't a set of dates 6 months apart.

 

[OnePercenter]

Sorry, the crash wasn't a set of dates 6 months apart.

The crash lasted 6 months.

 

[Dad2three]

What's so funny is that Carter supposedly fixed it for 30 years and less than 30 months later, it was staring at a potential benefits cut. Reagan had to rescue it then too. One of those tax increases the left loves to quack about.

Jimmy Carter Social Security Amendments of 1977 Statement on Signing S. 305 Into Law.

I am happy to be here today to sign legislation which will reassure the 33 million people who are receiving benefits and the 104 million workers now making contributions that the social security system will be financially sound well into the next century.

YOU MEAN A POLITICIOAN USED HYPERBOL???


The 1977 amendments were supposed to fix the situation for the short and medium range.

I guess the first financing crisis in Social Security arose in the mid-70s, in fact, if I remember it was the 1975 Trustees Report which for the first time said that the program was out of balance in the long-range projections. And that led to the '77 Amendments, which was an attempt to address some of that. Am I right so far?

Ball: Well, more or less. I'm not sure you can say that up until '75 the program always was fully financed for the 75 years. Although it was always brought back to full financing when the Congress acted on benefits of any kind.

Interviewer: My question really is: at the time the 1977 Amendments were enacted, did you believe, did everyone believe, that this took care of the financing issues? Was it a surprise when there continued to be a financing problem and we had to come back so soon to these financing issues again?

Ball: I'll go back a little before that even. In the 1972 Amendments we thought had taken care of the financing. When I left government I made a talk to the Senate Committee on Aging, with charts and one thing and another, demonstrating beyond a doubt that everything was in great shape. That the program had gotten to a place where you didn't need to constantly make benefit increases and you didn't need to worry about the financing, it was pretty well set. Well, it didn't take very long after that for it to become un-set. But in 1972 amendments we thought that we put things in good shape.

What happened was that the automatics introduced as part of the '72 legislation removed the cushion we had always had from basing the estimates on the assumption that wages and prices would not change.


..So that had to be fixed. The main way of fixing it was by "decoupling." We had to make the indexing of wages entirely separate from the indexing of prices. If not, then under some circumstances the two factors would compound in such a way that you got an impossible long-range situation. So that was fixed by the 1977 Amendments.


They settled for a 50-year estimating period balance. So the 1977 Amendments were intended to restore the long-range balance for only 50 years.
Interviewer: So had we looked out beyond that 50- year horizon the program would not have been in long-range balance, in the traditional measure of 75 years?

Ball: That's right. So the 1977 Amendments ended up still with a long-range deficit.


Interviewer: That was implicit, in effect . . .


Ball: Well, they showed it in the Trustees' reports.

Interviewer: So you knew you had a long-range problem, but you didn't know at that time that you had a short-range problem, did you?

Ball: No, not at all. No short-range problem at all. We thought that was fixed. But it wasn't fixed so that it would support a program which was now very sensitive to the movement of wages and prices.


Interviewer: Because we had this "stagflation" phenomenon in which we had both high unemployment and high inflation at the same time.

Ball: Right.

Interviewer: Wages were depressed while benefit costs were increasing.

Ball: Right. So it was inevitable that unless something happened, the system would run out of short-term money. Now, what wasn't understood, or sufficiently understood, was the obvious point that the problem would cure itself by 1990. What you had was a problem for the '80s and the thing was, as I said earlier, when the Reagan Administration came in they had a short-term problem but they used it to try to reduce the size and the cost of the program for the long-run as well.


Social Security History


YES, SOCIAL SECURITY, LIKE MEDICARE, DOD, HUD, ETC HAS TO BE 'TWEAKED' FROM TIME TO TIME. AND?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, the crash wasn't a set of dates 6 months apart.

The crash lasted 6 months.

The crash was Oct 19, 1987.

 

[Dad2three]

If they get it, they will find a way to steal it, they are the government after all, it's what they do. It just ******* kills them that there is all that money out there that they cannot get their grubby mitts on.

Why don't you post your effective tax for 2013 and prove your point?

You need me to prove that it kills liberals that they can't get their grubby mitts on more tax revenue?

2008-2011 WERE RECORD LOW TAX BURDENS for the US. Hit federal revenues at Korean war levels, 15% of GDP, Clinton/Carter had US at 20%...

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry, the crash wasn't a set of dates 6 months apart.

The crash lasted 6 months.

The crash was Oct 19, 1987.

In finance, Black Monday refers to Monday, October 19, 1987, when stock markets around the world crashed, shedding a huge value in a very short time. The crash began in Hong Kong and spread west to Europe, hitting the United States after other markets had already declined by a significant margin. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) dropped by 508 points to 1738.74 (22.61%)


The DJIA did not regain its August 25, 1987 closing high of 2,722 points until almost two years later.

 

[bripat9643]

Bernie Madoff never promised any particular rate of return on paper to his customers either.

Except that 'Made-Off' wasn't doing anything close to legal. Bushes SEC knew it and didn't do anything to stop it.

Ponzi schemes aren't legal unless Congress is the party running them.

I suppose you have evidence that the SEC under Bush knew Bernie Madoff's operation was breaking the law?

 

[bripat9643]

We don't have a choice about how 13% of our gross income is "invested."

Can you afford to loose it?

It's already gone. Congress pissed it away issuing checks to ticks on the ass of society.

 

[Dad2three]

Ponzi schemes aren't legal unless Congress is the party running them.

I suppose you have evidence that the SEC under Bush knew Bernie Madoff's operation was breaking the law?

Feb 4, 2009 - A fraud investigator told Congress that he'd warned the agency about Madoff's Ponzi scheme years ago. But his efforts went nowhere.


A whistleblower who repeatedly warned the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard Madoff was perpetrating a massive investment fraud testified Wednesday that the regulatory agency that oversees financial markets is inept, "financially illiterate" and far too cozy with the financial titans it is supposed to be regulating.


"The SEC is also captive to the industry it regulates and it is afraid of bringing big cases against the largest most powerful firms," said Harry Markopolos, an independent financial fraud investigator. "Cleary the SEC was afraid of Mr. Madoff."

Markopolos began contacting the SEC at the beginning of the decade to warn that Madoff was a fraud. He sent detailed memos, listing dozens of red flags, laying out a road map of instructions for SEC investigators to follow, even listing contacts and phone numbers of Wall Street experts whom he said would confirm his findings. But, Markopolos' whistle-blowing effort got nowhere.

Madoff whistleblower blasts the SEC s failure - Feb. 4 2009

 

[Toro]

Nope, I'm pointing out is offers no rate of return to people who participate. Nowhere does it claim you'll make xyz on what you put it, it just estimates a monthly benefit based on 30 years of salary and age of retirement.

That's true, as it is of all defined contribution pension funds. However, the assets of the trusts - like a defined contribution fund - that support the payouts are government liabilities with an interest charge that accrues at a weighted average of the rate on Treasury securities.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yep, I was just saying the accumulated interest isn't promised to anyone. Whether it be 1% or 5%, you get no promise of a rate of return, you just get x per month.

 

[bripat9643]

Ponzi schemes aren't legal unless Congress is the party running them.

I suppose you have evidence that the SEC under Bush knew Bernie Madoff's operation was breaking the law?

Feb 4, 2009 - A fraud investigator told Congress that he'd warned the agency about Madoff's Ponzi scheme years ago. But his efforts went nowhere.


A whistleblower who repeatedly warned the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard Madoff was perpetrating a massive investment fraud testified Wednesday that the regulatory agency that oversees financial markets is inept, "financially illiterate" and far too cozy with the financial titans it is supposed to be regulating.


"The SEC is also captive to the industry it regulates and it is afraid of bringing big cases against the largest most powerful firms," said Harry Markopolos, an independent financial fraud investigator. "Cleary the SEC was afraid of Mr. Madoff."

Markopolos began contacting the SEC at the beginning of the decade to warn that Madoff was a fraud. He sent detailed memos, listing dozens of red flags, laying out a road map of instructions for SEC investigators to follow, even listing contacts and phone numbers of Wall Street experts whom he said would confirm his findings. But, Markopolos' whistle-blowing effort got nowhere.

Madoff whistleblower blasts the SEC s failure - Feb. 4 2009

Markopolos first reported his suspicions to the SEC in 2000. That was during the Clinton administration, which also did nothing about it. If his claims are legitimate, then the problem is one of institutional incompetence, and it isn't peculiar to the Bush administration. It's obviously a longstanding problem with the SEC. Your attempt to pin all the blame is predictable from a sleazy leftwing propagandist such as yourself.

 

[Dad2three]

Ponzi schemes aren't legal unless Congress is the party running them.

I suppose you have evidence that the SEC under Bush knew Bernie Madoff's operation was breaking the law?

Feb 4, 2009 - A fraud investigator told Congress that he'd warned the agency about Madoff's Ponzi scheme years ago. But his efforts went nowhere.


A whistleblower who repeatedly warned the Securities and Exchange Commission that Bernard Madoff was perpetrating a massive investment fraud testified Wednesday that the regulatory agency that oversees financial markets is inept, "financially illiterate" and far too cozy with the financial titans it is supposed to be regulating.


"The SEC is also captive to the industry it regulates and it is afraid of bringing big cases against the largest most powerful firms," said Harry Markopolos, an independent financial fraud investigator. "Cleary the SEC was afraid of Mr. Madoff."

Markopolos began contacting the SEC at the beginning of the decade to warn that Madoff was a fraud. He sent detailed memos, listing dozens of red flags, laying out a road map of instructions for SEC investigators to follow, even listing contacts and phone numbers of Wall Street experts whom he said would confirm his findings. But, Markopolos' whistle-blowing effort got nowhere.

Madoff whistleblower blasts the SEC s failure - Feb. 4 2009

Markopolos first reported his suspicions to the SEC in 2000. That was during the Clinton administration, which also did nothing about it. If his claims are legitimate, then the problem is one of institutional incompetence, and it isn't peculiar to the Bush administration. It's obviously a longstanding problem with the SEC. Your attempt to pin all the blame is predictable from a sleazy leftwing propagandist such as yourself.

You mean ONE warning to SEC under Clinton, May 2000?

May: Submission to SEC Boston Regional Office’s Director of Enforcement with 12 Red Flags

2001
• January: Team Member Frank Casey recruits MAR Hedge investigative journalist Michael Ocrant onto the team during a chance meeting in Barcelona, Spain
• March: My 2nd SEC Submission on how I think Madoff is running the scheme and his investment process
• I offer to go undercover to assist the SEC
• Apr: Michael Ocrant interviews Madoff
• May: MAR Hedge publishes Madoff expose, “Madoff Tops Charts; skeptics ask how”; Barron’s publishes, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Bernie Madoff is so secretive, he even asks investors to keep mum”

2002
• Jun: Key trip to UK, France & Switzerland; met with 20 Fund of Funds & Private Client Banks: 14 have Madoff and report “special access to Madoff”; two have admitted Madoff losses – Dexia Asset Management and Fix Family Office; 12 have not admitted Madoff losses and all 12 were turned into SEC Chairwoman on Feb. 5, 2009; off-Shore funds attract three types of investors who won’t report losses or file SIPC claims with the US government

2003-2004
• E-mail records of investigation lost; attempting to recover data from non-functioning hard drives

2005
• Jun: Frank Casey discovers Madoff attempting to borrow money from European banks (first sign that Madoff scheme is in trouble)
• Oct: Boston SEC’s Ed Manion arranges for 3rd SEC Submission
• Oct: Meeting with Boston SEC Branch Chief Mike Garrity, who quickly investigates, finds irregularities, and forwards my submission to SEC’s New York Office
• Nov: Boston Whistleblower calls NYC Branch Chief Meaghen Cheung and reveals his identity
• Nov: 29 Red Flags submitted
• Dec: I doubt NYC SEC’s ability, fear for my life, and contact Wall Street Journal and go to local law enforcement for protection

2006
• Jan: Integral Partners’ $40 million derivatives Ponzi Scheme goes to trial five years and five months after discovery, causing us to further doubt SEC competence
• Sep: Chicago Board Options Exchange VP tells me that several OEX option traders also think Madoff is a fraudster; if SEC had called the CBOE’s marketing office, they would have cooperated

2007
• Feb 28: Neil Chelo obtains a Madoff portfolio which shows zero ability to earn a return
• Jun: Casey obtains Wickford Fund LP prospectus showing Madoff is short of cash and offering a 3:1 leverage via bank loans, another clear warning sign that Madoff is running short of cash
• Jul: Chelo obtains Fairfield Greenwich Sentry LP financial statements for 2004 – 2006 and discovers three year-end audits with three different auditors in three different countries!
• Aug: Chelo conducts a 45 minute telephone interview with Fairfield Greenwich’s head of risk management; hedge funds all lose money except for Madoff!

2008
• Apr 2: Undelivered e-mail to Sokobin, SEC’s Director of Risk Assessment, entitled, “$30 Billion Equity Derivatives Hedge Fund Fraud in New York”
• Dec 11: Madoff runs out of money, turns himself in
• Dec 12: SEC insider calls me and warns “watch your back, Operation Cover-up has begun.”


No One Would Listen A True Financial Thriller Harry Markopolos Scott Brick 9781455819133 Amazon.com Books


YEAH, WEIRD REGULATORS ARE CAPTURED BY INDUSTRY, AND CONS THINK 'MARKETS' WILL 'SELF REGULATE' LOL


SO YOU'LL NOW ACCEPT BUSH'S SEC KNEW, AS YOUR ORIGINAL POST DIDN'T ACCEPT THE PREMISE? lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

No risk? Tell that to New Jersey residents:

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street, Costing New Jersey Taxpayers $3.8 Billion
By David Sirota@davidsirotad.sirota@ibtimes.com
on August 25 2014 8:16 AM

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street Costing New Jersey Taxpayers 3.8 Billion

 

[Toro]

No risk? Tell that to New Jersey residents:

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street, Costing New Jersey Taxpayers $3.8 Billion
By David Sirota@davidsirotad.sirota@ibtimes.com
on August 25 2014 8:16 AM

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street Costing New Jersey Taxpayers 3.8 Billion

That is an incredibly misleading article on so many levels.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yep, I was just saying the accumulated interest isn't promised to anyone. Whether it be 1% or 5%, you get no promise of a rate of return, you just get x per month.

A rate of return can easily be extrapolated using the contributions, the pay outs and the length of benefit

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most people won't plan and save responsibly if you give them back their SS payroll tax. Then what? If they end up old and poor, you will pay for their keep out of your tax dollars.

 

[Dad2three]

No risk? Tell that to New Jersey residents:

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street, Costing New Jersey Taxpayers $3.8 Billion
By David Sirota@davidsirotad.sirota@ibtimes.com
on August 25 2014 8:16 AM

Gov. Christie Shifted Pension Cash to Wall Street Costing New Jersey Taxpayers 3.8 Billion

That is an incredibly misleading article on so many levels.

So you can't give even a couple examples?