Comments on: They got took

By: Steynian 299

Steynian 299 — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:14:22 +0000

[...] DEMOCRATIC DONOR.. They got took, their $$ gone flown; The Ponzi scheme in which we’re all involved …. [...]

By: Steynian 299 « Free Canuckistan!

Steynian 299 « Free Canuckistan! — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:09:31 +0000

[...] DEMOCRATIC DONOR.. They got took, their $$ gone flown; The Ponzi scheme in which we’re all involved …. [...]

By: Alexis

Alexis — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:04:32 +0000

My educated guess is that petroleum producing nations may have gotten taken by Ponzi schemes too. At least some of the massive drop in the price of oil may have come from a desire on the part of petromonarchies to cash in on the oil market to their recoup losses on Wall Street.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:25:20 +0000

If this “charity” founded in 2000 got 1% interest each month and spent it all each year at the end of the year, it got more than its money back after 8 years.
So it spent all its original investment.
If this was a true Ponzi scheme which did no investing at all, the charity got more than its fair share. So what is Kos complaining about?

It is the poor schmucks who paid income tax on the fake earnings who took a real bath. If the supposed income rate per month were 1.5% and the money was left in, it quadrupled in value after 8 years.

Someone paying income tax on the fake earnings shelled out as much as his original investment in taxes over the years. However, he can get back the taxes paid in 2005-7 by filing an amended return, and won’t have to pay for 2008. This will give him back more than half of the initial investment. Is that so terrible?

The notion that what you lose is the amount some crook promises you that you don’t get is fun for headlines but, hey, I’ve lost billions this way. I get on the average of three emails a day saying I have won at least a million dollars in a lottery I never entered, or in some obscure inheritance from Africa, or some other ridiculous scam. If I add the amounts I should get from these, if they were true it would come to billions. So have i lost billions in capital from these situations? I have lost billions that were promised me that I will never collect.

OK so they are obvious frauds. So I have really lost only my original investment in these things, which is zero.

Why don’t we apply the same logic to this fraud? Then it would dwindle to insignificance to tax paying individuals (most probably losing at most half their initial investments considering their tax recoveries.) and in any case losing far far less than 50 billion in all. And non taxpayers like charities probably spent almost as much or perhaps more than their initial investments.

OK someone who put all their money in this fraud in 2008 or 2007 really got screwed. How many of these were there?

By: Roderick Reilly

Roderick Reilly — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:13:34 +0000

May I laugh uproariously at the misfortune of these parasites and their goody-goody causes?

Hopefully, the Kos-acks and like-minded “progressives” (the creepiest term since “Scientologists”) will continue to be dismayed, miserable, angry and depressed throughout the administration of their new President. May he dissappoint the bejeesus out of them.

By: Starko

Starko — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:47:31 +0000

Fred2, you’re probably right, but this is exactly why you cannot do these thing no matter your intentions. Some, however, can’t bear the pain of failure personally via their loss of status. Others just see the dollars rolling in and can’t bear the thought of not having those.

Bayou was the last case similar to this, and there it was similar- he actually traded at the beginning, but did terrible. I think he’d trade now and again all the way up to the end but of course there was no hope in making up the losses.

By: Lifeofthemind

Lifeofthemind — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 06:13:45 +0000

Madoff seemed to send money to one Republican candidate and a whole string of Democrats campaign committees. My hope is that Yeshiva and the other charities can recover from the damage. Several worthy NY charities are in severe trouble. By all reports the same applies in Palm Beach County. The charities are not the criminals here but the victims. A University, Museum or Hospital should be judged on its own merits, not those of the crook who lost their money.

That said there is an issue in which the Democrats have abused the status of charities by using them to advocate for political activity, including having them advocate for expenditures of tax dollars which are then used to support further political activity. They have also been used to provide for employment of political operatives whose partisan conduct should be prohibited in a charitable setting. Finally there is the practice of left wing operatives in gaining control of charitable institutions and using them to advocate causes that would be anathema to the founder whose legacy the institution is supposed to honor. That certainly applies to both the Ford and the Rockefeller foundations. In this case however the actual donors are often still present to see how their legacy has been abused.

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:21:58 +0000

Madoff’s actions seem to be an effective way to smash the Western “Cathedral” Ruling Class’s information monopoly power, by destroying their finances.

By: Ivan

Ivan — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 02:55:59 +0000

All these foundations should be disbanded and hit to the hilt with death duties. I’m glad that the Market did some good in the end. Consider; the old patriach and mater worked their their finger-nails off to realise their version of the American dream. Living off their hard work their descendants use the proceeds to finance activities that end up putting other people’s lives and freedoms in danger. Access to easy money only encourages solipsisms and idiocies, the newly chastened wards should turn to Jesus Christ as He is the only sure foundation.

By: K

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:05:33 +0000

One of the problems with a bailout in this matter is setting the right level. It isn’t clear what any investor should receive. Therefore any settlement must favor some over others.

Are investors to receive the money they put in? Should they receive that plus some arbitrary rate of return? Should they receive the huge amounts they thought they had two weeks ago or a year ago?

Obviously the huge amounts they saw on their last statements never existed. So asking the government to bail them out for returns that were never made would be nonsense.

Early investors drew lavish “dividends” for decades; but it was phony money which was being taken from more recent investors. So some of them profited by the fraud. It is hard to argue that those who profited should be treated equally to those who lost every cent.

More recent investors were completely defrauded since they received few, if any, dividends.

And among earlier investors there would be some who simply reinvested ‘dividends’ for years. These are the most hurt because they had to pay income taxes each year for income that never existed.

Well, the Bush administration opted for bailouts. And the opposition hardly opposed. No one knows where this will end. Yet everyone knows where it must end if we don’t act rationally soon.