I Just received this side by side comparison in e-mail and thought it instructive...

[1monster]

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison? To make it simple, he talked people into investing with him. Trouble was, he didn't invest their money. As time rolled on he simply took the money from the new investors to pay off the old investors. Finally there were too many old investors and not enough money from new investors coming in to keep the payments going.

Next thing you know Madoff is one of the most hated men in America and he is off to jail. Some of you know this, but not enough of you.



Madoff did to his investors what the government has been doing to us for over 70 years with Social Security. There is no meaningful difference between the two schemes, except that one was operated by a private individual who is now in jail, and the other is operated by politicians who enjoy perks, privileges and status in spite of their actions.



Do you need a side-by-side comparison here? Well here's a nifty little chart.


BERNIE MADOFF ************************************************* SOCIAL SECURITY


Takes money from investors with the promise that the ***************** Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be
money will be invested and made available to them later. ************* invested in a "Trust Fund" and made available later.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice ************** Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for
homes in theHamptons and yachts. ************************************* general spending and vote buying.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When the time comes to pay the investors back Madoff simply *********** When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them
uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back *********** with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.
the older investors.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When Madoff's scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. ************* When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers
New investors won't give him any more cash. *************************** to send them some more.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Bernie Madoff is in jail. ************************************** Politicians remain in Washington.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[wtmusic]

1. Absolutely, let's abolish Social Security.

It's instructive in that it illustrates the depths that RW propaganda will sink to.

[1monster]

7. I must have seen something in here that you missed. I read it as the government MISUSING

Social Security funds deposited with them to be placed in a trust fund for retirees. Instead of placing the S.S. funds in a trust fund, they used them to pay general fund needs, just as Bernie Madoff misused funds deposited with him to be invested.

the parallel is not to get rid of Social Security. The parallel is that both Madoff and the government are MISUSING FUNDS and both should be in prison. Not to get rid of Social Security.

Check the pertinent point:

Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice ************** Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for
homes in theHamptons and yachts. ************************************* general spending and vote buying.


Amazing how many folks followed you in your take on this rather than thinking for themselves.

[wtmusic]

8. Either that, or you missed something I saw.

This tack is well-established and part of the RW agenda to dismantle Social Security once and for all.

The government does misuse Social Security in the manner they describe - largely because there isn't enough money in the general fund for the government to pay its bills, largely because of the lowest tax rates in history for millionaires and billionaires. But you will never find a message to raise taxes, to end the misuse, or restore SS to its former sense of purpose. The message is about "the politicans" (read: "big government") and burning supposedly-socialist pillars like Social Security, welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid to the ground.

[spedtr90]

10. you missed the wording

Using words like "pay the geezers"
"force the taxpayers to send them some more"
does not sound like they wish to pay social security from the general fund.

When I got this e-mail it also had 2 quotes at the bottom that made it clear the message is against any gov. involvement in social security; this was one:

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five
years there’d be a shortage of sand.” Milton Friedman

So I sent this back to the person who sent it to me:

Read SHOCK DOCTRINE by Noami Klein - about the theories of the late economist Milton Friedman Friedman dreamed of returning societies to a state of pure capitalism, cleansed of all interruptions—government regulations, trade barriers and entrenched interests. The problem was, free people just didn’t seem to vote for politicians who followed his advice. So he found another way.

Lacking the consent of the voters, Freidman’s believers throughout the world have applied severe shocks to disorient the population, whereupon a period of rapid change could be carried out before anyone understood what was happening. Although these traumas were often violent, they also involved such economy-wrecking techniques as “debt bombs,” whereby a new government would be saddled with the debt of the corrupt regime it replaced. Once the society was put into a state of shock, long-standing public institutions could be privatized and plundered, leading to increased unemployment, hyperinflation—and vast wealth for corporations and well-connected individuals.

Friedman’s blueprint for pure capitalism was finally given its big chance in 1973 in Chile, when the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende was violently overthrown by Augusto Pinochet. From the outset, the brutal dictator relied on a group of Freidman-inspired academics known as the “Chicago Boys” to radically restructure the nation’s economy. Obstacles were removed by mass arrests, torture and summary execution. Shock capitalism was born: “The shock of the coup prepared the ground for the economic shock therapy; the shock of the torture chamber terrorized anyone thinking of standing in the way of the economic shocks. ( Remember Sharon Angle gushing about Chile during the election?)

*The person who sent it to me thanked me for my reply and said he removed my name and sent it back to the one who sent it to him.

*we can't just talk about it here

[1monster]

11. That part was not on the version I got.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theoldman]

4. I wish I had one of those meters to display during a debate with Republicans.

[emulatorloo]

3. That's a pretty darn wing-nutty email. I usually tell them STOP SENDING THESE THINGS TO ME

and give them a link to snopes.com

[spedtr90]

5. I replied with this...

...and asked that person to send it back to the person they got if from, and keep sending it back.

Sometimes, if it’s so simple a caveman can understand, it’s not the whole story.
Maddoff’s scheme fell apart in about 20 years (or less). Investors lost everything.Social Security has been in place over 75 years. Can you name one citizen who was unable to draw Social Security when eligible? How many people can you list who received the money? Are any members of your family on that list? Know anyone who lost retirement savings in the stock market?

Some are putting out myths and lies about Social Security in an attempt to privatize it. In reality, if you liked credit default swaps, Lehman Brothers, and Bernie Madoff, you’re going to love privatized Social Security.

Top 5 Social Security Myths (with sources)
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. 1 After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers’ retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It’s not just wrong—it’s impossible! By law, Social Security’s funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit.8

1.”To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security,” New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22141-17700787-cAEhIbx&t=4
2. “The Straight Facts on Social Security,” Economic Opportunity Institute, September 2009 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89704&id=22141-17700787-cAEhIbx&t=5
3. “Social Security and the Age of Retirement,” Center for Economic and Policy Research, June 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89705&id=22141-17700787-cAEhIbx&t=6
4. “More on raising the retirement age,” Washington Post, July 8, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89706&id=22141-17700787-cAEhIbx&t=7
5. “Social Security is sustainable,” Economic and Policy Institute, May 27, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89707&id=22141-17700787-cAEhIbx&t=8
6. “Maximum wage contribution and the amount for a credit in 2010,” Social Security Administration, April 23, 2010 http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/240
7. “Trust Fund FAQs,” Social Security Administration, February 18, 2010 http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
8.”To Deficit Hawks: We the People Know Best on Social Security,” New Deal 2.0, June 14, 2010 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89703&id=22141-17700787-cAEhIbx&t=9

[BrklynLiberal]

6. Is that kind of pornography allowed thru the mail???????

[iamtechus]

9. So many liars and so little time.

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.

Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever. After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers’ retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.

Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago. What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half. But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.

Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come. Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income. But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs

Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit

Reality: It’s not just wrong—it’s impossible! By law, Social Security’s funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://delmontpda.wordpress.com/2010/08/15/top-5-social-security-myths-debunked/

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html