Posts Tagged ‘privileges’

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison?

October 25, 2010

Why did Bernie Madoff go to prison?

So simple a caveman could understand. 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 money will be invested and made available to them later. Takes money from wage earners with the promise that the money will be invested in a “Trust Fund” and made available later.
Instead of investing the money Madoff spends it on nice homes in the Hamptons and yachts. Instead of depositing money in a Trust Fund the politicians use it for general spending and vote buying.
When the time comes to pay the investors back, Madoff simply uses some of the new funds from newer investors to pay back the older investors. When benefits for older investors become due the politicians pay them with money taken from younger and newer wage earners to pay the geezers.
When Madoff’s scheme is discovered all hell breaks loose. New investors won’t give him any more cash. When Social Security runs out of money they simply force the taxpayers to send them some more.
Bernie Madoff is in jail. Politicians remain in Washington.

“The taxpayer: That’s someone who works for the federal government but doesn’t have to take the civil service examination.”   Ronald Reagan

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

PASS THIS ON!

Second Amendment Decided Tomorrow

June 27, 2010

Time is up for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue its decision in the monumental gun-rights case, McDonald v. Chicago. The case basically asks the question, “Do the states have to obey the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms?” As originally written, the Bill of Rights was a limit on federal power only. However, under the 14th Amendment of 1868, the states were gradually brought under the control of the Bill of Rights, one small piece at a time, by Supreme Court decisions.

Chicago (and hence Illinois, along with many other localities around the nation) have basically thumbed their noses at the right to keep and bear, and hence this case to determine whether local governments can do that, or whether they are obligated to respect the rights, due process, privileges and immunities, and equal protection of all Americans. June 28 marks the end of the High Court’s season, and as expected, they’ve waited until the last day for this blockbuster. The decision will come sometime after 7 a.m. Arizona time (10 a.m. in D.C.). Pro-rights advocates are waiting to see the word “Reversed,” meaning the lower court ruling that says you have no rights is overturned, and the states are bound by 2A. Anti-rights advocates hope to see “Affirmed,” meaning Chicago can continue to deny the right to keep and bear arms to anyone in the city, as it sees fit.

A word of caution — “news” outlets will race to report on the decision, which past experience has shown will be highly inaccurate, replete with misunderstandings and bad characterizations, deliberate distortions (like, the world will end thanks to the decision), and blatant spin (we’re doomed, what is the Supreme Court doing to us, what about crime — whichever way the decision goes). They will likely get the headline right (affirmed or reversed) and summarize the unofficial non-binding summary (called the syllabus, published at the head of each case).

But keep in mind it will be impossible to read and comprehend the thick pages of legaleses that are the decision, when a well groomed talking head with little understanding of firearms policy or High Court procedure talks to you within five minutes of the decision coming out. See how they did this in words and pictures http://www.gunlaws.com/SCGC-HellerPhotos4.htm in the previous case, from my detailed account in Heller http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm. I will release a detailed evaluation and analysis of McDonald, after conferring with experts nationwide, after enough time to do the legwork. Watch for it.


%d bloggers like this: