Courtesy AP
|
How many years will he get?
Saying he was “deeply sorry and ashamed,” Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty Thursday to pulling off perhaps the biggest swindle in Wall Street history and was immediately led off to jail in handcuffs after his seething victims applauded in the courtroom.
U.S. District Judge Denny Chin denied bail for Madoff, 70, and ordered him to jail, noting that he had the means to flee and an incentive to do so because of his age.
“I am actually grateful for this opportunity to publicly comment about my crimes, for which I am deeply sorry and ashamed,” he said.
“As the years went by, I realized my risk and this day would inevitably come. I cannot adequately express how sorry I am for my crimes.”
“I don’t think he has a sincere bone in his body,” said DeWitt [Baker], who noted that prison time would be too good for Madoff. “I’d stone him to death,” he said.
Madoff did not look at any of the three investors who spoke at the hearing, even when one turned in his direction and tried to address him.
The fraud, which prosecutors say may have totaled nearly $65 billion, turned a revered money man into an overnight global disgrace whose name became synonymous with the current economic meltdown.
$65 billion? Chump change when compared with the Obama bailout that may have been partially a result of this.
#57, Cow-Paddy, Ignorant Shit Talking Sociopath, Retired Mall Rent-A-Cop, Pretend Constitutional Scholar, Fake California Labor Law Expert, Pseudo Military Historian, Phony Climate Scientist, and Real Leading Troll Extraordinare,
promote
Verb
[-moting, -moted]
1. to encourage the progress or success of: all attempts to promote a lasting ceasefire have failed
2. to raise to a higher rank or position
3. to encourage the sale of (a product) by advertising
4. to work for: he actively promoted reform
(bold = my emphasis)
Yup, I’m sure that is correct. To promote the General Welfare is to encourage it to be better. If society wants the government to be our watchdog then what better way of promoting could there be than to regulate and oversee the activity?
Of course, if you don’t care about eating lead, taking a medicine that makes your pecker fall off (oh, you have already, oopps,), or allows your water heater to blow up then go for it. Make the world a better place.
#54, LibertyPoser,
Not everyone can be an expert in everything. So, collectively through our government, we regulate businesses.
How’s that been working out for ya the last 100 years or so? Is your dollar still worth what it was?
Actually, my dollar is still worth 100 cents. Society has been better served by regulations than by unrestrained businesses. In Madoff’s case the system failed. But he is going to jail because he did commit a crime.
And these can’t be handled by multiple private third party companies why?
Simply because business has shown time and time again it can not regulate itself. For example, take our Georgia peanut butter plant. Bacterial samples were tested by private labs, none of whom bothered to report the positive findings to the government. Toys were given away as gifts when the manufacturer knew they contained lead. Hamburg has remained on store shelves being bought even though the manufacturer knew the lot was contaminated with e. Coli 159.
UL is a classic example just in case you didn’t know that.
Nope. Poor example. UL answers to those who own it and pay for its services, NOT Americans that are exposed to those products. I’ve worked with UL before and even they warn you of their short comings. A better example would be CSA (Canadian Standards Association). A quasi independent, business owned, organization that has the power of law to back it up. If you ever have the choice of buying an electrical item with a UL approval or one with a CSA approval, take the later. It meets a much higher standard. They are, however, the exception and only because the Canadian Government has given them some teeth.
#59–Fusion==I think you are making things up rather than just admit your are wrong or rephrase to specifically identify what you are talking about.
You say you are not “venerating” Madoff, list a few people, then say they all have their admirers.
Robin Hood can be venerated and admired by reasonable people. To emphasize the point: Robin Hood stole from the EVIL rich, to give to the deserving poor. Madoff did not do that. There is NO WAY to admire Madoff.
It “sounds good” but what is this “flair” you see in Madoff?
It sounds good but in what way were many of Madoff’s victims “supposed to be” sophisticated? Keven Bacon==high school drop out musician turned movie star. Where is he supposed to get his financial expertise? Same with all the widows? Same with all the charities who hired experts who took their fees and simply turned the money over to Madoff unbeknownst and lying to their clients? etc.
Just curious.
#61/62, Poison Twin,
I had a long(er) post written up. Then I found this article (and several others). It turns we are both wrong and both right. The government does use private inspectors but they are hobbled by government regulations to do anything about their findings. Sigh.
http://tinyurl.com/c3mbyh
On the surface, it appears to support the hypothesis that only the government can do the job right. But if you read the entire article, you’ll see the problem isn’t inspections. It is the the spaghetti regulations currently in force. More regulations aren’t going to help because they can’t address the problem: there are too many to evade any regulations through finger pointing.
You’ve got to start stomping on the violators when you find them.
Here is a suggestion:
Start holding the auditors responsible for their inspections and start holding the plants responsible for following the auditors’ recommendations.
And, of course, using peanut butter inspectors and not bakery inspectors at peanut butter plants.
Re: UL Poor example.
Perhaps. I was in a hurry to get out of the office. There are many other companies that operate under a license to do inspections on behalf of the government to help enforce regulations.
If you are truly interested, I’ll dig up a list for you.
UL answers to those who own it and pay for its services, NOT Americans that are exposed to those products.
OF COURSE THEY DO. They don’t do it for free. However, the stamp of approval is supposed to something. Just because it doesn’t have “Federal” in its stamp doesn’t mean it isn’t any less important. Companies pay these companies to rate their products and if they pass, they get a stamp of approval. It is in the best interest of these types of companies to ensure they are in compliance and not influenced by outside pressure to remain honest and fair in their evaluations. Otherwise, companies would no longer use their services and they would be out of business.
#63, Bobbo,
I do not “worship” Madoff. I have said he committed a crime and will spend a long time behind bars.
However, he did show some scruples with whom he would take money.
The “charities” all used money managers or had professionals advising them. People like Kevin Bacon also have and use professional managers. Whether these “professionals” were actually diligent is another question.
My own, unsubstantiated opinion or take, is that he was thumbing his nose at the “system”. He didn’t need the money, being wealthy enough from other endeavors. He didn’t take money from “ordinary” people. And, when caught, he didn’t deny it and didn’t try to run.
#64, LibertyPoser,
Government is NOT the only group that is capable of auditing or oversight. They are the only group that I do have any control over though because they answer to my representative who answers to me. Private groups don’t answer to anyone except their customers.
Government oversight and inspections are not perfect. They are better than nothing though. That there have been failures over the past eight years has more to do with the philosophical bent of the Presidential Administration than the actual regulations themselves. In several cases we have discovered regulators and inspectors being stopped or severely hampered by the heads of their agencies even when they reported problems.
You are right that maybe more regulation isn’t required. Better observance of the current regulations is required. If the regulations can be streamlined without hindering the intent, then great, let’s do it.