Unbelievable: Johnson Campaign claiming that they never implied "Social Security Administration was a fraud" | Wis.Community

Unbelievable: Johnson Campaign claiming that they never implied "Social Security Administration was a fraud"


Do I really have to say why anything that is compared to a "Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme" would be taken by any reasonable person as being synonomous with "fraud"? 

OK, I'll humor the Johnson campaign for the umpteenth time.  According to the FBI, a Ponzi scheme is defined as a" fraud":

A Ponzi scheme is essentially an investment fraud wherein the operator promises high financial returns or dividends that are not available through traditional investments.

And we have a similar "fraud" definition at the SEC:

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

In addition, Johnson not only used the term "Ponzi Scheme," but compared it to a Bernie Madoff Ponzi Scheme.  And what was the charge against Madoff?  Securities FRAUD.  

Then, the Johnson campaign pushed their Ponzi Scheme nonsense into the upper stratosphere of cookiness when they went up with an ad that said that Feingold was "raiding your savings" and that the "money is gone." 

Hmmm... according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "raid" in this context means:

 the act of mulcting public money

What the heck does "mulcting" mean?  Again, according to MW, "to obtain by fraud, duress, or theft."  Wow-- there's that pesky "fraud" word again.

So, in actuality there is no way, that Johnson or his campaign didn't intend to communicate that Social Security is a fraud and that Feingold is somehow the U.S. Senate's version of Bernie Madoff.  

The funny thing is that neither the campaign or Johnson is able to fully comprehend the gravity of their absurd Ponzi Scheme statements. 

People have been getting Social Security checks-- REAL CHECKS-- in the mail for over 75 YEARS!  For it to be a fraud or a Ponzi Scheme people wouldn't have been getting checks for all these years and it would have crashed after a few months like all Ponzi schemes and frauds do:  That's why its absurd!

In addition to suggest that the social security funds were spent and replaced with "worthless IOUs" is equally absurd.  Yes, (shudder) Social Security funds have been invested in interest-bearing treasury bonds.  Has anyone that has ever invested in treasury bonds not gotten their money back?  Further, is Johnson suggesting that it would be better for the Social Security money just to sit there and for Social Security funds not to collect interest?

The statements are not only absurd on their face, but they clearly point to a candidate and a campaign that either does not fundamentally understand Social Security or is intentionally trying to mislead people. 


September 23, 2010 - 5:54pm