http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/policy-basics-understanding-the-social-security-trust-funds

Yes it is. Quite different!

Madoff hid it.

Soc Sec is out in the open, and knowable to anyone who cares to look.

This is not much different than public sector pension plans (also underfunded), most of the recipients “believe” they are entitled to the payouts, so they ignore the warning signs or concerns expressed, perhaps thinking that someone else (a future taxpayer) will pick up the tab.

It is unpopular to cut benefits or to raise taxes, so politicians ignore discussing the topic. For similar reasons, news media largely ignore the topic, and it only gets significant airtime when it culminates in a crisis (e.g. Illinois state recently).
.

Noticed a small national story where, in Texas, the legislature “bailed out” (my guess) the Dallas Fire and Police pensions. The issue, very surprisingly, was initially raised by the Mayor, who was embroiled in a drawn out fight with the unions (I think he is a dem, btw – so he is acting rather responsibly!).

I don’t know about you and your own pillow talk, but mine doesn’t ordinarily include politics or finances.” – Neo

Yes.

But, my point is that a similar argument is made (or harbored) about terrorists and their families and neighbors.

And, if it is true that even the most intimate of relationships is no guarantee that one can know all that most of us might think they ought to know, then, it is quite conceivable that those another step or two removed may not know either.

The other thing is that Mark was running a legit business, even if it was small-fry by Wall Street standards, but it was profitable. And by the sounds of things, Bernie held it in contempt.

Actually, the sons DID ask their father questions about his end of the business, which was separate from theirs. Their money was coming from their own end of the business, and they fully understood at that point where their own money was coming from

Yeah, I got that. Most of what I know comes from the ABC mini-series a year or two back. But I meant the second paragraph in response to people doubting Ruth’s innocence, not his sons’. Ruth is a bit of a sad figure, but I can see why folks would be disinclined to cut her any slack, even if she wasn’t fully aware of what was going on. The real tragedy (besides all the people he defrauded) was what he did to his sons.

Actually, the sons DID ask their father questions about his end of the business, which was separate from theirs. Their money was coming from their own end of the business, and they fully understood at that point where their own money was coming from. But when they asked him to show them the ropes of his separate business, the one on the 17th floor (theirs was on the 18th and 19th), he refused and said it was none of their business. Since it was a separate entity that belonged to him, not to them, there was nothing they could do to force him to tell them.

I can’t provide a link because I no longer remember where I got that information. I’ve read so much about the case over the years, and watched several documentaries on it, that I don’t recall exactly.

I imagine it’d be easy for anyone living in the lap of luxury to have the wool pulled over their eyes by the person providing it for them. Most people wouldn’t ask questions about where the money came from, especially when the answer would involve something as esoteric as finance.