Feds Call Full-Tilt Poker a 'Global Ponzi Scheme'

blair1q writes "Popular (and heavily advertised) poker website Full-Tilt Poker was sued today by the U.S. government, following an investigation that revealed it to be a massive Ponzi Scheme. The principals in the company set up a complicated system to direct funds from subscribers' poker accounts into their own bank accounts. This was in contravention of their own claim that users' money was untouched. Players' accounts amounted to $390 million, but the company only has $60 million in the bank, having over time distributed $440 million to its own directors and executives."

Comments

Re:Ha ha ha

[roman_mir]

Let's start from the fact that it does NOT matter, whether there is lying about where the money goes or not. So, just in itself, lying is not necessary to have a ponzi scheme. In fact people who get into a ponzi scheme early on, may easily be aware of it, but they will likely benefit, so they don't care.

Secondly, gov't certainly lies about SS, lied about it from the start. Pretended that SS is an insurance system, even didn't start the payouts for 2 years after the program was started. All to pretend there is some fund. Of-course it was never a fund, and it's an easy to show fact:

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way". That is, the Social Security Tax was constitutional as a mere exercise of Congress's general taxation powers. - the gov't argued that SS payments are not earmarked, not actually going to be used for any purpose, but are only collected under general taxation powers of Congress.

Of-course the judge in the Supreme Court was very lazy, he didn't care (*was complicit*) and wrote this: The argument for the respondent is that the provisions of the two titles dovetail in such a way as to Justify the conclusion that Congress would have been unwilling to pass one without the other. The argument for petitioners is that the tax moneys are not earmarked, and that Congress is at liberty to spend them as it will. The usual separability clause is embodied in the act. ' 1103.

We find it unnecessary to make a choice between the arguments, and so leave the question open.

The entire point of the court was to figure out whether SS taxes were Constitutional or not, and the judge said: I don't care, I'll leave the question open!

SS is absolutely clearly NOT SHOWN TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL in this judgment. At the very minimum it's a "maybe", but it's definitely not a "YES", which is what SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to show.

The only difference between a private and a government ran ponzi scam is that you can't GET OUT of a government ran ponzi scam, so that's the ONLY thing that keeps it alive once people recognize it what it is.

Try this: make it optional. Allow people to just opt out. How many, do you think, would take that offer immediately to stop paying the 12%? (12%, which will grow, it must, Reagan did it to keep the scam going.)