Government Efficiency (1 Viewer)

[RobF]

I think this topic deserves its own thread, both to discuss generally the topic of government efficiency, and specifically the so-called 'Department of Government Efficiency' and the incoming Trump administration's aims to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure Federal Agencies".

The announcements have been covered in the The Trump Cabinet and key post thread, but to recap, Trump has announced that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will work together on a not-actually-an-official-government-Department of Government Efficiency, which is intended to work with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to "drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before," with the 'Department' to conclude its work "no later than July 4, 2026."

Musk has previously said that the federal budget could be reduced by "at least $2 trillion", and Ramaswarmy, during his presidential campaign, said he would fire more than 75% of the federal work force and disband agencies including the Department of Education and the FBI.

 

[bird]

I never claimed that SCOTUS decisions are anything more than the opinions of the Justices. That’s why they call them opinions. The point I am making is that the courts and the judicial/legal resources of the US Government should not be used as political weapons. Not by ANY party. Then objective is that Justice should be blind. To use government resources as a political weapon against one’s political rivals is an abuse of power. It’s unacceptable. Political disputes should be handled at the ballot box.

Define the term “political economy”.

Lasswell defines politics as who gets what, when, where and how. I would add why.

The courts have always been used for what can be termed political reasons because it is done in the context of politics as defined by Lasswell and the definition of political economy.

To think otherwise is useless.

 

[TampaJoe]

Define the term “political economy”.

Lasswell defines politics as who gets what, when, where and how. I would add why.

The courts have always been used for what can be termed political reasons because it is done in the context of politics as defined by Lasswell and the definition of political economy.

To think otherwise is useless.

Where is it written that I need to think like Lasswell. I’m perfectly capable of thinking about this issue on my own. So are you. We shouldn’t be using government institutions as political weapons to be used against political rivals. That’s the thing that folks on the left are going crazy worrying about what Trump might do with such power. Maybe they should read Lasswell. I’m sure that will give them comfort.

I stand by my statement, we shouldn’t be using the justice system or the courts as political weapons. It’s an abuse of power.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Where is it written that I need to think like Lasswell. I’m perfectly capable of thinking about this issue on my own. So are you. We shouldn’t be using government institutions as political weapons to be used against political rivals. That’s the thing that folks on the left are going crazy worrying about what Trump might do with such power. Maybe they should read Lasswell. I’m sure that will give them comfort.

I stand by my statement, we shouldn’t be using the justice system or the courts as political weapons. It’s an abuse of power.

I disagree. In fact, you support the party that has a president-elect ready to tap Kash Patel- a man who has vowed retribution through the legal system for Trump's opponents- as head of the FBI.

 

[TampaJoe]

I disagree. In fact, you support the party that has a president-elect ready to tap Kash Patel- a man who has vowed retribution through the legal system for Trump's opponents- as head of the FBI.

Actually I have not and did not support Trump. Do you support using the DOJ and other government institutions as political weapons?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Actually I have not and did not support Trump. Do you support using the DOJ and other government institutions as political weapons?

No. And I don't care if you support Trump or not, you support the party he leads. There's no meaningful difference there.

 

[TampaJoe]

No. And I don't care if you support Trump or not, you support the party he leads. There's no meaningful difference there.

Yes there is a difference. But if you need to believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an “Trumper” that’s your problem. That’s your disconnect. Talk about meaningless points.

At least we can agree that government and its institutions should not be used as political weapons to be used by those in power against their political rivals. There’s that.

 

[Dragon]

Yes there is a difference. But if you need to believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an “Trumper” that’s your problem. That’s your disconnect. Talk about meaningless points.

At least we can agree that government and its institutions should not be used as political weapons to be used by those in power against their political rivals. There’s that.

But do we also agree that crime should be punished—even if the criminal is a politician? The evidence against Trump in multiple cases is overwhelming, and in most other democracies, elected leaders are held accountable for their actions. It’s deeply troubling that Trump’s election victory seems to act as a "get out of jail free" card. That is not equality under the law.

Trump attempted to overturn a lawful election. He pressured officials in Georgia to "find" just enough votes to swing the result. He was involved in the fake elector scheme. He stole and retained classified documents, even bragging about it on tape. He also falsified business records to cover up hush money payments.

So, is the United States truly a country where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law?

 

[bird]

Where is it written that I need to think like Lasswell. I’m perfectly capable of thinking about this issue on my own. So are you. We shouldn’t be using government institutions as political weapons to be used against political rivals. That’s the thing that folks on the left are going crazy worrying about what Trump might do with such power. Maybe they should read Lasswell. I’m sure that will give them comfort.

I stand by my statement, we shouldn’t be using the justice system or the courts as political weapons. It’s an abuse of power.

Your entire statement is pointless. Nobody has used the justice system or the courts as political weapons ie “lawfare”. The Right has certainly claimed that Trump was a victim of this non-existent action. Your statement shows, in a passive-aggressive manner, that you agree with that sentiment. You even pointed out that the financial fraud claim charges were misdemeanors which underscores your belief that Trump was a victim of lawfare. That claim is false.

Beyond that several recent SCOTUS decisions are examples of extreme politization of the court. The most egregious are the Dobbs decision, the cake baker decision (which was a fraud perpetrated on the court) and the website decision (which could alsobe considered a fraud).

 

[bird]

He wouldn’t have got away with it. The Supreme Court would have expeditiously informed Pence his only role is to simply count the votes. If he refused then the President Pro Tem would count.

The states certify the votes. The count is a formality. The twelfth amendment is clear on certification and counting. Congress rather stupidly believes they have a role and can dispute the count.

Your faith in the SCOTUS as currently comprised is not a good position. There is no evidence to support your assertion.

 

[TampaJoe]

Your entire statement is pointless. Nobody has used the justice system or the courts as political weapons ie “lawfare”. The Right has certainly claimed that Trump was a victim of this non-existent action. Your statement shows, in a passive-aggressive manner, that you agree with that sentiment. You even pointed out that the financial fraud claim charges were misdemeanors which underscores your belief that Trump was a victim of lawfare. That claim is false.

Beyond that several recent SCOTUS decisions are examples of extreme politization of the court. The most egregious are the Dobbs decision, the cake baker decision (which was a fraud perpetrated on the court) and the website decision (which could alsobe considered a fraud).

Well then I guess those folks on the left who are worried about Trump using the DOJ and the courts are just worrying about nothing.

 

[TampaJoe]

But do we also agree that crime should be punished—even if the criminal is a politician? The evidence against Trump in multiple cases is overwhelming, and in most other democracies, elected leaders are held accountable for their actions. It’s deeply troubling that Trump’s election victory seems to act as a "get out of jail free" card. That is not equality under the law.

Trump attempted to overturn a lawful election. He pressured officials in Georgia to "find" just enough votes to swing the result. He was involved in the fake elector scheme. He stole and retained classified documents, even bragging about it on tape. He also falsified business records to cover up hush money payments.

So, is the United States truly a country where everyone is equal in the eyes of the law?

I do agree that crime should be punished regardless of status. There’s a difference between that and targeting people for political purposes. Bringing charges or filing suits that would not have otherwise been filed. Making something out of nothing for political gain. That’s what lawfare looks like.

Instead of going after the man for treason or sedition or collusion with a foreign power, they spent all their dry power on 3 misdemeanor reporting violations and fabricating a fraud case where there were no fraud victims and no reliance on the documents in question was ever proved.

I wouldn’t agree with such tactics if it were perpetuated by a Republican administration and I won’t agree with such tactics by a Democrat administration. It’s an abuse of power. All it did was give Trump a legitimate gripe that he was being targeted by his political rivals. I don’t like the man but I agree that he was targeted. My hope is that he won’t return the favor. I don’t know about you but I’m tired of all this BS. Seems to me the country has better things to be spending time worrying about.

 

[RobF]

Instead of going after the man for treason or sedition or collusion with a foreign power, they spent all their dry power on 3 misdemeanor reporting violations and fabricating a fraud case where there were no fraud victims and no reliance on the documents in question was ever proved.

No, Joe. The fabrications were the - to quote from the ruling which I have read but you plainly haven't - "blatantly false financial data" submitted to Trump's accountants and the "fraudulent financial statements" resulting from them.

And to be absolutely blunt, I genuinely don't think anyone can seriously argue that it's not fraud to lie to secure deals and loans.

So when someone repeatedly goes out of their way to do so, while simultaneously insisting that they "don't like the man" they're bizarrely defending, one has to assume that they do, in fact, like the man. And just don't want to admit it

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Well then I guess those folks on the left who are worried about Trump using the DOJ and the courts are just worrying about nothing.

Except that Trump has already said he wants to do these things.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes there is a difference. But if you need to believe that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is an “Trumper” that’s your problem. That’s your disconnect. Talk about meaningless points.

At least we can agree that government and its institutions should not be used as political weapons to be used by those in power against their political rivals. There’s that.

You support the GOP. Trump controls the GOP. You support the party controlled by Trump. How do you not see that as de facto support of Trump? That's like saying you can't stand Bill Gates but are a diehard Microsoft fanboy. Supporting the organization is supporting the individual, period.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I do agree that crime should be punished regardless of status. There’s a difference between that and targeting people for political purposes. Bringing charges or filing suits that would not have otherwise been filed. Making something out of nothing for political gain. That’s what lawfare looks like.

Instead of going after the man for treason or sedition or collusion with a foreign power, they spent all their dry power on 3 misdemeanor reporting violations and fabricating a fraud case where there were no fraud victims and no reliance on the documents in question was ever proved.

I wouldn’t agree with such tactics if it were perpetuated by a Republican administration and I won’t agree with such tactics by a Democrat administration. It’s an abuse of power. All it did was give Trump a legitimate gripe that he was being targeted by his political rivals. I don’t like the man but I agree that he was targeted. My hope is that he won’t return the favor. I don’t know about you but I’m tired of all this BS. Seems to me the country has better things to be spending time worrying about.

What part of the process do you think went wrong? I assume you don't believe that a President is above the law, so that must mean you believe either the judicial process was not followed correctly, or there is something not right with it... what is it?

Trump clearly commited fraud with the banks. It seems weird to defend that as extraneous. He also was the unindicted co-conspirator in Cohen's case, something Cohen went to jail for. It seems more likely that he was given more leeway than the average person because of his political status and not the other way around.

 

[bird]

Well then I guess those folks on the left who are worried about Trump using the DOJ and the courts are just worrying about nothing.

Well, you guess wrong. Trump is appointing a head of the FBI that it appears will be following through on attacking people on an “Enemies List”. That is the very definition of weaponization.

 

[superchuck500]

Except that Trump has already said he wants to do these things.

And intends to appoint people to those positions who have said the same.

That's the difference. Trump's criminal prosecutions were based on legitimate investigations of his law-breaking . . . some of which was obvious and none of which he ever denied, at least as to the conduct. He only denied that he should be prosecuted for it.

If you're a rule of law person, you welcome prosecutions of law-breakers, regardless of their political party. The difference is that MAGA places all value on loyalty and partisanship, it excuses any lawbreaking and views any prosecution of a MAGA loyalist as political.

Investigations should be based on probable cause to believe crimes were committed - and not for political purposes. I think part of the problem with Trump is that he's always been someone who operates in gray areas, pushes boundaries, and believes that he can overcome anything thrown against him - including a valid criminal prosecution. It's who he is - and when prosecutors see that kind of person, they want to have accountability. It's in their nature.

 

[TampaJoe]

No, Joe. The fabrications were the - to quote from the ruling which I have read but you plainly haven't - "blatantly false financial data" submitted to Trump's accountants and the "fraudulent financial statements" resulting from them.

And to be absolutely blunt, I genuinely don't think anyone can seriously argue that it's not fraud to lie to secure deals and loans.

So when someone repeatedly goes out of their way to do so, while simultaneously insisting that they "don't like the man" they're bizarrely defending, one has to assume that they do, in fact, like the man. And just don't want to admit it

Tell you what Rob. Go talk to people who actually do these deals and ask them how it works.

In order for there to be fraud, there has to be damages. Somebody has to rely on the information to their detriment. Real Estate Developers always believe their property is under valued. That’s why banks do their own due diligence. That’s why lenders get independent appraisals. That’s why property tax appraisers reach their own conclusions independently of the developer. That’s why bank examiners look to the underlying documents and due diligence when evaluating loans.

So when I hear folks talking about fraud and they can’t produce a witness that relied on a financial document to their detriment, I question whether there is fraud in the first place.

I have actually been involved, on more than one occasion, of cases of criminal fraud. I have several years of experience in real estate transactions. I can tell you that no commercial lender is going to loan large amounts of money secured by real estate without doing their own independent due diligence. To do otherwise, risks having a bank examiner forcing the bank to reserve for the loan. I haven’t met a banker that blows off that kind of risk.

But you think what you want. Up to you. But I would suggest you speak to someone who has actually done these deals and ask them if they relied on the developers financial statement to arrive at the loan amount or the interest rate.