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.

 

[TampaJoe]

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

What’s worse in your mind. Saying it or actually doing it?

 

[TampaJoe]

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.

I support conservatives. You show me a conservative Democrat and I’ll consider voting for them. If I supported the GOP I would have voted for Trump in the last three elections. That didn’t happen. GOP hardliners don’t like me anymore than the Dem hardliners. I’m not a party guy. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[superchuck500]

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'm confused - what cases are you talking about?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

In order for there to be fraud, there has to be damages.

This is not true. At least not in the way you think. The reason fraud is a crime isn't just because of the direct damages to a particular party, it's also because of the overall erosion of the system and increase in risk.

For example, imagine someone embezzling money. Now, let's say they use that money to gamble (or invest in a side business, or whatever), and it turns out great for them, and they return the money they embezzled before they were caught. Was a crime committed, even though there was no "harm"? Of course.

In the Trm[ case, the victims are other real estate developers who do not lie on their valuations, and did not get as favorable loan terms which makes them less competitive. Also, this type of fraud makes all of us victims, in that, it increases the overall risk of the banking system, making it more likely that banks will fail (incrementall), and our rates increase to cover those losses. The state has a vested interest in preventing this kind of thing.

Should the banks perform due diligence? Of course, but that does not absolve people from willfully lying on their application forms. The banks rely on the overall honesty of those applications to save them money, trusting in the overall system.

Was this as "serious" as trying to overthrow the government? No, but it should also be something that angers people... particularly since Trump's brand was something about fighting against an unfair system, when he was directly benefitting and manipulating that system.

 

[CoolBrees]

i have done these deals.

I have closed on dirt for over a billion including building costs. Multiple times. Never once did the bank conduct an appraisal. Commercial lending is totally different.

They don't conduct an appraisal that is ridiculous. They rely on the performance documents and prospectus provided by the borrower. Inflating the worth of your assets to lower your interest rate is fraud. I don't know where you got the idea that fraud requires an injured party. Fraud is fraud.

But I am seriously wasting my time here so I will just ask two questions-

If there was no fraud, why did his CFO go to prison for lying on financial documents for Trump?

If he wasn't doing anything wrong, why won't a single bank in America lend him money and wouldn't for over 20 years?

 

[superchuck500]

I support conservatives. You show me a conservative Democrat and I’ll consider voting for them. If I supported the GOP I would have voted for Trump in the last three elections. That didn’t happen. GOP hardliners don’t like me anymore than the Dem hardliners. I’m not a party guy. Sorry to disappoint you.

What do you mean when you say "conservative"? I'm asking genuinely - because that word has changed substantially over the past 30 years.

It used to be that a conservative supported a low-intervention/small central government, low-tax, low regulation, environment that encouraged business growth, strength abroad in the name of defense of democracy, and deferential to the constitutional order as the backbone of the country.

Now the banner carriers of the "conservative" movement support a massive interventionist central government, heavily involved in regulation of social issues, punitive environment for businesses that don't tow the social line, generous in support of authoritarian ambitions around the world, and dismissive if not contemptuous of much of the constitutional order.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

What’s worse in your mind. Saying it or actually doing it?

If someone says it, it's reasonable to assume they will try to do it. Which was not done against Trump... he had due process, his political adversaries did not order the investigation, the process was followed.

 

[superchuck500]

Just for the record - Trump was never charged with financial fraud. Trump's businesses were sued under civil statutes for widespread abuses of misrepresenting company financials and company assets to lenders and to taxation entities.

 

[superchuck500]

Back to the topic at hand in this thread - this is an interesting read from the Atlantic today about Elon/Vivek's plans for DOGE. And it makes precisely the point I was making in the pre-election discussion about MAGA designs for dismantling the administrative state. We heard several comments from people like Vivek and MTG that the Supreme Court's rulings about the Chevron doctrine open the door to bring down all sorts of federal regulations - but that's not what it means at all, at least not for a new administration. In fact, the rulings limit or constrain what agencies (i.e. the executive branch) can do for themselves - they are not a source of federal agency authority to change, they are a limitation.

I think Trump II is going to have a major problem in its implementation: Most of the key leaders in this effort have little to no experience in these areas. And it's easy to say you're going to tear down the bureaucracy, but in the US we have a very specific process for administrative law changes - and it requires extensive skill and knowledge of how it works . . . in other words, it requires the very people they vilify.

Musk and Ramaswamy Are Making a Big Mistake

They want to blame the bureaucrats, but they’re going to need those very same bureaucrats if they want to get anything done.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[RobF]

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.

To sum that up, you're essentially arguing that "lying isn't really fraud because the bank you're lying to will probably figure out you're lying."

No.

And seriously. READ THE RULING. https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fb...cumentId=CJKA2EOIiTRatUAYz6FyeA==&system=prod . It addresses everything you're saying. You're arguing from a place of ignorance, and if you don't read it, wilful ignorance.

 

[TampaJoe]

This is not true. At least not in the way you think. The reason fraud is a crime isn't just because of the direct damages to a particular party, it's also because of the overall erosion of the system and increase in risk.

For example, imagine someone embezzling money. Now, let's say they use that money to gamble (or invest in a side business, or whatever), and it turns out great for them, and they return the money they embezzled before they were caught. Was a crime committed, even though there was no "harm"? Of course.

In the Trm[ case, the victims are other real estate developers who do not lie on their valuations, and did not get as favorable loan terms which makes them less competitive. Also, this type of fraud makes all of us victims, in that, it increases the overall risk of the banking system, making it more likely that banks will fail (incrementall), and our rates increase to cover those losses. The state has a vested interest in preventing this kind of thing.

Should the banks perform due diligence? Of course, but that does not absolve people from willfully lying on their application forms. The banks rely on the overall honesty of those applications to save them money, trusting in the overall system.

Was this as "serious" as trying to overthrow the government? No, but it should also be something that angers people... particularly since Trump's brand was something about fighting against an unfair system, when he was directly benefitting and manipulating that system.

Jim,

My answer to you is simple. Embezzlement is theft. The taking of money. That’s the felony. Returning the money doesn’t negate the original crime but rather is a mitigating factor at sentencing.

Fraud is a different felony. There are different elements which must be proven in order for a crime to occur. One element is intent. An intentional misstatement of a material fact. Another element is that said misstatement entices or influences another party to enter into a transaction which is other detriment. In other words, there must be reliance on said misstatement resulting in damages.

Again, no commercial lender will loan any kind of serious money on the developers valuation. We have seen way too many down cycles in commercial real estate over the past 40 years. Bank examiners look for and examine the due diligence performed by lenders. If the due diligence is lacking the bank risks having to reserve for the full amount of the loan and the bank officers risk their jobs.

In the Trump case, there were no victims. Nobody relied on that information. If the bank wants someone to attest to those valuations, they should ask for audited financial statements. In many cases they do and even with audited financial statements they still rely on their own due diligence and independent appraisals and valuations.

 

[TampaJoe]

If someone says it, it's reasonable to assume they will try to do it. Which was not done against Trump... he had due process, his political adversaries did not order the investigation, the process was followed.

Yeah right. So they should sentence him and allow him the right and ability to appeal. After all, that’s part of his due process rights. So let’s let him have due process.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yeah right. So they should sentence him and allow him the right and ability to appeal. After all, that’s part of his due process rights. So let’s let him have due process.

They should probably sentence him, but this is where he gets special treatment.

You still haven't said which part of the process wasn't followed. Or what part of the process is flawed. Your reasoning shouldn't simply be, b/c he was charged with a crime it was therefore a political attack. Otherwise you are saying that no politician can ever be charged.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Jim,

My answer to you is simple. Embezzlement is theft. The taking of money. That’s the felony. Returning the money doesn’t negate the original crime but rather is a mitigating factor at sentencing.

Fraud is a different felony. There are different elements which must be proven in order for a crime to occur. One element is intent. An intentional misstatement of a material fact. Another element is that said misstatement entices or influences another party to enter into a transaction which is other detriment. In other words, there must be reliance on said misstatement resulting in damages.

Again, no commercial lender will loan any kind of serious money on the developers valuation. We have seen way too many down cycles in commercial real estate over the past 40 years. Bank examiners look for and examine the due diligence performed by lenders. If the due diligence is lacking the bank risks having to reserve for the full amount of the loan and the bank officers risk their jobs.

In the Trump case, there were no victims. Nobody relied on that information. If the bank wants someone to attest to those valuations, they should ask for audited financial statements. In many cases they do and even with audited financial statements they still rely on their own due diligence and independent appraisals and valuations.

You seem to be combining a couple of things... he was convicted of falsifying records with the intent to obscure his payments to Stormy Daniels in order to help get him elected. Not just general bank fraud.

But again, your no victims thing is simply not the way the law works - a bank does not need to have directly lost money, they just need to be tricked into taking a deal they otherwise would not have taken b/c the risk profile was too great.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

And I have talked to commercial real estate developers and it isn't uncommon for the banks to rely on the financial statements provided instead of doing a full independent investigation. They rely on the fact that the law is supposed to protect them from people knowingly lying to them.

 

[superchuck500]

And I have talked to commercial real estate developers and it isn't uncommon for the banks to rely on the financial statements provided instead of doing a full independent investigation. They rely on the fact that the law is supposed to protect them from people knowingly lying to them.

As Rob pointed out, the law and rationale behind why the DA's office has an interest in bringing a case (a civil one in that instance) against a large corporate operator in the jurisdiction that is engaged in widespread and substantial misrepresentation and even down-right forgery of financial records in lending, taxation, and other purposes is laid out in the NY judge's post-trial judgment opinion.

But of course, Joe knows better because he's worked in the commercial transaction and lending industry (somewhere?) - and therefore it's all sham because there are no victims, allegedly. He's not really even sure what case he's talking about and certainly off about most of the details - but darnit he's emphatic so he must be right.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

What’s worse in your mind. Saying it or actually doing it?

His nominee to run the FBI has said that he is going to go after Trump's enemies. Do you think that is a bad thing or a good thing?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I support conservatives. You show me a conservative Democrat and I’ll consider voting for them. If I supported the GOP I would have voted for Trump in the last three elections. That didn’t happen. GOP hardliners don’t like me anymore than the Dem hardliners. I’m not a party guy. Sorry to disappoint you.

You support conservatives. Conservatives, by and large, are Republicans. Members of the GOP.

Did you vote for down-ballot Republicans, including Senators and Reps?