This may be the biggest accounting fraud in history

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2019, 06:56 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Except that the information they were basing the assertion that it would earn money was based on a statement from a nonpartisan governmental agency over which neither Congress nor the White House had any authority. Were it fraud of any sort it would need to be proven that there was undue influence on the CBO in producing those figures from someone. As this time, there is no evidence of anyone doing such a thing.

i'm looking at this through a COSO lens as that is my job now, internal control/risk management. It is my job to find fraud in a public sector agency. Albeit I don't have all the information, nothing being presented here is evidence of any sort of fraud on its face. There is a risk in that Congress has passed a law making CBOs estimates not as conservative as they ought to be with these sorts of things, but that can't be considered fraud as it is law and it can definitely not be laid at the feet of the prior administration or the Democrats in Congress at the time as the law was passed in 1990.

It is exactly why I keep saying we would have to show intent. Stating a reason other than your actual reason for having America assume the financial risk (as you asserted as a possibility) would be more easily associate with fraud than simply over-estimating your profits. I appreciate your expertise in the field but business finance is not something I'm ignorant of.   

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2019, 12:29 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, here we go again.  The problem with this argument is you have repeatedly agreed with the WSJ since you started this thread and you further went on to suggest other reasons why it was accounting fraud that have nothing to due with actual accounting fraud.  But, the most important underlying reasons to the WSJ's accusation of fraud (and your agreement with their accusation) are the CBO's projections showing billions in profit.  If that is the case, and it is, then Trump would have to be involved in fraud because the CBO's projections during the Trump administration showed billions in profit, also.  But, neither the WSJ or you will acknowledge this because then the entire argument is moot because the WSJ editorial board isn't going to accuse the Trump administration of accounting fraud based upon those CBO projections showing billions in profits during his tenure . . . like they did with the Obama administration.  They certainly wouldn't have made false accusations those billions were going to fund Obamacare during Trump's tenure like they did with Obama.  It's like peeling an onion of bullshit.  Just bullshit layered upon bullshit revealing more bullshit underneath.

So where does that leave us?  With a Robert Murdoch owned newspaper with a conservative editorial board making false accusations to whip their conservative base into a lather against the dirty liberals.  I'm surprised they missed the opportunity to throw the word "socialism" in there somewhere.

Also, your fake moral outrage didn't distract me from the fact you still haven't explained what nationalizing the market is supposed to mean.

I stopped right there as I felt no longer compelled to read the rest of made up accusations. From the very beginning I have said we would have to establish intent. Never had I said "The WSJ is right!! This is the biggest account fraud in history" no matter how badly you want me to have said it so you can save face from your ridiculous 2012 assertion.

Now if you'll excuse me Matt and I might be discussing the actual situation.  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-13-2019, 12:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is exactly why I keep saying we would have to show intent. Stating a reason other than your actual reason for having America assume the financial risk (as you asserted as a possibility) would be more easily associate with fraud than simply over-estimating your profits. I appreciate your expertise in the field but business finance is not something I'm ignorant of.   

Except the loans were already guaranteed by the federal government.  Meaning what?  Meaning "America" already assumed the financial risk, not the private lender.  Because the lender was guaranteed to recoup their money from the federal government if the borrower failed to pay.

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2019, 12:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Except the loans were already guaranteed by the federal government.  Meaning what?  Meaning "America" already assumed the financial risk, not the private lender.  Because the lender was guaranteed to recoup their money from the federal government if the borrower failed to pay.

Meaning the private lender was out 3% of the principle owed. Why do you think private lenders were getting out prior to 2010. Because you cannot make money recouping only 97% of your principle. You lose money. Private lenders were figuring this out. Now here's where 2012 comes in. The government made it easier to qualify for loans that were already being shown to cost money.   

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-13-2019, 12:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I stopped right there as I felt no longer compelled to read the rest of made up accusations. From the very beginning I have said we would have to establish intent. Never had I said "The WSJ is right!! This is the biggest account fraud in history" no matter how badly you want me to have said it so you can save face from your ridiculous 2012 assertion.

Now if you'll excuse me Matt and I might be discussing the actual situation.  

Too bad you stopped right there because you missed some really informative shit.

It wasn't my ridiculous 2012 assertion, it was the WSJ's ridiculous 2012 assertion these "nifty" plans were created in 2012.  I even provided the actual quote and a link to the actual WSJ editorial rather than an article about the article.  Scroll back if you need to jog your memory. Unlike the WSJ, I did the work of specifying the programs which were passed in 2010 and 2012.  Furthermore, I specified the sections of the act that prohibited the profits from being earmarked for Obamacare and any profits would be applied to deficit reduction which directly contradict the WSJ's lies.

It's also undeniably true the House of Representatives was controlled by the Republicans during the 112th Congress who approved modifications to these "nifty" programs WHICH STILL DON'T PAY FOR OBAMACARE.

From the beginning you have agreed with the WSJ's rationale; the CBO reports and paying for Obamacare.  The former applies to both the Obama and Trump administrations.  The latter is demonstrably false.  You have also suggested other reasons to support the accusation of accounting fraud.  You took it a step further suggesting "collusion."  LOL Nice use of a popular buzzword, by the way.  You can't honestly suggest there was accounting fraud multiple times then claim you never said that and expect the denial to be taken seriously.

How 'bout we segue into: explain nationalizing the market?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-13-2019, 01:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Meaning the private lender was out 3% of the principle owed. Why do you think private lenders were getting out prior to 2010. Because you cannot make money recouping only 97% of your principle. You lose money. Private lenders were figuring this out. Now here's where 2012 comes in. The government made it easier to qualify for loans that were already being shown to cost money.   

Let's use your Maxine Water's source . . .

https://freebeacon.com/politics/waters-unaware-the-federal-government-nationalized-student-loans-in-2010/

Quote:Waters then changed the subject small business, asking CEOs why they have not lent more to small businesses since the financial crisis.

There was this thing called a financial crisis of 2007-2008 which directly led to this other thing called the Great Recession caused by these private lenders knowingly making bad loans and knowingly selling derivatives based upon these bad loans which led to them being bailed out by the government.  What happens to credit during a recession?  It dries up.  At that time, they were lending less money across the board because they screwed up not just the lending business, but the whole global economy.  

In 2008, Bank of America and Citigroup each received a $20 billion government bailout while JP Morgan Chase received a $12 billion government bailout.  Kinda hard for those private lenders who were flat broke and on the verge of collapse to loan students money and tell them to be responsible for their debts while simultaneously receiving a Welfare check from the government because they themselves weren't responsible for their debts. If you're wondering why I chose those three check your Maxine Waters link.

Now, I need to see where you're getting that 97% figure.  Just like I needed to see where the WSJ's info came from about student loans paying for Obamacare which ultimately proved to be completely false.  There has been enough misleading or out right false information coming out of this WSJ article that I need to see evidence to believe otherwise.

And . . . explain nationalizing the market?

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2019, 04:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Let's use your Maxine Water's source . . .

https://freebeacon.com/politics/waters-unaware-the-federal-government-nationalized-student-loans-in-2010/


There was this thing called a financial crisis of 2007-2008 which directly led to this other thing called the Great Recession caused by these private lenders knowingly making bad loans and knowingly selling derivatives based upon these bad loans which led to them being bailed out by the government.  What happens to credit during a recession?  It dries up.  At that time, they were lending less money across the board because they screwed up not just the lending business, but the whole global economy.  

Now, I need to see where you're getting that 97% figure.  Just like I needed to see where the WSJ's info came from about student loans paying for Obamacare which ultimately proved to be completely false.  There has been enough misleading or out right false information coming out of this WSJ article that I need to see evidence to believe otherwise.

And . . . explain nationalizing the market?

I have grown tired. But as a farewell gift:

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-federally-guaranteed-student-loan.html

Hopefully answers your 97% question:

Quote:The Guaranteed Student Loan Program (FFELs)

Quote:Under the guaranteed student loan program, private lenders—including Sallie Mae and commercial banks—issued student loans that were guaranteed by the federal government. Guaranteed loans are also called Federal Family Education Loans (FFELs). Here's how the "guarantee" works:
If a borrower defaults on a guaranteed loan, the federal government pays the bank and takes over the loan. The federal government pays approximately 97% of the principal balance to the lender. At that point the federal government owns the loan and the right to collect payments on the loan.

Hopefully answers you quest to have Nationalization explained:

Quote:The Direct Student Loan Program

Quote:Prior to June 30, 2010, lenders issued federal student loans either as guaranteed student loans or as “direct” student loans. Direct loans are issued directly by the federal government. Whether you received guaranteed or direct loans depended on which loan program your school signed up for.


After June 30, 2010, you can only get a federal student loan under the direct student loan program. A direct loan is made directly from the federal government to students. The federal government contracts with loan servicers to handle day-to-day loan management.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-13-2019, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have grown tired.

I can imagine.  Carrying all that water for the WSJ.

Quote:But as a farewell gift:

Farewell?  You getting ready to leave work and head home for the weekend?

Quote:https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-federally-guaranteed-student-loan.html

Hopefully answers your 97% question:

Thank you.  See? That wasn't so hard.  But, private lenders would only be getting back a 97% return if every student paid back $0.00 on every loan.  That's why banks charge interest on loans; to cover their losses they know will occur despite their best efforts to prevent them.  And 97% is a helluva lot better than an unsecured loan. So at worst they would receive a minimum 97% return on a government guaranteed loan instead of 0% on a non-guaranteed loan.  Boo hoo hoo, cry me a river.  

By the way, that's 97% you don't think tax payers should pay.  Remember?  That's why you're against "nationalizing the market," because the tax payer has to pay on bad loans.  So if you're against federal student loans because the tax payer might foot the bill then simple logic would dictate you would also have to be against federally guaranteed private lender student loans.  Or you would be 97% against each individual federally guaranteed private lender loan.  I'll let you figure it out because you seemed to be a little confused on what you're against.

With this frightening revelation I'd imagine you're pretty close to declaring, "I'm done with this."  Right?

Quote:Hopefully answers you quest to have Nationalization explained:

Thank you.  That wasn't that hard, either.

So you're telling me borrowers can only get federal student loans from the federal government?  But, private lenders are still able and, in fact, do make student loans, just not federally insured student loans.  Huh.  So that would be like the federal government "nationalizing" our  federal government in which our state and local governments would still be able to perform their functions at the state and local level.

HOLY SHIT!!! This means almost every federal program has been nationalized on a national level!  Send up the INFO WARS BAT SHIT CRAZY SIGNAL to alert Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and the team at the WSJ so we can warn all of America of this nefarious plot because we will not stand for our military to be nationalized like the federal government did with federal student loans and LET'S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!!

[GMDino]

Maybe we'll finally see if THIS is the greatest accounting fraud in all of history?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-11/us-appeals-court-upholds-decision-in-trump-accountant-tax-case

Quote:President Donald Trump, under siege from House Democrats weighing impeachment, suffered a stinging blow as a federal appeals court upheld a subpoena ordering his accountants to provide Congress with his financial records.


The ruling, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, means Trump will lose control of his long-secret tax and other business papers at Mazars USA LLP unless the full court reconsiders the decision or the U.S. Supreme Court blocks it. In a 2-1 decision, the judges rejected arguments made by lawyers for the president that the House Oversight and Reform Committee had no legitimate legislative reason to seek the information.

”Disputes between Congress and the president are a recurring plot in our national story,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Tatel wrote in the majority’s 66-page opinion. “And that is precisely what the Framers intended.” He quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said that the purpose of the separation of powers was “to save the people from autocracy.”

The ruling comes just days after Mazars was ordered by a federal district court to turn over his tax filings and other financial records to New York state prosecutors, though the president won a last-minute delay pending an emergency appeal.

Read More: Trump Isn’t Immune From Demand for Tax Records, Judge Rules


Trump, the Trump Organization and the president’s three oldest children have steadfastly refused to surrender their records to Congress. Armed with the documents, Democratic lawmakers will be able to more fully explore any conflicts of interest in the executive branch and whether the president has violated the Constitution’s emoluments clauses.


Opinion: Trump Tax Return Ruling Could Open a Door to Indictment


Lot of Speculation


“There’s a lot of speculation, but it seems that the accounting firm has tax returns and other documents that will show President Trump and his family and associates involved in all sorts of deals,” Washington lawyer David Dorsen, who served as assistant chief counsel to the U.S. Senate’s Watergate Committee in the 1970s, said in an interview before the ruling was issued. Lawmakers will want to know whether documents show “payoffs to people in Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere,” he said.


“That would be an enormous, enormous factor in what’s going on now,” he added.


Congress’s demand for the business records came before it began its official impeachment inquiry. That probe was triggered by a whistle-blower’s claim that Trump asked Ukraine’s president to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and held back military aid Congress had appropriated to resist Russian influence in the region.


But the disclosures made possible by Friday’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington Circuit further pose risks for the president if they raise new questions about Trump, his finances or his company.


“I think that’s the way the framers designed the Constitution,” said Steven Schwinn, a professor at the University of Illinois’s John Marshall Law School in Chicago. “Congress has oversight authority to request information like this, and the president really does not have authority to stonewall.”

The decision by the three-judge panel -- with Democratic appointees, Tatel and Patricia Millett in the majority and one judge Trump named, Neomi Rao, dissenting -- isn’t the last word on the subject. Along with possible appeals in this case, a federal appeals court in New York is weighing a similar request for records from Trump’s bankers at Capital One Financial Corp. and Deutsche Bank AG. The U.S. Supreme Court may eventually weigh in.


Breaking with four decades of presidential tradition, Trump has declined to make his detailed financial records public. Acting in his personal capacity rather than as president, he sued in April to stop Mazars from handing over his records after they had been subpoenaed by the House committee. He lost in federal district court in May and appealed.


Democrats told the appellate panel on July 12 that they need the Trump records as they consider mandating heightened disclosure requirements for those who hold high office. Trump argued that Congress’s request had no legitimate legislative purpose and should be rejected. The accounting firm took no position.


The Mazars case is one of several testing Congress’s power to obtain a sitting president’s financial records in the name of oversight, with significant implications for the relationship between the executive and legislative branches. A ruling in the president’s favor in this case would have been “a very significant change in the balance of power, because it would represent a significant narrowing of congressional subpoena power,” said David Sklansky, a law professor at Stanford University.


The president is also embroiled in lawsuits with the House Ways and Means Committee, which is trying to get six years of Trump tax records from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and has the standing right to request similar information from the state of New York. Meanwhile, the Mazars records have been targeted by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. A federal judge in Manhattan ordered Mazars to comply with the subpoena, but Trump has appealed.


The case is Trump v. Mazars USA LLP, 19-5142, U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (Washington).

[*michaelsean*]

(10-11-2019, 11:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe we'll finally see if THIS is the greatest accounting fraud in all of history?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-11/us-appeals-court-upholds-decision-in-trump-accountant-tax-case

Just to let you know beforehand, it won't be.  He doesn't have enough money to qualify. Think early 2000s for starters. 

[GMDino]

More Trump fraud.

BREAKING: Trump to pay $2 million to settle New York Attorney General civil lawsuit against Trump Foundation and his children, alleging "persistent" violations of charities law, including unlawful coordination with Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.https://t.co/Rmu6nq1jQT

— Polly Sigh (@dcpoll) November 7, 2019

 

[jj22]

This thread didn't turn out well.

It's really hard for people to criticize Obama now given what all they defend Trump on. That's one of the downfalls of what we are seeing in todays Presidency. There's hardly anything Trump defenders/supporters will be able to say about any future President.

I mean they will still try (obviously), but that's why their credibility is in such bad shape.

It's also why they should have never let someone like Trump establish their level of common sense and love for this great Nation. For Trump they love Putin, love Kim, applaud Presidents who call on other Nations to attack Americans and our Democracy, put our enemy's on a pedestal while attacking our allies, all ending in reflection of their character and patriotism.