This may be the biggest accounting fraud in history

[*bfine32*]

Seems Maxine Waters might need to brush up on when the Government Nationalized the Student loan program:

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

Quote:Waters, the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, posed her questions to a panel of seven CEOs of America's largest banks in a hearing reviewing their activities since the 2008 financial crisis.

"What are you guys doing to help us with this student loan debt?" Waters asked. "Who would like to answer first? Mr. Monahan, big bank."

"We stopped making student loans in 2007 or so,"said Bank of America CEO Brian Monahan.

"Oh, so you don't do it anymore," Waters said, before turning to Citigroup CEO Michael Corbat.

"We exited student lending in 2009," he said.

She posed the same question to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who explained, "When the government took over student lending in 2010 or so, we stopped doing all student lending."

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2019, 01:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems Maxine Waters might need to brush up on when the Government Nationalized the Student loan program:

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

LOL

Maxine Waters is a fruit loop. She's like the Democrat's version of Trump only less embarrassing and minus black Sharpie markers, sexual assaults, bankruptcies, golden showers, fake Civil War battlefields, accusations of windmill cancer, bone spurs, arguments with Gold Star families and former POWs, and less friends among Russian and North Korean autocrats.

But, I think you mean the WSJ's editorial board needs to be reminded of when these nifty programs were created since they are the ones who stated 2012, not Maxine Waters. If you're going to point to what was in the article, right?

You also missed that 3 of 4 CEOs stated they had stopped giving student loans prior to 2010. So much for that alleged government bailout of private lenders. Which suggests the only fraud we have uncovered so far is the allegation of a government bailout of private lenders preventing them from making loans your source indicates they were no longer making anyway by their own admission.

Go fish.

[*bfine32*]

(09-11-2019, 03:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: LOL

Maxine Waters is a fruit loop. She's like the Democrat's version of Trump only less embarrassing and minus black Sharpie markers, sexual assaults, bankruptcies, golden showers, fake Civil War battlefields, accusations of windmill cancer, bone spurs, arguments with Gold Star families and former POWs, and less friends among Russian and North Korean autocrats.

But, I think you mean the WSJ's editorial board needs to be reminded of when these nifty programs were created since they are the ones who stated 2012, not Maxine Waters. If you're going to point to what was in the article, right?

You also missed that 3 of 4 CEOs stated they had stopped giving student loans prior to 2010. So much for that alleged government bailout of private lenders. Which suggests the only fraud we have uncovered so far is the allegation of a government bailout of private lenders preventing them from making loans your source indicates they were no longer making anyway by their own admission.

Go fish.

Oh, we read different articles; so that explains the confusion. The Article I read said it was established, created, formed, voted for,.....in 2010 and expanded in 2012.

WTS, all of this came about by your asking where was this fraud and I pointed to it being enacted during a Democratic controlled Congress and Executive Branch, misrepresenting the benefit, and perhaps inflating the profitability (Accounting Fraud) to the American people. You balked at that idea because you said WSJ stated it was brought into legislature in 2012.

As to the Walters article: I missed nothing.

It's too hot to fish today. I think I'll just go for a horse ride.

[Belsnickel]

I find it interesting all of these banks saying they got out of student loans when there is still a substantial portion, and a growing one, of student loans that are provided by private lenders. It also seems, though, that given the majority of those folks saying they had gotten out prior to the 2010 expansion of the direct loan program that maybe the expansion was a reactive one in part because of those companies exiting the program.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2019, 07:55 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I find it interesting all of these banks saying they got out of student loans when there is still a substantial portion, and a growing one, of student loans that are provided by private lenders. It also seems, though, that given the majority of those folks saying they had gotten out prior to the 2010 expansion of the direct loan program that maybe the expansion was a reactive one in part because of those companies exiting the program.

If that were the main reason for Nationalizing the system wouldn't that add to the charges of accounting fraud?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-11-2019, 05:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, we read different articles; so that explains the confusion. The Article I read said it was established, created, formed, voted for,.....in 2010 and expanded in 2012.

WTS, all of this came about by your asking where was this fraud and I pointed to it being enacted during a Democratic controlled Congress and Executive Branch, misrepresenting the benefit, and perhaps inflating the profitability (Accounting Fraud) to the American people. You balked at that idea because you said WSJ stated it was brought into legislature in 2012.

As to the Walters article: I missed nothing.

It's too hot to fish today. I think I'll just go for a horse ride.

I read the actual WSJ editorial and you read an article about the WSJ article.  

Yes, I asked where the fraud was and you have yet to show any.  If the CBO makes a projection that turns out to be incorrect that's not accounting fraud.  Furthermore, the CBO projected a surplus of $114 billion from federal student loans in 2017, $8.7 billion in 2018, and $-31 billion in 2019.  Or a net change of $145 billion from surplus to deficit since Trump became president.  Now the government is considering selling off the debt, but any lenders considering buying the debt would want favorable conditions.  So if there is any sort of "collusion" I would point the finger at the Amway queen and the founder of Trump University looking to buy that debt to make a buck off of it.  But, of course, let's blame Obama for the CBO projection in 2017.

I've also tracked down the 2010 bill in question; Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, since the WSJ didn't give any specifics.  In section 4 of the bill, earmarks for savings are prohibited.  In section 5, any savings will be applied to deficit reduction.  Which means any claims by the WSJ or others that any savings from this bill are earmarked for Obamacare are unequivocally false.

In 2012, Congress enacted income based repayment plans and pay as you earn plans.  These don't pay for Obamacare either, but they do include debt forgiveness after paying for 20-25 years.  Possibly debt forgiveness for those that choose public service and the military option, but I'm not sure about these last two and I've spent too much time already trying to find actual facts instead of unfounded opinions and outright lies so I'm not going to verify the last part.

Also, there was no "nationalization" of the markets.  In 2010, the federal government offered direct loans instead of private loans guaranteed by the federal government.  Student loans from private lenders are still available although usually at higher interests rates.

So basically the WSJ editorial is a bunch of Wall Street advocates advocating for Wall Street and their readers believing everything they write without corroborating information.  Basically fake news, without the news since this is an editorial.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-12-2019, 10:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If that were the main reason for Nationalizing the system wouldn't that add to the charges of accounting fraud?

Explain nationalizing the system.

[Belsnickel]

(09-12-2019, 10:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If that were the main reason for Nationalizing the system wouldn't that add to the charges of accounting fraud?

In what way?

[GMDino]

(09-12-2019, 12:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In what way?

"Obama" 

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2019, 12:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In what way?

Because if the true reason they Nationalized the program was because private lenders were getting out of the market and you tell the American people the reason you're doing it because it's a business model that can earn us Millions of dollars; then you are purposely misleading the American people.

IMO that would prove the intent that I have said was missing to assert accounting fraud.

GMDino Wrote:"Obama" 

As constructive as usual.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2019, 10:24 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I read the actual WSJ editorial and you read an article about the WSJ article.  

Yes, I asked where the fraud was and you have yet to show any.  If the CBO makes a projection that turns out to be incorrect that's not accounting fraud.  Furthermore, the CBO projected a surplus of $114 billion from federal student loans in 2017, $8.7 billion in 2018, and $-31 billion in 2019.  Or a net change of $145 billion from surplus to deficit since Trump became president.  Now the government is considering selling off the debt, but any lenders considering buying the debt would want favorable conditions.  So if there is any sort of "collusion" I would point the finger at the Amway queen and the founder of Trump University looking to buy that debt to make a buck off of it.  But, of course, let's blame Obama for the CBO projection in 2017.

I've also tracked down the 2010 bill in question; Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, since the WSJ didn't give any specifics.  In section 4 of the bill, earmarks for savings are prohibited.  In section 5, any savings will be applied to deficit reduction.  Which means any claims by the WSJ or others that any savings from this bill are earmarked for Obamacare are unequivocally false.

In 2012, Congress enacted income based repayment plans and pay as you earn plans.  These don't pay for Obamacare either, but they do include debt forgiveness after paying for 20-25 years.  Possibly debt forgiveness for those that choose public service and the military option, but I'm not sure about these last two and I've spent too much time already trying to find actual facts instead of unfounded opinions and outright lies so I'm not going to verify the last part.

Also, there was no "nationalization" of the markets.  In 2010, the federal government offered direct loans instead of private loans guaranteed by the federal government.  Student loans from private lenders are still available although usually at higher interests rates.

So basically the WSJ editorial is a bunch of Wall Street advocates advocating for Wall Street and their readers believing everything they write without corroborating information.  Basically fake news, without the news since this is an editorial.

Of course it was an OP-ED. Did I ever state otherwise. You've asked a question "Where's the fraud"? and I provided an answer "Misrepresentation of financial stability/profit?" That has lead to a couple pages of White Noise. Let just end with; "You're Right" The WSJ is wrong.

[GMDino]

(09-12-2019, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because if the true reason they Nationalized the program was because private lenders were getting out of the market and you tell the American people the reason you're doing it because it's a business model that can earn us Millions of dollars; then you are purposely misleading the American people.

IMO that would prove the intent that I have said was missing to assert accounting fraud.


As constructive as usual.

  = joke

Just like the the title/premise of the thread.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2019, 04:39 PM)GMDino Wrote:   = joke

Nah....

GMDino post = joke

Feel free to ignore the WSJ if you find their articles to be jokes

[GMDino]

(09-12-2019, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nah....

GMDino post = joke

Feel free to ignore the WSJ if you find their articles to be jokes

Just the op-eds. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-12-2019, 04:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because if the true reason they Nationalized the program was because private lenders were getting out of the market and you tell the American people the reason you're doing it because it's a business model that can earn us Millions of dollars; then you are purposely misleading the American people.

IMO that would prove the intent that I have said was missing to assert accounting fraud.

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.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-12-2019, 04:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course it was an OP-ED. Did I ever state otherwise. You've asked a question "Where's the fraud"? and I provided an answer "Misrepresentation of financial stability/profit?" That has lead to a couple pages of White Noise. Let just end with; "You're Right" The WSJ is wrong.

So Trump is guilty of fraud during 2016, 2017, and 2018 for misrepresentation of profit? Or are we blaming Obama for that, too?

Explain what nationalizing the system means.

[*bfine32*]

(09-12-2019, 07:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1) So Trump is guilty of fraud during 2016, 2017, and 2018 for misrepresentation of profit? Or are we blaming Obama for that, too?

2) Explain what nationalizing the system means.

1) I get you wanting to make this thread about Trump, but it's not. IDK about "blaming Obama" but it seems most are questioning the administration. 

2) I'm going to go with you're smart enough to read what happened in 2010 for yourself. I have 0 interest in engaging in another couple pages of a feeble "gotcha" attempt. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-12-2019, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1) I get you wanting to make this thread about Trump, but it's not. IDK about "blaming Obama" but it seems most are questioning the administration. 

So according to bfine logic, CBO projects a profit during Obama's presidency=accounting fraud. But, CBO projects a profit during Trump's presidency=/=accounting fraud.

It's not about me making it about Trump because I haven't accused anyone of fraud. It's about you making it about Obama. Because the CBO made the same economic projections during both administrations. But, I understand your aversion to "gotcha" attempts won't allow you to acknowledge basics, verifiable facts.

Quote:2) I'm going to go with you're smart enough to read what happened in 2010 for yourself. I have 0 interest in engaging in another couple pages of a feeble "gotcha" attempt. 

Yeah that's a helluva a lot easier than providing an explanation.

Since you make the mistake of answering questions let's try this: explain nationalizationing the market . . . what for it . . . ? There it is.

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2019, 12:12 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So according to bfine logic, CBO projects a profit during Obama's presidency=accounting fraud. But, CBO projects a profit during Trump's presidency=/=accounting fraud.

It's not about me making it about Trump because I haven't accused anyone of fraud. It's about you making it about Obama. Because the CBO made the same economic projections during both administrations. But, I understand your aversion to "gotcha" attempts won't allow you to acknowledge basics, verifiable facts.


Yeah that's a helluva a lot easier than providing an explanation.

Since you make the mistake of answering questions let's try this: explain nationalizationing the market . . . what for it . . . ? There it is.

bfine made no such assertion; nor did bfine make it about Obama. bfine posted an OPED by WSJ that questioned a decision made by the Obama administration and disputed the assertion that it was Accounting Fraud without the proof of intent. But don't let that simple fact stop you from writing a lot of words and telling folks about my logic and how I was wrong.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-13-2019, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: bfine made no such assertion; nor did bfine make it about Obama. bfine posted an OPED by WSJ that questioned a decision made by the Obama administration and disputed the assertion that it was Accounting Fraud without the proof of intent. But don't let that simple fact stop you from writing a lot of words and telling folks about my logic and how I was wrong.

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.