301d
@mott-the-hoople saidHey! Shyt for brains! Now answer Marauder’s response to your question, you stupid fukking weasle.
quote the law
@shavixmir saidShag doody for brains don't try to pass your name to someone else, own it, wear it with pride, it's yours, you earned it.
Hey! Shyt for brains! Now answer Marauder’s response to your question, you stupid fukking weasle.
301d
@wajoma said"Due diligence" was Trump's defence. The judge ruled that that does not excuse Trump's lies.
Banks do their own due diligence on loans that size, are they complaining?
As for under valuing for tax purposes, I recommend everyone do that.
So, you're advocating that people break the law. Incitement .... much.
@wajoma saidYou're dodging.
Banks do their own due diligence. Is the bank filing against trump.
We can take it they know better how to run a bank than you or vivfy.
As for undervaluing for tax purposes the goobermint does this because if they tried to peg it to the constantly changing market value they'd be inundated with complaints and appeals, it's well known they play a value versus appeals gam ...[text shortened]... y want to rape rate payers as much as possible but there's a line at which they start to lose again.
Do you favor government intervention against fraud? A "Yes" or "No" will do.
The banks can't file because they were not the ones damaged. That was others who would have obtained loans but were prevented from doing so because of Trump's fraud. And they, not being parties to the fraud tainted transactions, were in no position to do "due diligence" regarding them.
So that is why government must step in or Trump will profit by and others will suffer because of Trump's fraud.
301d
@no1marauder saidApparently, Trump thinks it was a victimless crime and refused to accept he did anything wrong. Pathological lack of contrition, the judge wrote.
You're dodging.
Do you favor government intervention against fraud? A "Yes" or "No" will do.
The banks can't file because they were not the ones damaged. That was others who would have obtained loans but were prevented from doing so because of Trump's fraud. And they, not being parties to the fraud tainted transactions, were in no position to do "due diligence" reg ...[text shortened]... why government must step in or Trump will profit by and others will suffer because of Trump's fraud.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
301d
@no1marauder saidit is not a crime to evaluate your own property, keep trying
"12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an order enjoining the ...[text shortened]... the attorney general under this section."
https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/executive-law/exc-sect-63/
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
301d
@shavixmir saidone of your clique having a hard time? 😂
Hey! Shyt for brains! Now answer Marauder’s response to your question, you stupid fukking weasle.
301d
@mott-the-hoople saidThis wasn't a criminal trial.
it is not a crime to evaluate your own property, keep trying
It is fraud to submit documents that you know are false to obtain a financial benefit.
@no1marauder saidJust comment on that limited premise, I don't agree that loan money is limited. For anyone who is on sound financial footing and needs financing, there's a bank out there that will give it to them. Banks are constantly advertising and give huge incentives to their brokers to close loans.
Loan money is limited. Those who fraudulently obtain loans they otherwise could not get are cheating those who actually abide by the laws.
Nobody walks into a bank and asks for a loan that they're qualified for and is a good actuarial bet and gets told "sorry, we gave our last dollar to Joe." And if by some chance that did happen, there would be another bank down the block (or Google page) that would be happy to step in.
@sh76 saidThat's absurd. Every single bank is limited in how much it can loan out based on its reserves:
Just comment on that limited premise, I don't agree that loan money is limited. For anyone who is on sound financial footing and needs financing, there's a bank out there that will give it to them. Banks are constantly advertising and give huge incentives to their brokers to close loans.
Nobody walks into a bank and asks for a loan that they're qualified for and is a good act ...[text shortened]... happen, there would be another bank down the block (or Google page) that would be happy to step in.
"The reserve requirement is another tool that the Fed has at its disposal to control liquidity in the financial system. By reducing the reserve requirement, the Fed is executing an expansionary monetary policy, and conversely, when it raises the requirement, it's exercising a contractionary monetary policy. This latter action cuts liquidity and causes a cool down in the economy.
In other words, when the Fed raises reserve requirements, banks have less to lend out to consumers and businesses. That in turn raises interest rates. When the Fed drops reserve requirements, the opposite happens: Interest rates fall."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/requiredreserves.asp#What%20Are%20Reserve%20Requirements?
Your idea that there is an unlimited ability to make loans is not reflexive of the real world or of actual banking practices. By your logic, the Fed's raising or lowering the reserve requirement would have zero effect on lending which is clearly not true.
301d
@no1marauder saidThe marginal difference manifests itself in loans that generally shouldn't be made in the first place. Irresponsible loan origination is what caused the financial crisis of 2008 (it was primarily the fault of the investment banks and not the borrowers, but that's beside the point).
That's absurd. Every single bank is limited in how much it can loan out based on its reserves:
"The reserve requirement is another tool that the Fed has at its disposal to control liquidity in the financial system. By reducing the reserve requirement, the Fed is executing an expansionary monetary policy, and conversely, when it raises the requirement, it's exercis ...[text shortened]... ing or lowering the reserve requirement would have zero effect on lending which is clearly not true.
If anything, anything that limits actuarily unsound loans is a good thing.
Of course, in a country that's run up $34 Trillion in debt, people can hardly be blamed for following its government's example and engaging in their own irresponsible deficit spending. But I'm not going to cry because the Donald convinced a bank to lend him money that might otherwise have gone to actuarily unsound loans.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
301d
@no1marauder saidwho presented documents they knew were false?
This wasn't a criminal trial.
It is fraud to submit documents that you know are false to obtain a financial benefit.
and fraud is a crime
301d
@Wajoma
You really don't get it. It is against the law to perpetrate fraud, no matter what the bank says or does.
If I cop grandmas debit card and suck out a thousand bucks from her account and the cops find out, they charge me with theft no matter what granny says, it is still theft and the banks giving a deal and anyone else would have paid twice the interest means the bank is out that amount of money when forensics shows they made a deal based on fraudulent property value. When Trump values Mar A Lago at one billion dollars for the purposes of getting a loan but a few months later the tax bill is due and all of a sudden it is worth only 10 million, that is fraud no matter how you want to parse it. You just can't protect a known grifter, there is no defense for that willful act.