Kansas Crimson

Right.
Forgot about that threat too.

Trump's FBI Pick Refuses to Answer Perhaps the Biggest Question of All

Kash Patel skipped over a question about his enemy list during a chilling exchange in his Senate confirmation hearing…

shocker

and fuck chuck grassley for allowing him to move on without answering

Much of this was predictable.

Russell Vought is Trump's nominee for Director of the Office of Management and Budget. His nomination was advanced by Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee last night, with no Democratic votes, because Democrats are so appalled at his nomination, they boycotted the vote.

1/30/25...The Monday night OMB memo paused all congressionally approved federal grants and loans, stoking widespread confusion and chaos while threatening essential services like disaster relief, health care, public safety, education, nutrition, and housing for millions of Californians.

In his previous tenure with OMB, Vought blatantly disregarded spending laws and congressional appropriations, operating as if the President has unchecked, unilateral power to make funding decisions despite the clear language of the Constitution giving that authority to Congress. As one of the primary architects of Project 2025, Vought wrote that the OMB Director should be “aggressive in wielding the tool of apportionments on behalf of the President’s agenda,” and “defend the apportionment power against attacks from Congress.”

“Put Them in Trauma”: Inside a Key MAGA Leader’s Plans for a New Trump Agenda

A key ally to former President Donald Trump detailed plans to deploy the military in response to domestic unrest, defund the Environmental Protection Agency and put career civil servants “in trauma” in a series of previously unreported speeches that provide a sweeping vision for a second Trump term.

In private speeches delivered in 2023 and 2024, Russell Vought, who served as Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, described his work crafting legal justifications so that military leaders or government lawyers would not stop Trump’s executive actions.

He said the plans are a response to a “Marxist takeover” of the country; likened the moment to 1776 and 1860, when the country was at war or on the brink of it; and said the timing of Trump’s candidacy was a “gift of God.”

...Vought does not hide his agenda or shy away from using extreme rhetoric in public. But the apocalyptic tone and hard-line policy prescriptions in the two private speeches go further than his earlier pronouncements. As OMB director, Vought sought to use Trump’s 2020 “Schedule F” executive order to strip away job protections for nonpartisan government workers. But he has never spoken in such pointed terms about demoralizing federal workers to the point that they don’t want to do their jobs.

[...]

MAGA wanted Trump to run the government like his businesses and he is. Screwing the regular workers, throwing everything into chaos, breaking the law and then walking away with billions in personal gains while everyone else is screwed or suing him.

twocoach wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:20 am MAGA wanted Trump to run the government like his businesses and he is. Screwing the regular workers, throwing everything into chaos, breaking the law and then walking away with billions in personal gains while everyone else is screwed or suing him.

Someone should have let them know that creative financing and strategic bankruptcy (while never signing to personally guarantee any loans) doesn't really equal a build it from the ground up businessman.

and how do most trump businesses end?





in bankruptcy

KUTradition wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:37 am and how do most trump businesses end?





in bankruptcy

But, he says what he means, and isn't beholden to anyone.

Business owners like Trump are why they financial institution i used to work for made borrowers sign personally/personally guarantee their business loans, no matter how rich they are on paper.

People are a lot more likely to pay off business debt if you can foreclose on their personal assets, rather than just say "oops this business idea didn't work" and file bankruptcy and stick the bank with a big loss, or at minimum a shit ton of work to exit the loans with minimal losses.

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:44 am Business owners like Trump are why they financial institution i used to work for made borrowers sign personally/personally guarantee their business loans, no matter how rich they are on paper.

People are a lot more likely to pay off business debt if you can foreclose on their personal assets, rather than just say "oops this business idea didn't work" and file bankruptcy and stick the bank with a big loss, or at minimum a shit ton of work to exit the loans with minimal losses.

I met my attorney-wife a couple of years after joining, buying into, a private practice. Several years later we decided to do a huge expansion, and take out a loan to finance it. All the owners were required to personally guarantee the loan, and when the loan documents arrived, there was a place for our spouses to sign, too. As the junior partner, it felt a little uncomfortable when my wife refused to sign them, but we got the loan, anyway.



Having my own, savvy, really bright, personal barracuda, was a huge luxury.

i love my personal barracuda…she don’t fuck around

DeletedUser wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 9:44 am Business owners like Trump are why they financial institution i used to work for made borrowers sign personally/personally guarantee their business loans, no matter how rich they are on paper.

People are a lot more likely to pay off business debt if you can foreclose on their personal assets, rather than just say "oops this business idea didn't work" and file bankruptcy and stick the bank with a big loss, or at minimum a shit ton of work to exit the loans with minimal losses.

Would this be a good time to mention that bankruptcy, from a policy perspective, is the socialization of risk? It is a means of collectively bearing the consequence of financial failure of a person or a business.

I don't mean this as an argument against bankruptcy at all.

But it's another one of those things that make Trump's caterwauling over DEI disingenuous to the core; in the case of (I don't know) a failed casino, bankruptcy represents a person who was eminently unqualified to take a risk being bailed out of the consequences of taking that risk.