Big Balls explains how there are BILLIONS of government payments that no one knows where they go or what they’re for.

The American people are getting robbed!pic.twitter.com/rPdntBFrBG

— C3 (@C_3C_3) May 2, 2025

Doing this at a publicly traded company lands you in jail, likely 100% of the time, eventually.

1) The payments are going somewhere. Why are we not tracking down where the payments have been going, asking the payee to prove legitimacy, and clawing back any payments where the payee can't prove legitimacy. Start with the largest payments first. If the payment goes to a government contractor that had a valid contract at the time, fine, move on to the next payment. But, if the payee is some weird company or the payment far exceeds the amount that would be valid for a contract, then, get the money back.

2) Hopefully stopping this was priority 1 for Bessent. If this is still going on within the government, we need a shift in priorities.

2) The fact that Big Ball's conclusion was that incentives usually dictate behavior is a feather in his cap. He at least understand basic economics. His answer to that last question sounded smart enough that he probably had time to plan a response. But, it was a perfect response.

No one wants to do the work.
The best way to "claw back" payments would be to set up a bounty hunter approach. Finders can earn 1-5% of the contract if they can prove fraud or misuse of public funds.

Knowing both sides of the govt, there are probably tons in every facet of govt with family that would be on the list.

Hondo, said:

---

No one wants to do the work.
The best way to "claw back" payments would be to set up a bounty hunter approach. Finders can earn 1-5% of the contract if they can prove fraud or misuse of public funds.

---

That is brilliant. Where can I sign up?

Taking my "bounty hunter" approach a step further.. I can see how it would be a win-win. If I was an administrator of a government program, I would WANT TO partner up with a "finder" that could help catch any scammers or con artists trying to latch onto any resources I was tasked to distribute.

Hondo, said:

---

Taking my "bounty hunter" approach a step further.. I can see how it would be a win-win. If I was an administrator of a government program, I would WANT TO partner up with a "finder" that could help catch any scammers or con artists trying to latch onto any resources I was tasked to distribute.

---

the world needs Dog the bounty hunter

BusterAg said:

---

Doing this at a publicly traded company lands you in jail, likely 100% of the time, eventually.

1) The payments are going somewhere. Why are we not tracking down where the payments have been going, asking the payee to prove legitimacy, and clawing back any payments where the payee can't prove legitimacy. Start with the largest payments first. If the payment goes to a government contractor that had a valid contract at the time, fine, move on to the next payment. But, if the payee is some weird company or the payment far exceeds the amount that would be valid for a contract, then, get the money back.

2) Hopefully stopping this was priority 1 for Bessent. If this is still going on within the government, we need a shift in priorities.

2) The fact that Big Ball's conclusion was that incentives usually dictate behavior is a feather in his cap. He at least understand basic economics. His answer to that last question sounded smart enough that he probably had time to plan a response. But, it was a perfect response.

---

Having done work investigating fraud within a publicly traded company, these things still take time even in the private sector.

You are right in that stopping the payments if the priority. Improving the controls to stop it from recurring is next along with gathering the information to support and cause of action against the payment recipients.

Then you can contemplate clawing it back and it should be done. But that is a pipe dream to think dollars will be brought back. Those who commit these frauds either spend the money or hide the money. They do not put it into their company accounts to grow interest and stashed in plain sight weighting on the poe-leece to knock.

Hondo, said:

---

No one wants to do the work.
The best way to "claw back" payments would be to set up a bounty hunter approach. Finders can earn 1-5% of the contract if they can prove fraud or misuse of public funds.

---

This is already kind of a thing under the federal False Claims Act. An individual can bring a qui tam suit against a party on behalf of the government, and if they win they get to keep up to 30%. It incentivizes individuals (and law firms) to help the government fight fraud.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_claims_act

Of course the plaintiff would need a good faith basis and have information to bring the suit in the first place, which is the problem here. If no one around the orgs on the receiving end of fraudulent transactions knows there is fraud or is willing to bring suit, it's up to the government to figure it out...and good luck with that.

There was a power trader in California who did some market manipulation trades in CAISO. He then self reported the violation to California who sued his employer. That employee then got paid 30% of a tens if not 100 million dollar lawsuit.

^

The federal government has been taken over by foreign interests who steal money from US citizens and give it to criminals seeking to bring America down.

Mega Lops said:

---

The federal government has been taken over by foreign interests who steal money from US citizens and give it to criminals seeking to bring America down.

---

While likely true I think this form of your statement is equally if not more pervasive:

The federal government has been taken over by self interests who steal money from US citizens and give it to themselves and their families even if it means to bring America down.

The State of Minnesota Pension system recently underwent a forensic financial investigation initiated by whistleblowers. It was discovered that they were underreporting fees and expenses paid to their brokers by over 400%. Fees discovered were approximately $344M compared to the reported $85M.

Not a single media outlet, local or state, reported on the finding.

They steal right out from under people's noses and noone seems to care.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Doing this at a publicly traded company lands you in jail, likely 100% of the time, eventually.

1) The payments are going somewhere. Why are we not tracking down where the payments have been going, asking the payee to prove legitimacy, and clawing back any payments where the payee can't prove legitimacy. Start with the largest payments first. If the payment goes to a government contractor that had a valid contract at the time, fine, move on to the next payment. But, if the payee is some weird company or the payment far exceeds the amount that would be valid for a contract, then, get the money back.

2) Hopefully stopping this was priority 1 for Bessent. If this is still going on within the government, we need a shift in priorities.

2) The fact that Big Ball's conclusion was that incentives usually dictate behavior is a feather in his cap. He at least understand basic economics. His answer to that last question sounded smart enough that he probably had time to plan a response. But, it was a perfect response.

---

Having done work investigating fraud within a publicly traded company, these things still take time even in the private sector.

You are right in that stopping the payments if the priority. Improving the controls to stop it from recurring is next along with gathering the information to support and cause of action against the payment recipients.

Then you can contemplate clawing it back and it should be done. But that is a pipe dream to think dollars will be brought back. Those who commit these frauds either spend the money or hide the money. They do not put it into their company accounts to grow interest and stashed in plain sight weighting on the poe-leece to knock.

---

I have worked on fraud cases before as an economist on behalf of the federal government.

The difference between a private company trying to get money back and the federal government is the fed's Civil Forfeiture powers.

Treasury can pretty easily freeze bank accounts, sue assets for civil forfeiture, and generally put fraudsters in a huge bind. Private companies really don't have that power. A private company has to prove a crime is committed first, then get the assets. The government can sue the assets, put them in escrow, and the asset owner has to prove that they are entitled to the assets to get them back.

He's come a long way from cowtown

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Having done work investigating fraud within a publicly traded company, these things still take time even in the private sector.

You are right in that stopping the payments if the priority. Improving the controls to stop it from recurring is next along with gathering the information to support and cause of action against the payment recipients.

Then you can contemplate clawing it back and it should be done. But that is a pipe dream to think dollars will be brought back. Those who commit these frauds either spend the money or hide the money. They do not put it into their company accounts to grow interest and stashed in plain sight weighting on the poe-leece to knock.

---

I have worked on fraud cases before as an economist on behalf of the federal government.

The difference between a private company trying to get money back and the federal government is the fed's Civil Forfeiture powers.

Treasury can pretty easily freeze bank accounts, sue assets for civil forfeiture, and generally put fraudsters in a huge bind. Private companies really don't have that power. A private company has to prove a crime is committed first, then get the assets. The government can sue the assets, put them in escrow, and the asset owner has to prove that they are entitled to the assets to get them back.

---

I don't think you will have many clamoring for expanded use of civil forfeiture. And companies typically just fire and sue and rarely go the criminal route. So yes, there is a difference but its not as wide as you are trying to indicate.

I would highly recommend Team Trump not go the widespread civil forfeiture over SUSPECTED FWA payments. For one, WASTE would have to be excluded. Wasting government funds is typically not against the law. Fraud requires intent (in most cases) and is a higher bar to clear.

I get your sentiment, but clamoring for perp walks and asset impoundments is more about feelz than process & results.

This is an easy fix.

Stop Payment and then find out who whines. Then figure out the What and the Why.

flown-the-coop said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Having done work investigating fraud within a publicly traded company, these things still take time even in the private sector.

You are right in that stopping the payments if the priority. Improving the controls to stop it from recurring is next along with gathering the information to support and cause of action against the payment recipients.

Then you can contemplate clawing it back and it should be done. But that is a pipe dream to think dollars will be brought back. Those who commit these frauds either spend the money or hide the money. They do not put it into their company accounts to grow interest and stashed in plain sight weighting on the poe-leece to knock.

---

I have worked on fraud cases before as an economist on behalf of the federal government.

The difference between a private company trying to get money back and the federal government is the fed's Civil Forfeiture powers.

Treasury can pretty easily freeze bank accounts, sue assets for civil forfeiture, and generally put fraudsters in a huge bind. Private companies really don't have that power. A private company has to prove a crime is committed first, then get the assets. The government can sue the assets, put them in escrow, and the asset owner has to prove that they are entitled to the assets to get them back.

---

I don't think you will have many clamoring for expanded use of civil forfeiture. And companies typically just fire and sue and rarely go the criminal route. So yes, there is a difference but its not as wide as you are trying to indicate.

I would highly recommend Team Trump not go the widespread civil forfeiture over SUSPECTED FWA payments. For one, WASTE would have to be excluded. Wasting government funds is typically not against the law. Fraud requires intent (in most cases) and is a higher bar to clear.

I get your sentiment, but clamoring for perp walks and asset impoundments is more about feelz than process & results.

---

Well, the only downside I see is people getting Arkancided. Yes, you would have to have some indication of criminal intent, but the bar is pretty low. If you are strategic about it, you can target the people who are not able to raise a giant fuss without drawing unwanted attention to themselves.

I have also worked criminal cases where people misused grant money. The bar for that is not so high, and the penalties stiff.

Why put mics on the table. Why have that more man with the boom mic

BusterAg said:

---

Big Balls explains how there are BILLIONS of government payments that no one knows where they go or what they’re for.

The American people are getting robbed!pic.twitter.com/rPdntBFrBG

— C3 (@C_3C_3) May 2, 2025

Doing this at a publicly traded company lands you in jail, likely 100% of the time, eventually.

1) The payments are going somewhere. Why are we not tracking down where the payments have been going, asking the payee to prove legitimacy, and clawing back any payments where the payee can't prove legitimacy. Start with the largest payments first. If the payment goes to a government contractor that had a valid contract at the time, fine, move on to the next payment. But, if the payee is some weird company or the payment far exceeds the amount that would be valid for a contract, then, get the money back.

2) Hopefully stopping this was priority 1 for Bessent. If this is still going on within the government, we need a shift in priorities.

2) The fact that Big Ball's conclusion was that incentives usually dictate behavior is a feather in his cap. He at least understand basic economics. His answer to that last question sounded smart enough that he probably had time to plan a response. But, it was a perfect response.

---

"Why aren't we tracing down and clawing back payments?"
Could be they are and aren't broadcasting it to the perpetrators. Hopefully the authorities are.

richardag said:

---

"Why aren't we tracing down and clawing back payments?"
Could be they are and aren't broadcasting it to the perpetrators. Hopefully the authorities are.

---

They mentioned during one of the segments that many criminal referrals have already been made.

But people overall do not want to give credence to that and would rather criticize Bondi over pressers and Epstein files.

BusterAg said:

---

Big Balls explains how there are BILLIONS of government payments that no one knows where they go or what they’re for.

The American people are getting robbed!pic.twitter.com/rPdntBFrBG

— C3 (@C_3C_3) May 2, 2025

Doing this at a publicly traded company lands you in jail, likely 100% of the time, eventually.

1) The payments are going somewhere. Why are we not tracking down where the payments have been going, asking the payee to prove legitimacy, and clawing back any payments where the payee can't prove legitimacy. Start with the largest payments first. If the payment goes to a government contractor that had a valid contract at the time, fine, move on to the next payment. But, if the payee is some weird company or the payment far exceeds the amount that would be valid for a contract, then, get the money back.

2) Hopefully stopping this was priority 1 for Bessent. If this is still going on within the government, we need a shift in priorities.

2) The fact that Big Ball's conclusion was that incentives usually dictate behavior is a feather in his cap. He at least understand basic economics. His answer to that last question sounded smart enough that he probably had time to plan a response. But, it was a perfect response.

---

They've tried in a few cases, and in some if not all of those, federal judges are holding them back, since as you know, the judiciary and federal judges are the primary policy makers in our country and elections are just for show.

Maybe if a supreme court ruling comes down in the administrations favor, they'll do more of it.

One can only hope.

You're telling me this administration has identified some nefarious activity and is going to loudly proclaim they are going to vanquish it? Only for 6 months later nothing to have ever been done because "deep state" and "judges" and the like?

I mean, how many times can you fall for the same damn play?

Stacey Abrams not happy President Trump called her out by name for attempting to extort $2Billion dollars of your tax dollars!!

What do you have to say to this crook?

pic.twitter.com/becCTMvPlZ

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) March 5, 2025

What Stacey Adams should say : "Let us just call it reparations and give me the money"