Are Donald Trump's multiple bankruptcies a legitimate issue?

[faithful_servant]

absolutely an issue
bankruptcy represents fiscal failure
it is a response to making unwise financial decisions

sometimes, it can be justified as the only alternative one has when faced with a medical/wage calamity that was beyond the bankrupt debtor's control

but that is not the scenario for tRump's many trips to bankruptcy court
the donald exploits bankruptcy provisions to then exploit his creditors. he has recently commented how he looks for ways to pay his financial obligations at discounted pennies on the dollar. taking that debt into bankruptcy court is a mechanism to achieve that end. while it IS legal, i would find his use of it is not ethical. however, there are few things about tRump that one would find 'ethical'

Quite often someone will buy a business at pennies on the dollar and then file bankruptcy in order to dump the debt they got with the business and then sell off what they can to make money. I think that it's something that bankruptcy laws should be changed to prevent, but it's an example of how not all bankruptcies are cases of mismanagement. Another would be a market shift that makes a product you produce obsolete. Or how about when you get saddled with an unexpected additional cost of doing business that makes you so much less competitive, that you simply can't make it?? Lots of reasons for filing for bankruptcy that do not reflect mismanagement.

 

[What if...?]

Trump has shown good judgement at dediding when to bail out of various businesses. He has cleverly used the Bankruptcy law to put the burden upon the larger lenders, perhaps also known as, the Big Banks. Some say, "The bigger the Bank, the bigger the crook." Shades of grey, don't ya' know? Surely Trump's knowledge of debt and bankruptcy has to be useful in a Nation saddled with huge debt. If our Nation does not get some productive growth industries organized in the near term, I don't think the tax base will be able to continue to support the debt. You can't pay debt with debt forever.

But wouldn't "we the people" be the "lenders" or "contractors" in this equation? The ones who he would leave holding the bag?

 

[Howler63]

Not nearly as big an issue as his hyperbole, his juvenile insults or his dishonesty. He is a horrid human being absolutely devoid of any quality that would make me vote for him. The fact that he's taken advantage of bankruptcy law just means he's an American businessman.

 

[soot]

if i would not consider loaning him money, near certain i would not receive all of it back
why in hell would i then give him my vote?!!

Because you are going to give the government your money whether you like it or not.

When I do that I'd like to know that the "guy" I'm giving it to is going to get the most he possibly can for that money at the lowest possible cost to me.

That's what Trump excels at.

All past presidents are more than happy to spend $1000 of your money on a hammer or $1500 on a toilet seat.

Trump is the kind of guy who is going to wheel and deal in order to get those same items below cost and then turn around and screw the creditors on whose account he bought the items in order to save even more money for the American taxpayer.

And since past government has rigged the system so that we're buying more and ever more Chinese hammers and Mexican toilet seats Trump's "unethical" wranglings aren't going to hurt the American mom & pop hammer and toilet seat manufacturer (assuming there even was such a thing, but the economies of scale of manufacturing offshore have driven pretty much all domestic competition out of business).

 

[Thorgasm]

Are Donald Trump's multiple bankruptcies (BK) a legitimate issue?

For his campaign and/or qualifications for public office.

I say no (though I did vote 'minor issue'). Certainly BK is not ideal, and it is generally avoided, but in today's world BK is as much a conscious business strategy as anything else. It's how you come out on the other end that matters, and Trump always seems to come out well at the other end. If anything, that might be indicative of his ability to "work the system" in order to succeed.

Doesn't mean I'm warming to trump, of course. I still believe he'd be a travesty overall. I just don't think this specific complaint is valid.

Yes, it is an issue. If prospective employers can demand a credit check for applicants, then this is applicable.

 

[PirateMk1]

Because you are going to give the government your money whether you like it or not.

When I do that I'd like to know that the "guy" I'm giving it to is going to get the most he possibly can for that money at the lowest possible cost to me.

That's what Trump excels at.

All past presidents are more than happy to spend $1000 of your money on a hammer or $1500 on a toilet seat.

Trump is the kind of guy who is going to wheel and deal in order to get those same items below cost and then turn around and screw the creditors on whose account he bought the items in order to save even more money for the American taxpayer.

And since past government has rigged the system so that we're buying more and ever more Chinese hammers and Mexican toilet seats Trump's "unethical" wranglings aren't going to hurt the American mom & pop hammer and toilet seat manufacturer (assuming there even was such a thing, but the economies of scale of manufacturing offshore have driven pretty much all domestic competition out of business).

You presume that Trump will in fact negotiate on the US's behalf exclusively. This may not be the case. Remember this man is a shark, the kind of shark that swims in the waters of Wall Street and Manhattan. He will negotiate for Donald J Trumps behalf first and foremost the US will be a secondary consideration if considered at all.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It's also been suggested that Trump raped his first wife during there separation, and that the Don has organized crime links in NY, but they are conjecture just as your points are. It's a matter of what you choose to believe. Not crazy about Clinton, but Trump is scary. and flip flops more than a fish gasping for air, the last one is not conjecture, its the truth LoL.

Yes, and Hillary Clinton is a pillar of consistency.

I'd say your country is in a bit of trouble if the best you've got to offer for the most important job is Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

 

[PirateMk1]

absolutely an issue
bankruptcy represents fiscal failure
it is a response to making unwise financial decisions

sometimes, it can be justified as the only alternative one has when faced with a medical/wage calamity that was beyond the bankrupt debtor's control

but that is not the scenario for tRump's many trips to bankruptcy court
the donald exploits bankruptcy provisions to then exploit his creditors. he has recently commented how he looks for ways to pay his financial obligations at discounted pennies on the dollar. taking that debt into bankruptcy court is a mechanism to achieve that end. while it IS legal, i would find his use of it is not ethical. however, there are few things about tRump that one would find 'ethical'

The creditors who issued Trump the credit knew what they are where getting into and hence took the commensurate risk. I have no issues with what he has done. He has done what is known as a strategic default. Part and parcel of business.

 

[radcen]

Not nearly as big an issue as his hyperbole, his juvenile insults or his dishonesty. He is a horrid human being absolutely devoid of any quality that would make me vote for him. The fact that he's taken advantage of bankruptcy law just means he's an American businessman.

Several weeks ago he made a comment about Kasich's eating habits, and asked the audience, "Is this the kind of person you want representing you as President?!?" (paraphrasing, but pretty close)

:neutral:

Really? After all the undignified crap you do on pretty much a daily basis, Mr Trump, you have the gall to say that? And, of course, his sycophants ignored the obvious blatant hypocrisy and ate it up.

I didn't know whether to laugh, scream, or cry.

 

[PirateMk1]

Actually, no. Trump's largest creditors were casino bondholders and Carl Icahn. Not the "larger lenders" nor the "Big Banks".

All of whom were accredited investors with the knowledge and resources to vet their investments and to evaluate accurately the risk. They took on the risk and lost.

 

[polgara]

It's long been suggested that Hillary Clinton benefitted from insider trading when she cleared a profit of over $100,000 on a stock deal in a short period of time. I'm not aware of any similar suggestion related to Trump. I despise Donald Trump and I'm no apologist for his persona and behavior but I also think Hillary Clinton and her husband are trailer park grifters and scum.

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

It appears that the Clinton Foundation benefitted from monies received from foreign governments currying favor during her SoS term of office. It just doesn't look ethical that she could be bought, IMO! She was supposed to be representing the people of our country on foreign affairs, not making her family wealthy! :shock:

 

[reinoe]

If we go back in your posting history, will you have a similar statement when Ted Cruz was winning delegates via methods other than actual primary votes? I definitely remember Trump and many of his supporters criticizing the system and attacking those who utilized it, rather than taking a "if you don't like it change it" stance.

Yes. Please go back to my posts and you'll see that I've been consistent on this. I said that the system in Colorado might seem unfair but that's the system. I've lamented Trump's lack of savvy when it comes to the delegate process. I've given Ted Cruz kudos for skillfully navigating the delegate process. You have far more experience when it comes to finding quotes made in the past so you'll probably be able to find them faster than I could.

 

[PirateMk1]

But wouldn't "we the people" be the "lenders" or "contractors" in this equation? The ones who he would leave holding the bag?

Quite possibly. Hence why I say the man is a shark, be aware and careful around him especially if you have your wallet with you.

 

[reinoe]

Knowing the risks still doesn't make it all warm-and-fuzzy.

I don't care about warm and fuzzy. I care about the law.

 

[justabubba]

Well, true, but as a strong conservative I believe in accepting the consequences of our own free actions. Unless greed is a person, nobody is coerced or forced into putting their hard earned wages and wealth at risk. But many have reaped tremendous rewards by doing just that. If risk was all warm-and-fuzzy, it would be called comfort, not risk.

from a theoretical perspective, your presentation is valid
unfortunately, scale matters
that small businessman who has agreed to provide a substantial portion of his goods/services to a larger company, he makes his small concern vulnerable. such a large portion of the small enterprise's capital has been expended to fulfill the large company's order, those slow/no pay practices by the big business constrains the small firm's ability to do further business. being without that essential payment/capital, the small company cannot pay vendors and/or payroll. vendors refuse to extend further credit and unpaid employees walk (and contact the department of labor to secure their arrears). lenders will no longer extend new credit to the small business owner and will usually terminate any existing lines of credit - further handicapping that small businessman. he MUST accept less because he is placed under duress
the donald knows this game well. this is how he exploits his power, forcing small suppliers to accept deep discounts they cannot afford ... but the reality is some money is better than no money, and they usually wind up agreeing to the substantially lower debt repayment
this exploitative approach is tRump's MO
is that the approach we want from the person who occupies the white house

 

[reinoe]

Several weeks ago he made a comment about Kasich's eating habits, and asked the audience, "Is this the kind of person you want representing you as President?!?" (paraphrasing, but pretty close)

:neutral:

Really? After all the undignified crap you do on pretty much a daily basis, Mr Trump, you have the gall to say that? And, of course, his sycophants ignored the obvious blatant hypocrisy and ate it up.

I didn't know whether to laugh, scream, or cry.

I support Trump and have constantly critiized his stumbles. But at the end of the day he's like most Americans: flawed. The difference is that also like most Americans I see him as caring about his citizens and his country: flaws and all. When I see Hillary I see someone who's malevolent. Someone who seriously does not care about this country and only cares about ther own self interest. I mean as in a "start wars and get Americans killed so that stock prices of military contracters can increase" kind of self interest. I've seen more than a few people acknowledge Trump's flaws, stumbles, bad judgements etc and say "yeah but so what". It's because of the person who's underneath. You don't have to agree with me but when I think about what's underneath Hillary's polished scripted veneer I think there's a Lovecraftian monster.

 

[Winchester]

Are Donald Trump's multiple bankruptcies (BK) a legitimate issue?

For his campaign and/or qualifications for public office.

I say no (though I did vote 'minor issue'). Certainly BK is not ideal, and it is generally avoided, but in today's world BK is as much a conscious business strategy as anything else. It's how you come out on the other end that matters, and Trump always seems to come out well at the other end. If anything, that might be indicative of his ability to "work the system" in order to succeed.

Doesn't mean I'm warming to trump, of course. I still believe he'd be a travesty overall. I just don't think this specific complaint is valid.

I think it means he's willing to take risks as well as the people lending him money were willing to take risks. Not all business ventures/plans pan out and a lot fail. IMO as a general rule one can not be overly risk adverse and still succeed wildly. Our country was built by risk takers, we would not be where we are as a country without taking risks. Hell what percentage of our population are here because someone in their past was willing to give up everything and start over here or give up everything to get a homestead. I think risk taking is in our country's collective DNA (though it's starting to be watered down).

So no I don't think the bankruptcies are necessarily a bad thing but more of an indicator of who we are or should be... risk takers.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

It appears that the Clinton Foundation benefitted from monies received from foreign governments currying favor during her SoS term of office. It just doesn't look ethical that she could be bought, IMO! She was supposed to be representing the people of our country on foreign affairs, not making her family wealthy! :shock:

Good afternoon Lady P - a beautiful day here today, but rain and colder weather is on the way - hope your day is sunny and fun

As for the Clintons, there's basically nothing about them that isn't self serving and unethical. I get the feeling the left likes them so much because they're crooks who seem to get away with everything and the left admires cheats.

 

[CanadaJohn]

from a theoretical perspective, your presentation is valid
unfortunately, scale matters
that small businessman who has agreed to provide a substantial portion of his goods/services to a larger company, he makes his small concern vulnerable. such a large portion of the small enterprise's capital has been expended to fulfill the large company's order, those slow/no pay practices by the big business constrains the small firm's ability to do further business. being without that essential payment/capital, the small company cannot pay vendors and/or payroll. vendors refuse to extend further credit and unpaid employees walk (and contact the department of labor to secure their arrears). lenders will no longer extend new credit to the small business owner and will usually terminate any existing lines of credit - further handicapping that small businessman. he MUST accept less because he is placed under duress
the donald knows this game well. this is how he exploits his power, forcing small suppliers to accept deep discounts they cannot afford ... but the reality is some money is better than no money, and they usually wind up agreeing to the substantially lower debt repayment
this exploitative approach is tRump's MO
is that the approach we want from the person who occupies the white house

Good afternoon JB,

Firstly, it should be clear that I don't think Donald Trump should be a guest of the White House let alone reside there, so my comments don't come from any support of him as a politician or as a leadership contender.

Secondly, all businesses who extend credit or payment terms to another business in order to sell their merchandise are no different from any other investor. In each case, the investor is extending capital - either cash or goods - to a party they trust will return their investment at a profit. A business usually learns rather quickly whom they can trust and not trust and a smart business only extends limited credit or payment terms to another business until that other business proves their worthiness and then that relationship grows over time.

I have no idea if Donald Trump's businesses take advantage of other businesses in the manner in which you describe it. I'd think that if his reputation is that bad, businesses dealing with Trump would insist on payment before delivery or no deal. If Trump is your only customer, your business is doomed to failure anyway, so find new customers.

Are there dishonest businessmen and women - absolutely - Donald Trump may be one of them, I don't know. Are there dishonest government - absolutely - you can look back to all the American and other business people who lost fortunes at the hands of the Castros in Cuba decades ago and yet your President saw fit to welcome them back into America's good graces with no need to make good on the property they stole all those years ago.

So, by example, there is always someone, foolish or otherwise, who is willing to risk their wealth and/or reputation by dealing with disreputable characters - in that regard, perhaps a President Trump will follow in the footsteps of President Obama.

 

[jonny5]

Once again, all I can say is that investors know the risks they accept when putting up capital for a private enterprise. If they don't know, they're not smart enough to invest in the first place. When you buy stocks on the stock market, you risk losing all you invest based on the success or failure of the people who run the company. Not everyone gets the insider treatment Hillary Clinton got when she increased her investment about 1000% in a short time.

We arent talking about investors. They can waste their money all they want. We're talking about the ethics of a person seeking the Presidency, of borrowing money to finance unsound businesses and then bailing on people you owe money to when crony capitalism wont go along. This is exactly why we defend free market capitalism against crony capitalism.

 

[jonny5]

I support Trump and have constantly critiized his stumbles. But at the end of the day he's like most Americans: flawed. The difference is that also like most Americans I see him as caring about his citizens and his country: flaws and all. When I see Hillary I see someone who's malevolent. Someone who seriously does not care about this country and only cares about ther own self interest. I mean as in a "start wars and get Americans killed so that stock prices of military contracters can increase" kind of self interest. I've seen more than a few people acknowledge Trump's flaws, stumbles, bad judgements etc and say "yeah but so what". It's because of the person who's underneath. You don't have to agree with me but when I think about what's underneath Hillary's polished scripted veneer I think there's a Lovecraftian monster.

If he cared about people he wouldnt act like an asshole towards them.

 

[Absentglare]

Are Donald Trump's multiple bankruptcies (BK) a legitimate issue?

For his campaign and/or qualifications for public office.

I say no (though I did vote 'minor issue'). Certainly BK is not ideal, and it is generally avoided, but in today's world BK is as much a conscious business strategy as anything else. It's how you come out on the other end that matters, and Trump always seems to come out well at the other end. If anything, that might be indicative of his ability to "work the system" in order to succeed.

Doesn't mean I'm warming to trump, of course. I still believe he'd be a travesty overall. I just don't think this specific complaint is valid.

No, they were debt restructuring, not the kind of bankruptcy that actually stiffs the debtors, so it is not that unusual.

 

[DaveFagan]

But wouldn't "we the people" be the "lenders" or "contractors" in this equation? The ones who he would leave holding the bag?

Perhaps the Federal Reserve CORPORATION might be left holding the bag if clever legislation is written. Then the US Treasury, not a CORPORATION, would issue currency just like JFK was doing just before he was assassinated.

 

[upsideguy]

The problem is when they use bankruptcy to get out of paying for a failure. Like look at Solyndra. Borrow a bunch of money, fail, and creditors didnt get paid back. Same with GM. We loaned them 40 billion. They never paid it back.

There is nothing immoral about bankruptcy. It is by itself neither good nor bad, that is measured by the heart of those that go bankrupt. Bankruptcy is the social safety net of entrepreneurship. Without bankruptcy individuals would not take the risk; and we would not have free enterprise. Bankruptcy does not mean the debtor has nothing to lose; far from it. Shareholders usually lose everything in bankruptcy, including GM and Solyndra. Its just the loss is limited to the investment.

How Trump conducted his business is an issue. He is holding himself out to be a great businessman and that is what is suppose to qualify him for President. It is an issue to review his conduct as a businessman, including coming to a determination as to whether his bankruptcies were justified or reflect poorly on him as a businessman.

 

[upsideguy]

I support Trump and have constantly critiized his stumbles. But at the end of the day he's like most Americans: flawed. The difference is that also like most Americans I see him as caring about his citizens and his country: flaws and all. When I see Hillary I see someone who's malevolent. Someone who seriously does not care about this country and only cares about ther own self interest. I mean as in a "start wars and get Americans killed so that stock prices of military contracters can increase" kind of self interest. I've seen more than a few people acknowledge Trump's flaws, stumbles, bad judgements etc and say "yeah but so what". It's because of the person who's underneath. You don't have to agree with me but when I think about what's underneath Hillary's polished scripted veneer I think there's a Lovecraftian monster.

... all wildA conjecture and impression. You are entitled to them and free to cast your vote accordingly. What you perceive, however, is simply your perception: it could be true just as it could be the furthest thing from the truth. So you convinced yourself; great, but nothing in this paragraph convinces anyone you are right