^yep, that is of course, you are completely unaware of the british use of the word.
As a noun, 'cunt' has numerous other senses: a woman (viewed as a sexual object), sexual intercourse, a (foolish) person, an infuriating device, an ironically affectionate term of address, the mouth as a sexual organ, the anus as a sexual organ, the buttocks, prostitution, a vein used for drug-injection, a synonym for 'damn', an attractive woman, an object or place, the essence of someone, and a difficult task. It can also be used as an adjective (to describe a foolish person), a verb (meaning both to physically abuse someone and to call a woman a cunt), and an exclamation (to signify frustration). Despite its semantic flexibility, however, 'cunt' remains our highest linguistic taboo: "It has yet, if ever, to return to grace" (Jonathon Green, 2010).
Clinton and trump are both fascists. The USA is a devolving into fascist oligarchy and no one seems to care. The media has us all focused on social issues like race and sex while these scumbags systematically destroy the nation...keep feeding the two headed snake...
what does that mean gwharton? he's going to come back and prove that he actually does pay taxes, or that he really is as rich as he says he is? maybe this will build a whole lot of support from all the hard working people that pay taxes so he doesn't have to?
Wharton-this line of logic is a trump supporter staple. A great way to rationalize all his bad decisions and statements. The reality is that we haven't seen any actual brilliance from him.
Sure, he will release some tax return just before the election. They will be fake, but there won't be enough time for anyone to vet them or respond.
Funny thing is, it's not about the taxes he didn't pay, it's about how much of a failure he is about business. I mean really, 1,000,000,000 in a loss for the year? What a loser.
It means that his holding out on the tax return thing is bait for his opposition to get themselves into saying stupid and ignorant things about him and destroy their own credibility, which they have. Trump has been doing this to his opponents for a very long time. He gets them smelling blood in the water over something that actually works to his advantage, which they go after, in turn giving him lots of free exposure of something that works in his favor.
Look at it objectively, if you're capable of doing so.
Trump knows what's in his tax returns. He knows that the US tax system is really, really fucked up. He also knows that his political opponents are desperately looking for "gotchas" on him and are not very sophisticated or knowledgeable. They are used to dealing with regular politicians, who are not very smart and generally have the narcissist's habit of trying to cover up all the corrupt, perverted shit they do while maintaining a squeaky-clean, respectable face to the public. Trump is not that. His dirty laundry is all out there, and it's not very dirty when compared to most politicians.
So, assume Trump wants to get the most mileage out of a great story about himself (e.g. that he staged the greatest comeback in modern investment history, going from a billion dollars in the hole to ten billion dollars in the black). He could make a speech about it. He did write a book about it. But it's much more effective if he gets his enemies to publicize it for him.
That's exactly what this "paying no taxes" kerfluffle is doing. He didn't pay taxes for many years because he LOST A BILLION DOLLARS AND MADE A YUGE, RECORD-SETTING COMEBACK FROM THAT DISASTER.
Not only that, but the story reveals how the elites use the tax laws to their advantage while the little guys get screwed. That's ALSO part of Trump's message, and he has specifically proposed a new tax policy that will change that. So not only does the story highlight his own gigantic personal success, it also throws his tax policy proposals in sharp relief against his opposition.
He keeps doing this to you, and you keep not seeing it. It really funny to watch.
It wasn't enough to demean John McCain for becoming a POW when his airplane was shot down during View Nam, now this draft dodging POS is suggesting that US Veterans are p*ssies because "lot of people can't handle" PTSD.
gwharton: "he has specifically proposed a new tax policy that will change that" -- well, actually, Trump hasn't proposed closing a single loophole that benefits him. He just wants to close everybody else's loophole.
If I had a clone and we both walked into a crowded room with the intent of winning the most votes how would we do it? We are clones so we need to distance ourselves from each other...We would create differences between the two to appeal to the emotions of the audience..who ever appeals to a larger demographic wins...we would keep the issues about things that do not threaten our inevitable status quo...false dichotomy. That's American democracy.
so trump made millions by taking advantage of social safety net programs like bankruptcy protection and tax laws designed to minimize some of the impact of business losses. he didn't pay the debts he owed. how do you spin this in some way that he isn't a welfare cheat?
Bankruptcy is a safety net program never intended to absolve the debts of those who can pay them. Our bankruptcy laws were enacted after debtor prisons were filled with people that didn't have the means to get out.
Trump relied on government protection to absolve personal responsibility and obligations for bad decisions he made. Of course being handed 338 million dollars in a reorganization is not the same thing as a middle class family absolving debt for medical bills they can't pay or someone getting a jar of peanut butter through wic. I would suggest that Trump's abuse of an expansive government welfare state is far more egregious though, since he chose not to exercise all options available to him before asking big government for another bailout.
curtkram: bankruptcy law has a very long history and nothing whatsoever to do with "welfare." It exists in order to prevent multi-generational servitude under attainder: you can declare bankruptcy in the event you cannot pay your creditors and not be forced into debt slavery.
But maybe you are in favor of debt slavery. The left seems to be very keen on it in recent times.
Remember - if elected, Trump isn't going to do any real work, so you have to ask yourself, "is this the guy I want running the Executive Branch for the next four years?"
gwharton, i'm in favor of social safety net programs that help people recover from bad things happening. such as bankruptcy protection. i don't much care for people who abuse the welfare programs we have to help people recover from bad things happening, such as trump did.
Bankruptcy is not a "social safety net tool." The social safety net includes things like food stamps or Medicaid. Bankruptcy is a federal court proceedings to discharge an individual's or business's debts. The problem most people have understanding bankruptcy is that it is not a moral decision; it is an economic decision. It's perhaps fair to criticize Trump's business acumen for putting a company through bankruptcy. (However I personally find it ironic that most of the people lobbing criticism have never themselves run a business, including Mrs. Clinton.) But to treat it as somehow being a moral failure, such as social welfare abuse, completely misses the function of bankruptcy.
Seems to me the key aspect of Trump putting his businesses into bankruptcy hinges on his financial ability to support and sustain those failing business with outside financial resources.
Clearly, by his own admission, The Donald's wealth is "uuge" -- so, if that's really the case, why could he not have used some of his outside resources to shore up his failing businesses. The reason -- he made a "uuge" number of bad decisions, he realized those "uuge" bad decisions would never pay off, so he then used the bankruptcy laws to shield his other personal assets from dilution.
So, in that sense, The Donald did engage in something akin to "social welfare abuse" since he could have covered the expenses of these failing businesses -- he just didn't want to do so. This is the same con job that we've all experienced with builders who construct each house under a different corporate entity, which they dissolve immediately after the house is completed so there are no resources the homeowner can pursue.
Donald's easy willingness to walk away speaks volumes about the man's weak ethical and moral foundation.
And, before wadw strikes again, yes, I have run a business (an architecture firm) for many years and I know quite a lot about businesses that periodically experience financial difficulties. I also know quite a lot about injecting personal funds when necessary to keep that business going and preserving jobs.
a good proxy for this is home mortgages. Is it ok to default on a mortgage? Some feel a moral obligation to continue paying well past reckoning due to pride, Judeo-Christian ethics or whatever. Nevertheless, the mortgage contract spells our specific terms for both sides, mutually agreed upon at the time of execution.
You guys really don't get it. WADW is right. It's an economic decision for dealing with an enterprise that has gone negative on its balance sheet. It's not a moral decision, and trying to frame it as one just makes you look ignorant of basic business knowledge.
An important principle of running a business is to pay your bills and manage your cash flow to stay net-positive. But just as important is knowing when to quit throwing good money after bad and pumping resources into a losing proposition. Bankruptcy is a legal means for resolving contractual obligations that can no longer be met in full by a debtor for whatever reason.
JeromeS asks "Is it okay to default on a mortgage?" If you don't want to or can't pay it, the answer is obviously "yes." Does that mean that there are no legal implications to default? Of course not. That's what foreclosure is for. Will it impact your reputation and credit rating? Yes it will. Does it make you a bad person? No. It's just business.
Most businesses fail. People who are very successful tend to have failures in their past. Sometimes a LOT of failures. That's the foundation of their success. Fear or condemnation of failure is the mark of a small mind with no ambition trying to rationalize its own timidity.
Bankruptcy law is a foundational legal precept protecting the incentive to build value, take risks, and be entrepreneurial in our society. It says, "If you fail, it won't permanently destroy your life and the lives of all your descendants." That's a good thing. Because in the past, business failure would do exactly that: landing people in debtors prisons, having their families sold into indentured servitude, and attainting everyone connected to them.
Donald Trump went into bankruptcy. At one point, in the early 1990s, his net worth was negative by a BILLION dollars. One Billion Dollars. In the hole. That was his starting point twenty years ago. At age 50, when most of us are supposed to be at our professional peak and starting the downhill run toward retirement. How well would you do if you were starting from that far down, worse off than even the most poverty-stricken bum on the street? Donald Trump came back from that and is now worth around ten billion dollars.
Could you do that? I seriously doubt it. I couldn't. But it doesn't stop you from saying stupid, ignorant things about it and trying to characterize it as anything less than the monumental achievement it is.
gwarton - it's not a "moral" decision unless the person involved decides to make it one. It's ALL about character - something Donald Trump sorely lacks.
During my career I've known many individuals (including more than a few real estate developers) who have experienced serious business reversals -- often driving them up to, and in some cases past, the brink of bankruptcy. Some of those individuals have taken the scurrilous path you describe above -- i.e. casting a hard nosed economic eye at the situation and simply bailing out, letting the chips fall where they fall and not caring a jot for those who might be seriously injured by that action.
However, more often than not, I've witnessed people of strong character resist the easy temptation to declare bankruptcy, seek solutions to their problems, and apply their own time, energy and financial resources to first stabilize the situation and then to dig themselves out of the hole. I admire those people tremendously because they care about those partners, customers, suppliers and employees who would be negatively impacted if the business were allowed to go under.
I do not admire Donald Trump -- his business career does not remotely resemble a "monumental achievement" because he's built nothing of lasting value and he's not pursued anything beyond his own personal greed and aggrandizement. As long as he gets what he wants, he doesn't give a damn who else might get hurt.
And finally -- don't you ever get tired of talking down to those on this forum who don't happen to see the world through your own special lenses?
Those who bash Trump for utilizing bankruptcy do so from a moral high horse. My earlier question was rhetorical- whether you choose bankruptcy you do so within a defined agreement with benefits and penalties as agreed upon.
As to "monumental achievement" when you own a signature property, in Manahattan, free and clear, you can define achievement for. You might not like (morals) how it was erected but there is no doubt it is achievement and that it is monumental
sure sounds to me like bankruptcy is a welfare program. if you don't have food, you can turn to the government to help get you back on your feet so you don't get completely screwed. if you don't have healthcare, you can turn to the government to help get you back on your feet. if you fall too deep in debt, you can turn to the government to help get you back on your feet.
i think most of us know that sometime real life can hit you hard, and most of wouldn't look down at a person at all if they needed a little help to get back on their feet. however, you're a welfare cheat when you cheat those systems for your own gain, especially when you hurt others by not paying them what you promised. saying bankruptcy is an economic rather than moral decisions is no different than saying cheating the food stamp program is an economic decision. if you can make money at it, it's economic. by that logic, stealing money from the collection plate at church is an economic decision. if you don't understand there's a moral component because you're so greedy and self-absorbed that you're unaware of any other aspect to life, then it's easy to shrug it off and say the moral component doesn't count for you.
so i suppose this is how your 'rope a dope' analogy will play out. decent people will recognize trump as being a welfare cheat that hurts others for his own gain while people without a moral compass will celebrate and possibly even try to mimic his behavior. good luck running a business when people quit paying their debts to you, since keeping your promise is no longer a 'moral' question but rather an 'economic' question.
babs, you do not consider employing tens of thousands of people creating something of lasting value?
gruen, I wouldn't call Trump an asshole. More precisely he's a complete narcissist. He says stupid things. A lot of them. He's a shoot from the hip kinda guy; the total opposite of Hillary Clinton where everything uttered from her lips is scripted and intended to appeal (pander) to one interest group or another. She examplifies the empty words and ideals of bourgeois liberalism. This election has been interesting in you have one candidate that generally tells the truth, but does not at all seem honest. You have another candidate that tells lies, big whoppers, but somehow seems more honest about the challenges facing our country - the abject failures of trade deals, globalization, the fact that we have plowed ourselves into massive debt by being the world's policeman.
BTW Pence and Kaine are two of the stiffest tools I've ever seen. How were these two jokers selected to be VP candidates?!!!!
Because in the past, business failure would do exactly that: landing people in debtors prisons, having their families sold into indentured servitude, and attainting everyone connected to them.
you chose the wrong college and your career didn't pan out? pay up! you got sick? someone has to pay for that - oh and we'll not only go after you, but your family too! lose $1 billion as a business? you don't have to pay taxes for 18 years - oh and a bunch of your buddies will forgive your debt so you don't have to pay most of it back.
the scandal isn't what's illegal, it's what is legal.
I wonder if you can declare yourself an LLC and apply for student loans that way...
What you guys seem to be missing in this story is Trump's basic message on this sort of thing is:
I like to win and I win a lot. That means using the rules to beat the system and win the game, which I have done many times over. But more than anyone, I know the rules are fucked up and stacked against the working and middle classes in favor of the elites. That's wrong, and I intend to change it, because it is destroying our country and hurting many millions of good people.
He's explicitly saying that he is the right person to fix the system because he's already demonstrated he can beat it. And as part of the collateral for that position, his "putting his money where his mouth is," he has put a lifetime of success on the line to step up try to fix it. That's a powerful message, and it resonates with a LOT of people.
So, when you try to use that against him, it actually reinforces his message and makes it stronger. That's why none of these conventional narratives coming from his opponents hurt him. They help him instead.
you chose the wrong college and your career didn't pan out? pay up! you got sick? someone has to pay for that - oh and we'll not only go after you, but your family too! lose $1 billion as a business? you don't have to pay taxes for 18 years - oh and a bunch of your buddies will forgive your debt so you don't have to pay most of it back.
Dishonest comparison- Bankruptcy can provide protection from both medical bills and even student loans. Don't like the "costs" associated with bankruptcy- keep paying...
Bankruptcy can't protect you from student loans anymore. They're non-dischargeable debt now, thanks to Clinton and Bush II. And following that change in the law, student debt is now the single largest "asset" on the government's books thanks to Obama.
Indeed. I kept telling them this in old threads here and elsewhere, emphasizing that they should not borrow more than their expected first year's salary out of school if they want to have any hope of ever paying it back. But they treated that suggestion with so much contempt that I don't even bother now.
Gwharton - except he didn't do anything. His accountants did - the same accountants his dad hired back in the 70s. He has a bunch of people invested in maintaining the brand - that's what keeps his organization going. All he has to do is show up, wave his arms around, and not mess things up too badly. Government is a different beast tho... A lot of people who are there before you get there and you have to keep that running.
I will give you that He is a good person to point out flaws in the system but he has demonstrated that he is the wrong person to fix them. What incentive does he have to fix the system that got him rich? He's trying to flip that narrative and claim he's so smart (or, the accountants his dad hired are smart) but how does that help the average person? Going to teach them how to game the system too? This doesn't make any sense.
In 2013, about 30% of student loans were in default. That number is around 40% now and increasing every year.
The student loans that are being noted as discharged in bankruptcy in that article were probably private loans issued prior to the new law. US News isn't breaking them out.
It's now EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to get a student loan discharged in bankruptcy. The government did that intentionally to reduce the risk premiums that had to be charged on student loan interest rates. This was supposed to make education "more affordable" (super-LOL), but instead just led to an acceleration of the education bubble due to easy credit terms, and many, many more millions of young people getting way over their heads in debt which will follow them for the rest of their lives no matter what.
The whole thing is pretty much the definition of "predatory lending practices."
Thump the Trump
^yep, that is of course, you are completely unaware of the british use of the word.
As a noun, 'cunt' has numerous other senses: a woman (viewed as a sexual object), sexual intercourse, a (foolish) person, an infuriating device, an ironically affectionate term of address, the mouth as a sexual organ, the anus as a sexual organ, the buttocks, prostitution, a vein used for drug-injection, a synonym for 'damn', an attractive woman, an object or place, the essence of someone, and a difficult task. It can also be used as an adjective (to describe a foolish person), a verb (meaning both to physically abuse someone and to call a woman a cunt), and an exclamation (to signify frustration). Despite its semantic flexibility, however, 'cunt' remains our highest linguistic taboo: "It has yet, if ever, to return to grace" (Jonathon Green, 2010).
Clinton and trump are both fascists. The USA is a devolving into fascist oligarchy and no one seems to care. The media has us all focused on social issues like race and sex while these scumbags systematically destroy the nation...keep feeding the two headed snake...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/barack-obama-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-whos-the-fascist/5529020
Truth
cunt
It's okay Donald, the NYT will do it for you ....
Y'all been played, babs. Trump is doing a rope-a-dope with the tax return thing, and his opponents are taking the bait.
what does that mean gwharton? he's going to come back and prove that he actually does pay taxes, or that he really is as rich as he says he is? maybe this will build a whole lot of support from all the hard working people that pay taxes so he doesn't have to?
Sure, he will release some tax return just before the election. They will be fake, but there won't be enough time for anyone to vet them or respond.
Oh, and Giuliani's too ...
It means that his holding out on the tax return thing is bait for his opposition to get themselves into saying stupid and ignorant things about him and destroy their own credibility, which they have. Trump has been doing this to his opponents for a very long time. He gets them smelling blood in the water over something that actually works to his advantage, which they go after, in turn giving him lots of free exposure of something that works in his favor.
Look at it objectively, if you're capable of doing so.
Trump knows what's in his tax returns. He knows that the US tax system is really, really fucked up. He also knows that his political opponents are desperately looking for "gotchas" on him and are not very sophisticated or knowledgeable. They are used to dealing with regular politicians, who are not very smart and generally have the narcissist's habit of trying to cover up all the corrupt, perverted shit they do while maintaining a squeaky-clean, respectable face to the public. Trump is not that. His dirty laundry is all out there, and it's not very dirty when compared to most politicians.
So, assume Trump wants to get the most mileage out of a great story about himself (e.g. that he staged the greatest comeback in modern investment history, going from a billion dollars in the hole to ten billion dollars in the black). He could make a speech about it. He did write a book about it. But it's much more effective if he gets his enemies to publicize it for him.
That's exactly what this "paying no taxes" kerfluffle is doing. He didn't pay taxes for many years because he LOST A BILLION DOLLARS AND MADE A YUGE, RECORD-SETTING COMEBACK FROM THAT DISASTER.
Not only that, but the story reveals how the elites use the tax laws to their advantage while the little guys get screwed. That's ALSO part of Trump's message, and he has specifically proposed a new tax policy that will change that. So not only does the story highlight his own gigantic personal success, it also throws his tax policy proposals in sharp relief against his opposition.
He keeps doing this to you, and you keep not seeing it. It really funny to watch.
It wasn't enough to demean John McCain for becoming a POW when his airplane was shot down during View Nam, now this draft dodging POS is suggesting that US Veterans are p*ssies because "lot of people can't handle" PTSD.
gwharton: "he has specifically proposed a new tax policy that will change that" -- well, actually, Trump hasn't proposed closing a single loophole that benefits him. He just wants to close everybody else's loophole.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000556079
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/document/57f26244c46188b5248b4569/amp?client=safari
Democrats are Republicans with manners.
If I had a clone and we both walked into a crowded room with the intent of winning the most votes how would we do it? We are clones so we need to distance ourselves from each other...We would create differences between the two to appeal to the emotions of the audience..who ever appeals to a larger demographic wins...we would keep the issues about things that do not threaten our inevitable status quo...false dichotomy. That's American democracy.
the sugar coated turd Hillary vs that unsweetened turd trump.
so trump made millions by taking advantage of social safety net programs like bankruptcy protection and tax laws designed to minimize some of the impact of business losses. he didn't pay the debts he owed. how do you spin this in some way that he isn't a welfare cheat?
I guess it's his kind and generous spirit .....
curtkram: That comment shows a tremendous ignorance about both history and business.
tell me about it then gwharton. is good for everyone to be a welfare cheat, or just some people?
Bankruptcy is not welfare. You once again prove you have no idea what you are talking about.
Bankruptcy is a safety net program never intended to absolve the debts of those who can pay them. Our bankruptcy laws were enacted after debtor prisons were filled with people that didn't have the means to get out.
Trump relied on government protection to absolve personal responsibility and obligations for bad decisions he made. Of course being handed 338 million dollars in a reorganization is not the same thing as a middle class family absolving debt for medical bills they can't pay or someone getting a jar of peanut butter through wic. I would suggest that Trump's abuse of an expansive government welfare state is far more egregious though, since he chose not to exercise all options available to him before asking big government for another bailout.
curtkram: bankruptcy law has a very long history and nothing whatsoever to do with "welfare." It exists in order to prevent multi-generational servitude under attainder: you can declare bankruptcy in the event you cannot pay your creditors and not be forced into debt slavery.
But maybe you are in favor of debt slavery. The left seems to be very keen on it in recent times.
Remember - if elected, Trump isn't going to do any real work, so you have to ask yourself, "is this the guy I want running the Executive Branch for the next four years?"
Bankruptcy = changes in payment structure between corporate, business entities, who entered mutually agreed upon contracts
gwharton, i'm in favor of social safety net programs that help people recover from bad things happening. such as bankruptcy protection. i don't much care for people who abuse the welfare programs we have to help people recover from bad things happening, such as trump did.
Bankruptcy is not a "social safety net tool." The social safety net includes things like food stamps or Medicaid. Bankruptcy is a federal court proceedings to discharge an individual's or business's debts. The problem most people have understanding bankruptcy is that it is not a moral decision; it is an economic decision. It's perhaps fair to criticize Trump's business acumen for putting a company through bankruptcy. (However I personally find it ironic that most of the people lobbing criticism have never themselves run a business, including Mrs. Clinton.) But to treat it as somehow being a moral failure, such as social welfare abuse, completely misses the function of bankruptcy.
Seems to me the key aspect of Trump putting his businesses into bankruptcy hinges on his financial ability to support and sustain those failing business with outside financial resources.
Clearly, by his own admission, The Donald's wealth is "uuge" -- so, if that's really the case, why could he not have used some of his outside resources to shore up his failing businesses. The reason -- he made a "uuge" number of bad decisions, he realized those "uuge" bad decisions would never pay off, so he then used the bankruptcy laws to shield his other personal assets from dilution.
So, in that sense, The Donald did engage in something akin to "social welfare abuse" since he could have covered the expenses of these failing businesses -- he just didn't want to do so. This is the same con job that we've all experienced with builders who construct each house under a different corporate entity, which they dissolve immediately after the house is completed so there are no resources the homeowner can pursue.
Donald's easy willingness to walk away speaks volumes about the man's weak ethical and moral foundation.
And, before wadw strikes again, yes, I have run a business (an architecture firm) for many years and I know quite a lot about businesses that periodically experience financial difficulties. I also know quite a lot about injecting personal funds when necessary to keep that business going and preserving jobs.
a good proxy for this is home mortgages. Is it ok to default on a mortgage? Some feel a moral obligation to continue paying well past reckoning due to pride, Judeo-Christian ethics or whatever. Nevertheless, the mortgage contract spells our specific terms for both sides, mutually agreed upon at the time of execution.
You guys really don't get it. WADW is right. It's an economic decision for dealing with an enterprise that has gone negative on its balance sheet. It's not a moral decision, and trying to frame it as one just makes you look ignorant of basic business knowledge.
An important principle of running a business is to pay your bills and manage your cash flow to stay net-positive. But just as important is knowing when to quit throwing good money after bad and pumping resources into a losing proposition. Bankruptcy is a legal means for resolving contractual obligations that can no longer be met in full by a debtor for whatever reason.
JeromeS asks "Is it okay to default on a mortgage?" If you don't want to or can't pay it, the answer is obviously "yes." Does that mean that there are no legal implications to default? Of course not. That's what foreclosure is for. Will it impact your reputation and credit rating? Yes it will. Does it make you a bad person? No. It's just business.
Most businesses fail. People who are very successful tend to have failures in their past. Sometimes a LOT of failures. That's the foundation of their success. Fear or condemnation of failure is the mark of a small mind with no ambition trying to rationalize its own timidity.
Bankruptcy law is a foundational legal precept protecting the incentive to build value, take risks, and be entrepreneurial in our society. It says, "If you fail, it won't permanently destroy your life and the lives of all your descendants." That's a good thing. Because in the past, business failure would do exactly that: landing people in debtors prisons, having their families sold into indentured servitude, and attainting everyone connected to them.
Donald Trump went into bankruptcy. At one point, in the early 1990s, his net worth was negative by a BILLION dollars. One Billion Dollars. In the hole. That was his starting point twenty years ago. At age 50, when most of us are supposed to be at our professional peak and starting the downhill run toward retirement. How well would you do if you were starting from that far down, worse off than even the most poverty-stricken bum on the street? Donald Trump came back from that and is now worth around ten billion dollars.
Could you do that? I seriously doubt it. I couldn't. But it doesn't stop you from saying stupid, ignorant things about it and trying to characterize it as anything less than the monumental achievement it is.
I couldn't care less about arguing Trump this or Thump that, but I thought the title of this was interesting for the discussion at hand; Consumer Banktuptcy as Part of the Social Safety Net: Fresh Start or Treadmill. You may continue with your regularly scheduled Trumping and Thumping ...
gwarton - it's not a "moral" decision unless the person involved decides to make it one. It's ALL about character - something Donald Trump sorely lacks.
During my career I've known many individuals (including more than a few real estate developers) who have experienced serious business reversals -- often driving them up to, and in some cases past, the brink of bankruptcy. Some of those individuals have taken the scurrilous path you describe above -- i.e. casting a hard nosed economic eye at the situation and simply bailing out, letting the chips fall where they fall and not caring a jot for those who might be seriously injured by that action.
However, more often than not, I've witnessed people of strong character resist the easy temptation to declare bankruptcy, seek solutions to their problems, and apply their own time, energy and financial resources to first stabilize the situation and then to dig themselves out of the hole. I admire those people tremendously because they care about those partners, customers, suppliers and employees who would be negatively impacted if the business were allowed to go under.
I do not admire Donald Trump -- his business career does not remotely resemble a "monumental achievement" because he's built nothing of lasting value and he's not pursued anything beyond his own personal greed and aggrandizement. As long as he gets what he wants, he doesn't give a damn who else might get hurt.
And finally -- don't you ever get tired of talking down to those on this forum who don't happen to see the world through your own special lenses?
Those who bash Trump for utilizing bankruptcy do so from a moral high horse. My earlier question was rhetorical- whether you choose bankruptcy you do so within a defined agreement with benefits and penalties as agreed upon.
As to "monumental achievement" when you own a signature property, in Manahattan, free and clear, you can define achievement for. You might not like (morals) how it was erected but there is no doubt it is achievement and that it is monumental
sure sounds to me like bankruptcy is a welfare program. if you don't have food, you can turn to the government to help get you back on your feet so you don't get completely screwed. if you don't have healthcare, you can turn to the government to help get you back on your feet. if you fall too deep in debt, you can turn to the government to help get you back on your feet.
i think most of us know that sometime real life can hit you hard, and most of wouldn't look down at a person at all if they needed a little help to get back on their feet. however, you're a welfare cheat when you cheat those systems for your own gain, especially when you hurt others by not paying them what you promised. saying bankruptcy is an economic rather than moral decisions is no different than saying cheating the food stamp program is an economic decision. if you can make money at it, it's economic. by that logic, stealing money from the collection plate at church is an economic decision. if you don't understand there's a moral component because you're so greedy and self-absorbed that you're unaware of any other aspect to life, then it's easy to shrug it off and say the moral component doesn't count for you.
so i suppose this is how your 'rope a dope' analogy will play out. decent people will recognize trump as being a welfare cheat that hurts others for his own gain while people without a moral compass will celebrate and possibly even try to mimic his behavior. good luck running a business when people quit paying their debts to you, since keeping your promise is no longer a 'moral' question but rather an 'economic' question.
babs, you do not consider employing tens of thousands of people creating something of lasting value?
gruen, I wouldn't call Trump an asshole. More precisely he's a complete narcissist. He says stupid things. A lot of them. He's a shoot from the hip kinda guy; the total opposite of Hillary Clinton where everything uttered from her lips is scripted and intended to appeal (pander) to one interest group or another. She examplifies the empty words and ideals of bourgeois liberalism. This election has been interesting in you have one candidate that generally tells the truth, but does not at all seem honest. You have another candidate that tells lies, big whoppers, but somehow seems more honest about the challenges facing our country - the abject failures of trade deals, globalization, the fact that we have plowed ourselves into massive debt by being the world's policeman.
BTW Pence and Kaine are two of the stiffest tools I've ever seen. How were these two jokers selected to be VP candidates?!!!!
Because in the past, business failure would do exactly that: landing people in debtors prisons, having their families sold into indentured servitude, and attainting everyone connected to them.
you chose the wrong college and your career didn't pan out? pay up! you got sick? someone has to pay for that - oh and we'll not only go after you, but your family too! lose $1 billion as a business? you don't have to pay taxes for 18 years - oh and a bunch of your buddies will forgive your debt so you don't have to pay most of it back.
the scandal isn't what's illegal, it's what is legal.
I wonder if you can declare yourself an LLC and apply for student loans that way...
What you guys seem to be missing in this story is Trump's basic message on this sort of thing is:
I like to win and I win a lot. That means using the rules to beat the system and win the game, which I have done many times over. But more than anyone, I know the rules are fucked up and stacked against the working and middle classes in favor of the elites. That's wrong, and I intend to change it, because it is destroying our country and hurting many millions of good people.
He's explicitly saying that he is the right person to fix the system because he's already demonstrated he can beat it. And as part of the collateral for that position, his "putting his money where his mouth is," he has put a lifetime of success on the line to step up try to fix it. That's a powerful message, and it resonates with a LOT of people.
So, when you try to use that against him, it actually reinforces his message and makes it stronger. That's why none of these conventional narratives coming from his opponents hurt him. They help him instead.
you chose the wrong college and your career didn't pan out? pay up! you got sick? someone has to pay for that - oh and we'll not only go after you, but your family too! lose $1 billion as a business? you don't have to pay taxes for 18 years - oh and a bunch of your buddies will forgive your debt so you don't have to pay most of it back.
Dishonest comparison- Bankruptcy can provide protection from both medical bills and even student loans. Don't like the "costs" associated with bankruptcy- keep paying...
Bankruptcy can't protect you from student loans anymore. They're non-dischargeable debt now, thanks to Clinton and Bush II. And following that change in the law, student debt is now the single largest "asset" on the government's books thanks to Obama.
Welcome to debt slavery, kids.
^ maybe that should be added to every Grad school discussion threads that evolve into "fuck all of yous, my $200k Master degree is an investment"
Indeed. I kept telling them this in old threads here and elsewhere, emphasizing that they should not borrow more than their expected first year's salary out of school if they want to have any hope of ever paying it back. But they treated that suggestion with so much contempt that I don't even bother now.
kids these days.... amiright?
now I just get angry PM from one-post members when I casually suggest they use google in order to answer their own questions.
I will give you that He is a good person to point out flaws in the system but he has demonstrated that he is the wrong person to fix them. What incentive does he have to fix the system that got him rich? He's trying to flip that narrative and claim he's so smart (or, the accountants his dad hired are smart) but how does that help the average person? Going to teach them how to game the system too? This doesn't make any sense.
according to a US News article form 2013- in 40% of cases where student loans were included in a bankruptcy filing they were discharged.
In 2013, about 30% of student loans were in default. That number is around 40% now and increasing every year.
The student loans that are being noted as discharged in bankruptcy in that article were probably private loans issued prior to the new law. US News isn't breaking them out.
It's now EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to get a student loan discharged in bankruptcy. The government did that intentionally to reduce the risk premiums that had to be charged on student loan interest rates. This was supposed to make education "more affordable" (super-LOL), but instead just led to an acceleration of the education bubble due to easy credit terms, and many, many more millions of young people getting way over their heads in debt which will follow them for the rest of their lives no matter what.
The whole thing is pretty much the definition of "predatory lending practices."
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.