Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've heard cases where small businesses had Trump's corp as a major client, and when the corp filed BK, the small company went down with Trump's biz.
Taxpayers would be on the hook through the unemployment claims and any other assistance programs the laid off staff ended up on. Creditors just pass the losses along in the form of higher interest rates and fees to other customers.
On the other hand the Federal Gov't cannot go bankrupt. Trump long ago touched on this in some useful, and some screwy ways IMO. But hasn't gone back to it, to the best of my knowledge.
Public officials have to file financial disclosure statements alright, but the question I asked concenred a Freedom of Information Act that applied to the private sector.
What in you view would be the difference between hiding stuff from taxpayers on the one hand, and hiding stuff from consumers on the other? Those two groups are nearly identical, you know.
On the other hand the Federal Gov't cannot go bankrupt. Trump long ago touched on this in some useful, and some screwy ways IMO. But hasn't gone back to it, to the best of my knowledge.
Technically no, but debt purchasers can lose confidence and demand higher rates or simply not buy the stuff.
Technically, realistically and functionally no. The world desires more debt, and safe debt, than available, and remains willing to buy/hold it at next to no interest return. US debt is the safest store of value, and that is what many major purchasers are buying. So for the foreseeable future, US debt issuance is not in peril.
Confidence could be lost if we should lose a world war, or suffer an asteroid hit. Or not...
Bankruptcy comes in many flavors, like Chapters 7 & 13. The reasons one gets there is varied, from simple spending beyond one's means, to a medical emergency, family issues, losing a job, or even just a series of misfortunate events. Those on the outside looking in sometimes stigmatize those her are bankrupt, if that person lets it be known. Many times it's a negative feeling.
But here we are, one of the two presidential candidates pretty famous for his multiple bankruptcies. Here's a man who somehow to date how's pushed through the negatives to get this far. Many people can't get financial jobs if they are bankrupt, as employers may not trust that person. Yet a large % of this country is saying thy will let a person who has been bankrupt run the country, which includes finances and decisions that could ultimately affect us. That's some trust.
Has this happened before in major politics? Many businesses have gone through bankruptcies, obviously affecting others along the way (not paying 100% of debt, etc), and people losing their jobs. Yet a person with a strong history in bankruptcy although may not win has been brought this close. I find it somewhat amazing.
My personal opinion is that it got destigmatized mostly by all the "walk aways" when the housing bubble burst.
Especially when the politicians in true form tried to pin the whole thing on the banks and their lending practices which is only part of the story and mostly made people out to be victims that had to declare bankruptcy which was definitely true for some but for others it was speculation and walking away even when they could have still made the payments.
Now me personally, I have no problem with someone declaring bankruptcy. It's the law and that's that. Not to mention that the PAY for the right to declare bankruptcy in the form of higher costs and interest rates.
Technically no, but debt purchasers can lose confidence and demand higher rates or simply not buy the stuff.
Where will federal trust funds invest their balances? Where will all the countries with whom we have trade deficits put their surplus dollars for safe-keeping? What will happen to the economies for whom Treasuries form the core of their reserve asset positions? What will god-parents give the little ones for their birthdays if not US Savings Bonds?
Bankruptcy comes in many flavors, like Chapters 7 & 13. The reasons one gets there is varied, from simple spending beyond one's means, to a medical emergency, family issues, losing a job, or even just a series of misfortunate events. Those on the outside looking in sometimes stigmatize those her are bankrupt, if that person lets it be known. Many times it's a negative feeling.
But here we are, one of the two presidential candidates pretty famous for his multiple bankruptcies. Here's a man who somehow to date how's pushed through the negatives to get this far. Many people can't get financial jobs if they are bankrupt, as employers may not trust that person. Yet a large % of this country is saying thy will let a person who has been bankrupt run the country, which includes finances and decisions that could ultimately affect us. That's some trust.
Has this happened before in major politics? Many businesses have gone through bankruptcies, obviously affecting others along the way (not paying 100% of debt, etc), and people losing their jobs. Yet a person with a strong history in bankruptcy although may not win has been brought this close. I find it somewhat amazing.
Trump has filed six bankruptcies. That's not a good thing, just because it was Trump. It screwed his creditors, which included little guys, not just the big ones.
BR has a negative effect because it is not good. The biggest predictor of future behavior is past behavior. If someone can't control his finances to the point that he has to file for BR, that's not as responsible a person as one who didn't have to file BR. Some people choose to negotiate debts down, and work to pay them off.
BTW, Trump filing six BR means he's not a good businessman. Forbes even stated that had he put his money in a passive fund 30 years ago and retired, he'd have more money now.
Trump is a marketer - a pitchman who can leverage his name. He is not so good with the overall financial picture as his history shows, but the banks/investors bought it.
He can not be trusted to pay any contractors (one of the things Hilary got right in the debate - I liked that she pointed that out). He'll get out of paying if there's not a rock solid contract, and preferably a lien on his building.
But he'll say he's just a smart businessman legally taking advantage of loopholes. I don't even know how he still gets contractors for his job sites - he'd have to pay me cash up front to even touch one of his projects. And the materials he now uses are cheap.
There is such a thing called character and business ethics. A good businessman doesn't screw over a majority of his vendors, customers, and financiers. It will eventually catch up to you.
He better hope he holds onto the leasing contracts for his buildings - he needs the cash flow.
Last edited by GoCUBS1; 10-12-2016 at 07:34 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way Trump openly and proudly talks about his own sexism, and how many divorces (cough...adultery...cough).....and HE is your moral standard?