ADVERTISEMENT

As if we needed more evidence that Trump is psycho.....

Not sure that is an accurate statement, but there is a pecking order established by law.

Yes, there is a pecking order established by law, and as written that wasn't 100% accurate.

Secured creditors are paid first (these would normally be the largest entities), and then unsecured creditors are paid next, and then stockholders last. However, one of those unsecured creditors could be a small contractor or something who borrowed money based on outstanding invoices that now will never be paid and they don't survive.
 
It is easy to state that I(or anyone) don't understand, but it is not possible for you to accurately tell me what it is that I don't understand. If you have the mental capacity, please make the correction that you perceive to be needed to make my thought correct..

"You wrote off a bill that someone owed you? That was a form of bankruptcy."

If you write off a bill, you are not pursuing a debt owed to you. That's not equal to bankruptcy and it's not a form of bankruptcy. In this case RPJ is not pursuing a debt owed to him. He's not going bankrupt. He's making a calculated decision that there is either 1) not a good chance he will collect payment at all or 2) he'll invest more in trying to collect than what he is actually owed.
 
I hear you. I too get sucked in many times. Not as much now as I rarely post any longer.

My frustration is I preached and argued with many on this board in the early 2000's predicting these things would happen when everyone on the right was cheerleading Bush's tax cuts. I said then and it is as true today as it was then. Wrong cuts at the wrong time. And we have seen the results almost exactly as it was predicted with Bush's economic policies for the past 13 years play out. Until we change course, things such as a reduction of the debt will be near impossible. Having a balanced budget is indeed completely impossible. Having eroding infrastructure and other items that government has to invest into will continue to slide and without this investment, our economy will never be "robust". Best you can hope for is improved with a stagnant job growth and that is basically what has happened since the collapse in 2007-2008.
Bru, this has been a difficult one to run down. I have attempted to enter several times, but could not find the flashing signal to post.

Anyway, if I was on the board at that time, I would have had to have a discussion with you. First off, when GWB entered office he faced the Dot.com bubble burst and there was not a thriving economy. Then of course we had 9/11. The economy sank farther as the entertainment industry went to pot with flying sinking. The economy worsened and unemployment was climbing. Bush had asked for a tax cut earlier, and it finally passed in 02-03. The tax cut served its purpose when in 04 the unemployment decreased and GDP increased. I have proven this record using fed numbers in the past. The economy continued to grow and unemployment continued to drop to nearly 4.5%. GDP was growing at 6-7% eclipsing growth rate of most of Clinton Golden Years.

Of course the housing bubble burst in his final years when world economy declined. Money market when to hell and different people have different views as to why. I have never gotten into that and wouldn't feel comfortable doing so at this time.
 
"You wrote off a bill that someone owed you? That was a form of bankruptcy."

If you write off a bill, you are not pursuing a debt owed to you. That's not equal to bankruptcy and it's not a form of bankruptcy. In this case RPJ is not pursuing a debt owed to him. He's not going bankrupt. He's making a calculated decision that there is either 1) not a good chance he will collect payment at all or 2) he'll invest more in trying to collect than what he is actually owed.
Can we assume neil didn't attend the Wharton School of Business?:rolleyes:
 
"You wrote off a bill that someone owed you? That was a form of bankruptcy."

If you write off a bill, you are not pursuing a debt owed to you. That's not equal to bankruptcy and it's not a form of bankruptcy. In this case RPJ is not pursuing a debt owed to him. He's not going bankrupt. He's making a calculated decision that there is either 1) not a good chance he will collect payment at all or 2) he'll invest more in trying to collect than what he is actually owed.
And, that is approximately what happens in bankruptcy. Either party can initiate the action, the one giving credit, or the other party simply finds he is unable to pay without doing insurmountable financial damage to himself. I was wrong in using "form", it should have been similar to or like.
 
Yes, there is a pecking order established by law, and as written that wasn't 100% accurate.

Secured creditors are paid first (these would normally be the largest entities), and then unsecured creditors are paid next, and then stockholders last. However, one of those unsecured creditors could be a small contractor or something who borrowed money based on outstanding invoices that now will never be paid and they don't survive.
I don't think secured vs unsecured has anything to do with size of debt. Ever day debtor may allow a bill to run up in excess of those owed to secured creditor. Secured debt would tend to be long term in relation to the balance sheet.
 
Nor did the N with the cool cig hanging out. He is ignorant of business world. I did graduate from the WVU school of business and Marshall MBA school.
The "N"??? You truly are a despicable racist. And for a business school grad, you may want to bone up on the definition of bankruptcy. Writing off bad debts alone is not bankruptcy. It takes a court to approve bankruptcy. You're welcome you bold-faced racist. N word. Really?
 
And, that is approximately what happens in bankruptcy. Either party can initiate the action, the one giving credit, or the other party simply finds he is unable to pay without doing insurmountable financial damage to himself. I was wrong in using "form", it should have been similar to or like.

Not being able to collect on a bill owed to you is NOT the same thing as refusing (or not being able) to pay your debtors.

I don't see how you are equating the two at all.

You're really stretching with this one. Who is RPJ not paying because he can't collect that debt?
 
I don't think secured vs unsecured has anything to do with size of debt. Ever day debtor may allow a bill to run up in excess of those owed to secured creditor. Secured debt would tend to be long term in relation to the balance sheet.

I didn't say that it did. Regardless of the size of the debt, one is secured and one isn't, but the secured take priority. But when you consider the assets that would typically be used to secure a debt, it is logical that the secured debts are more likely to be the larger ones.

I can walk into a bank and they'll loan me $5000 just on my signature. If I want $500,000 they are going to want it secured somehow. Do the secured loans HAVE to be larger than the unsecured? No, but I'd venture that they are the vast majority of the time.
 
The "N"??? You truly are a despicable racist. And for a business school grad, you may want to bone up on the definition of bankruptcy. Writing off bad debts alone is not bankruptcy. It takes a court to approve bankruptcy. You're welcome you bold-faced racist. N word. Really?
And, you are just a wannabe. Where did the court come in? I thought we had only graduated to elements of bankruptcy and not the actual filing.

I did ask you a question earlier that you were too big a chicken-shit liar to respond to.
 
Nor did the N with the cool cig hanging out.

Obama has a message for you:

11695903_826427487465399_6469340941181451671_n.jpg
 
I didn't say that it did. Regardless of the size of the debt, one is secured and one isn't, but the secured take priority. But when you consider the assets that would typically be used to secure a debt, it is logical that the secured debts are more likely to be the larger ones.

I can walk into a bank and they'll loan me $5000 just on my signature. If I want $500,000 they are going to want it secured somehow. Do the secured loans HAVE to be larger than the unsecured? No, but I'd venture that they are the vast majority of the time.
Some small operation may sell you a copy machine one time and want payment secured. But, you may buy supplies and repairs from several vendors who run up bills continuously. The vendors who have ongoing sales to an operation are normally going to run up larger tabs than the one time purchase Of course the one time purchase of a plane would be larger and a long term liability whereas the ongoing supplies and repairs will be short term and paid monthly.

We both probably know this and arguing for the sake of arguing. I do fully understand that secured means that. Also common is subordinated if we want to expand to dissolution.
 
Last edited:
Obama has a message for you:

11695903_826427487465399_6469340941181451671_n.jpg
I must say you couldn't have found a better likeness on him and Triple Prick. And he has been waving his social finger at the entire country for his entire term. If that is what you are trying to relay.
 
I must say you couldn't have found a better likeness on him and Triple Prick. And he has been waving his social finger at the entire country for his entire term. If that is what you are trying to relay.
And you deny being a racist? Incredible. You are what's wrong with this country. When racists like you cease to exist, we'll all be better for it. That being said, go see kevorkian.
 
Some small operation may sell you a copy machine one time and want payment secured. But, you may buy supplies and repairs from several vendors who run up bills continuously. The vendors who have ongoing sales to an operation are normally going to run up larger tabs than the one time purchase Of course the one time purchase of a plane would be larger and a long term liability whereas the ongoing supplies and repairs will be short term and paid monthly.

We both probably know this and arguing for the sake of arguing.

I didn't think we were arguing in the first place. Not about this anyway.

The statement you made in bold above illustrates my original point. If that vendor is still owed money when bankruptcy is filed, they aren't likely to recover it. Depending on the size of the company, that could do them in. It's possible, if not very likely, that Trumps 4 bankruptcies left some smaller companies in their wake and crushed them.
 
I didn't think we were arguing in the first place. Not about this anyway.

The statement you made in bold above illustrates my original point. If that vendor is still owed money when bankruptcy is filed, they aren't likely to recover it. Depending on the size of the company, that could do them in. It's possible, if not very likely, that Trumps 4 bankruptcies left some smaller companies in their wake and crushed them.
You're wasting your time. He's a moron. And a racist. See above. He should be banned from this board. I'm offended as a Caucasian. I can't imagine how a Black person would feel reading is posts. Well, actually I can imagine.
 
And you deny being a racist? Incredible. You are what's wrong with this country. When racists like you cease to exist, we'll all be better for it. That being said, go see kevorkian.
I have never denied use of N nor the word. It is normally reserved for friends, but in your case I will make an exception your wannabe status is too hard to ignore. As to what is wrong with the world, I will never allow the likes of you set those parameters. I will have to use a person with less ridiculous traits. First being they are not liars.
 
Richard J Peter has said the N word many times at the country club.
 
You're wasting your time. He's a moron. And a racist. See above. He should be banned from this board. I'm offended as a Caucasian. I can't imagine how a Black person would feel reading is posts. Well, actually I can imagine.
I do apologize to all black people, but not wannabes. That excludes Triple Prick because he is such a liar.
 
Richard J Peter has said the N word many times at the country club.
It had to be in the context "oh how I wannabe a....". Maybe in his name is the only place he has one and he would like to be hung like the blacks are alleged to be. Triple Prick, is that why you are always crying?
 
I didn't think we were arguing in the first place. Not about this anyway.

The statement you made in bold above illustrates my original point. If that vendor is still owed money when bankruptcy is filed, they aren't likely to recover it. Depending on the size of the company, that could do them in. It's possible, if not very likely, that Trumps 4 bankruptcies left some smaller companies in their wake and crushed them.
That is a possibility that some weaker companies/individuals go broke as a result of someone else's actions in bankruptcy. Unless the laws have changed, it would be illegal for someone to name you as a debtor in bankruptcy and at a later date pay you.

Let me pose the same question to you as I did to TP. Would you ever do business with the person/company again who put you out of business because they had previously defaulted on a debt? TP said he would not, but refused to answer my question.
 
Let me pose the same question to you as I did to TP. Would you ever do business with the person/company again who put you out of business because they had previously defaulted on a debt?

I can't make a blanket statement to say that I would never, but I can't think of an instance in which I would. Personal relationships I would. As far as business is concerned, I would absolutely HAVE to have that business to survive in order to do it, I suppose.

If the person/company put me out of business, it would be hard for me to do business with them in the first place ... since ... you know ... I'm out of business. :)

To be honest though, that's not how you posed the question to RPJ. You questioned that if some old black lady (not sure what race has to do with it) couldn't pay her bill and then brought her attractive daughter in later with a toothache that he'd treat the daughter. In that scenario, the old black lady didn't put him out of business, and he wouldn't be doing business with her, he'd be doing business with the daughter. (unless you're implying that the daughter is a minor ... the "old lady" part might have thrown me off there, as well as the "attractive" part)
 
Last edited:
Not being able to collect on a bill owed to you is NOT the same thing as refusing (or not being able) to pay your debtors.

I don't see how you are equating the two at all.

You're really stretching with this one. Who is RPJ not paying because he can't collect that debt?

I am not sure they equate, but both are standard business practices. Bankruptcy is just as much a part of business as collections etc. It is often the result of poor management but in the case of doc if he had enough clients not pay their bills and his business were structured in such a way where his payroll, equipment costs and overhead were on a line of credit bankruptcy would be a tool at his disposal to give him a chance to collect debts and pay debts while keeping creditors for suing him for his debt. That is what the process exists for in business.

Like anything else, it gets abused but that doesn't mean everyone abuses it.
 
I can't make a blanket statement to say that I would never, but I can't think of an instance in which I would. Personal relationships I would. As far as business is concerned, I would absolutely HAVE to have that business to survive in order to do it, I suppose.

If the person/company put me out of business, it would be hard for me to do business with them in the first place ... since ... you know ... I'm out of business. :)

To be honest though, that's not how you posed the question to RPJ. You questioned that if some old black lady (not sure what race has to do with it) couldn't pay her bill and then brought her attractive daughter in later with a toothache that he'd treat the daughter. In that scenario, the old black lady didn't put him out of business, and he wouldn't be doing business with her, he'd be doing business with the daughter. (unless you're implying that the daughter is a minor ... the "old lady" part might have thrown me off there, as well as the "attractive" part)
I think you are dancing around the question. The question is basically, are you a risk taker? Most realize that not all relationships are guaranteed. You take some risks or you are passing on too much business. That is the reason for the question. It is not about black grandma/granddaughter. The question for Triple Prick was to test if he meant what he said that about once burned. In business, you test and verify the ability to pay and then make a decision. And I say that you don't always refuse business just because they defaulted one time.

The question on Trump, do you refuse to do business with him because he filed bankruptcy one time and you had to write off some amount several years back when today, he released his financials that showed net worth in the teens of billions of dollars. If you make decisions like that, you are never going to maximize the gross and net in any business either for a company or personally. If I were interviewing you for a decision making position, I would excuse you because you are wasting my time. Hopefully this is clearer than where we were going earlier in the day attempting to use some PC vernacular.
 
I think you are dancing around the question. The question is basically, are you a risk taker? Most realize that not all relationships are guaranteed. You take some risks or you are passing on too much business. That is the reason for the question. It is not about black grandma/granddaughter. The question for Triple Prick was to test if he meant what he said that about once burned. In business, you test and verify the ability to pay and then make a decision. And I say that you don't always refuse business just because they defaulted one time.

The question on Trump, do you refuse to do business with him because he filed bankruptcy one time and you had to write off some amount several years back when today, he released his financials that showed net worth in the teens of billions of dollars. If you make decisions like that, you are never going to maximize the gross and net in any business either for a company or personally. If I were interviewing you for a decision making position, I would excuse you because you are wasting my time. Hopefully this is clearer than where we were going earlier in the day attempting to use some PC vernacular.

If you would excuse me based on that question and the way it was phrased, then you are a very poor interviewer. I would say that somebody that answered that definitively one way or the other would be a poor choice because they are making decisions without analyzing the situation. Every situation is unique.

Would I do business with Trump? I would have to know a lot more about the specifics of his bankruptcies, because while he may be worth billions, whatever project we'd be involved in would most likely be under some incorporated business entity in which case Trump's billions would be protected in case of bankruptcy and the only thing on the table would be the holdings of that business.

It also depends on what kind of business I have. If I'm a construction company, yes, because his buildings get built.

So, if you would excuse me right off the bat without discussing any of those things, I would have to question your decision making skills myself. You'd come off to me as somebody that jumps without thinking and doing an AOA.
 
If you would excuse me based on that question and the way it was phrased, then you are a very poor interviewer. I would say that somebody that answered that definitively one way or the other would be a poor choice because they are making decisions without analyzing the situation. Every situation is unique.

Would I do business with Trump? I would have to know a lot more about the specifics of his bankruptcies, because while he may be worth billions, whatever project we'd be involved in would most likely be under some incorporated business entity in which case Trump's billions would be protected in case of bankruptcy and the only thing on the table would be the holdings of that business.

It also depends on what kind of business I have. If I'm a construction company, yes, because his buildings get built.

So, if you would excuse me right off the bat without discussing any of those things, I would have to question your decision making skills myself. You'd come off to me as somebody that jumps without thinking and doing an AOA.
Don't know what the AOA is, but you have proven to me that you are not a person that I would like in the business world with me. Perhaps you would do a good job for Triple Prick as office manager, but I do not see you in a decision making position. Sorry, but you are too protective for me.
 
Don't know what the AOA is, but you have proven to me that you are not a person that I would like in the business world with me. Perhaps you would do a good job for Triple Prick as office manager, but I do not see you in a decision making position. Sorry, but you are too protective for me.

The fact you don't know what AOA means indicates that I wouldn't miss working for you. It means Analysis of Alternatives.

My company works in multiple locations, and I've tripled the size of the business where we are because customers count on me to do proper analysis and provide the best decisions.
 
The fact you don't know what AOA means indicates that I wouldn't miss working for you. It means Analysis of Alternatives.

My company works in multiple locations, and I've tripled the size of the business where we are because customers count on me to do proper analysis and provide the best decisions.
Wow, I am impressed with your "triple the size", and you said that you would never say never. That is what I was looking for. Once burned, be forewarned , but never say never. And you are right that situations are analyzed. But to Trump, I have absolutely no problem of doing business again even tho I was stiffed one time. I would not just look at a business of his to stand alone. I look at the man, and would he easily allow another to bankrupt? I say no, and would enter renewed association.
 
Wow, I am impressed with your "triple the size", and you said that you would never say never. That is what I was looking for. Once burned, be forewarned , but never say never. And you are right that situations are analyzed. But to Trump, I have absolutely no problem of doing business again even tho I was stiffed one time. I would not just look at a business of his to stand alone. I look at the man, and would he easily allow another to bankrupt? I say no, and would enter renewed association.

Well, here's where I'm going with the analysis. You say he wouldn't easily allow another bankruptcy, but he's done it 4 times. I would analyze the current situation and my business' role in it and see how closely it would relate to the situation of previous bankruptcies as well as analyzing where he was when those happened and where he is now. How similar are those positions? Am I taking on the exact same role as a business that was stiffed the 4 times before? If so, that would lead to some trepidation, so then you analyze the risk/reward and make a decision.

Business is essentially all risk of some sort or another, so you can't practice risk avoidance, but you do need to practice risk mitigation and what your risk exposure is.

I'd hate to think that the financial analysis and quantitative analysis and regression analysis that I had to do through my MBA program would just be thrown out the window and that my boss would just fly by the seat of his pants. If so, what does he need me for anyway?
 
Well, here's where I'm going with the analysis. You say he wouldn't easily allow another bankruptcy, but he's done it 4 times. I would analyze the current situation and my business' role in it and see how closely it would relate to the situation of previous bankruptcies as well as analyzing where he was when those happened and where he is now. How similar are those positions? Am I taking on the exact same role as a business that was stiffed the 4 times before? If so, that would lead to some trepidation, so then you analyze the risk/reward and make a decision.

Business is essentially all risk of some sort or another, so you can't practice risk avoidance, but you do need to practice risk mitigation and what your risk exposure is.

I'd hate to think that the financial analysis and quantitative analysis and regression analysis that I had to do through my MBA program would just be thrown out the window and that my boss would just fly by the seat of his pants. If so, what does he need me for anyway?

We talk the same language. I may not agree with all your conclusions and you won't agree with all of mine but it is nice to see another person on here I can consider a peer. There are not many. And from my experience, those that do not speak our language will criticize our "thinking" simply because they review an issue simply one dimensionally and they are stuck in their closed minded ways as they are only interested in a preconceived agenda.
 
Well, here's where I'm going with the analysis. You say he wouldn't easily allow another bankruptcy, but he's done it 4 times. I would analyze the current situation and my business' role in it and see how closely it would relate to the situation of previous bankruptcies as well as analyzing where he was when those happened and where he is now. How similar are those positions? Am I taking on the exact same role as a business that was stiffed the 4 times before? If so, that would lead to some trepidation, so then you analyze the risk/reward and make a decision.

Business is essentially all risk of some sort or another, so you can't practice risk avoidance, but you do need to practice risk mitigation and what your risk exposure is.

I'd hate to think that the financial analysis and quantitative analysis and regression analysis that I had to do through my MBA program would just be thrown out the window and that my boss would just fly by the seat of his pants. If so, what does he need me for anyway?
I thought your remarks were very textbook oriented. After my MBA, I went to work in industry, but congrats to you and your education if you can utilize those models as anything more than a model. Even my instructors cautioned us about the use as absolute determining factors in decision making.
 
And from my experience, those that do not speak our language will criticize our "thinking" simply because they review an issue simply one dimensionally and they are stuck in their closed minded ways as they are only interested in a preconceived agenda.

"We reveal a lot about ourselves in the assumptions we make about others."

I agree with what you said exactly. What I mean by that quote is that I was painted into a corner early on, and I believe I'm still in that corner as far as a few on here are concerned. To some on here, you are either conservative or liberal, and you will be painted into that corner based on your first few posts. And then there are others that will call you wishy washy or hypocrite if you're actually able to hold 2 competing truths in your head at the same time and can actually recognize that both can be true.

Because many are one way ... they pick a side and that's it ... they automatically assume you're doing the same when you don't agree with them and what they claim is "fact". It's a bit maddening at times, but I've also just used the ignore button for a couple/few, and it's a lot better.

On some issues I'll come down on the side of the liberals and on others I'll come down on the side of the conservatives, it just depends on the topic and the argument. I believe that equal rights for all is an important part of the constitution and so I'm for gay marriage. If there are judges or county officials that don't do the marriages, then they should be removed from their positions since they are part of the government. However, I would be vehemently against anything that stated that a pastor, minister, priest had to perform those ceremonies.

But, if the conversation was over whether gay marriage should be legal, I'd be labeled as a liberal that wants to see Christianity destroyed. Then if I stated that I'd be against making a pastor perform the ceremony they'd say I was lying because they've already made up their mind about everything they think I believe.

It's the way it goes.

It may not seem like it all of the time, but the majority on here are not like that. It's only a few.
 
Even my instructors cautioned us about the use as absolute determining factors in decision making.

I didn't say that. However, they are data points or factors that can be used in the decision along with everything else. It would be foolish to rely on them solely, but it would be equally foolish to ignore them.
 
We talk the same language. I may not agree with all your conclusions and you won't agree with all of mine but it is nice to see another person on here I can consider a peer. There are not many. And from my experience, those that do not speak our language will criticize our "thinking" simply because they review an issue simply one dimensionally and they are stuck in their closed minded ways as they are only interested in a preconceived agenda.
Bahahahahahahahaha. What would the world do without you.
 
"In 1991, Trump's Taj Mahal located in Atlantic City was in debt for billions of dollars. As a result, Trump's corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy court allowed Trump to reorganize his corporate debts and allowed the casino to keep operating. Trump did surrender half of his ownership interests in the Taj Mahal. He chose to sell his yacht and airplane to help make loan payments.

In 1992, Trump filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on his Trump Plaza Hotel in Atlantic City. At this time, Trump owed $550 million on the Trump Plaza Hotel. As part of the restructuring, Trump gave Citibank a 49% interest in the hotel. He was given a lenient repayment plan. Trump was able to stay on as CEO but he had to give up his salary.

Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004. The corporation had $1.8 billion dollars of debt. Trump reduced his share in the company to 25% thereby surrendering his control of the corporation. The corporation received lower interest rates and another loan to upgrade the properties.

In 2009, Trump Entertainment Resorts filed bankruptcy after missing a large bond interest payment. Trump was not able to agree with his board of directors on a repayment plan so he resigned as chairman of the board and retained only a 10% ownership interest in the corporation.


Law Dictionary: How is Donald Trump Able to File for Bankruptcy So Many Times? "

Yeah, he's done it four times, but what it really tells me is Trump can't operate Casino's worth a damn. Atlantic City was never going to be another Las Vegas, no matter how hard they tried.
 
Yeah, he's done it four times, but what it really tells me is Trump can't operate Casino's worth a damn. Atlantic City was never going to be another Las Vegas, no matter how hard they tried.

I agree. What does that tell you on Trump and his decision making ability on something he is really go at? Personally, it tells me in that business you will have failures. But the bigger picture is in terms of Trumps run for President, can we afford to have these type of failures from our President? Again personally, I don't think one can compare the two so I won't but it does make one pause if you aren't already filled with an agenda such as those that are showing their loyal support for the guy.
 
I agree. What does that tell you on Trump and his decision making ability on something he is really go at? Personally, it tells me in that business you will have failures. But the bigger picture is in terms of Trumps run for President, can we afford to have these type of failures from our President? Again personally, I don't think one can compare the two so I won't but it does make one pause if you aren't already filled with an agenda such as those that are showing their loyal support for the guy.

With Trump, we can't afford to have crazy from our President either.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT