Per Robert Green:
The lenders failed their "dur diligence" duties and gave $ to
people with no chance of paying it back, hoping to recover what they thought
would be an even-more valuable asset in foreclosure. They gambled and lost.

Except that they did not lose. Instead, they securitized those
mortgages and sold them before the sky fell.

The holders of the securities took gas, but the original lenders had
already offloaded the risk.

I think the term-of-art is "Collateralized Debt Obligation", aka "CDO".
--
Pete Cresswell

On 8/26/2016 1:09 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:8e3b2e29-5774-

stuff snipped

Builders going bankrupt and stiffing their subs is more common than
you would think.

Except Trump has a long history of doing the stiffing without going
bankrupt. For example, there was a small cabinet maker from Philly
that had been doing work for Trump at one of his casinos. When the
work was done, Trump refused to pay them the last amount which was
substantial, like $100K. They went out of business shortly later.

Pretty likely because they were awful businessmen. Front $100K to Trump?


From the stories I've read recently I'd not lend hom 20 bucks. His
reputation before as a huge billion dollar builder, 100k is nothing.
That was 25% of the contract, not uncommon terms in commercial work.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...tiffed-us.html




Who really put the 100K at risk? Trump or the contractor that extended that
amount of credit? Some have said people made so much money working on Trump
projects that it still worked out in the end for many even with their
involuntary contributions though his bankruptcies.


So you accept it as OK to be stiffed?

Would you sign a contract that didn't read "pay as you go" with a character
as well-known as a deadbeat as you say Trump was? Builders have been
stiffing contractors since the building of the Pyramids.

He did get 75%. Yes, there may be more to the story as at 75% payment
his material cost and a chunk of his labor should have been covered.
Not enough information to draw a conclusion, but a 50 year old company
should be fairly sound fiscally.

On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:21:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:34:08 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

What do you call not paying your contractors???
It's theft - pure and simple.

I'll say it again: if you want some entertainment Google "Trump
Discount"

Builders going bankrupt and stiffing their subs is more common than
you would think.


IT WAS ALL TRUMP'S FAULT, HE RIPPED THOSE PEOPLE OFF! Commiecrat worshiping peasants and entertainers have never run a business or formed their own corporation. If a businessman is wealthy enough, he will setup more than one corporation and holding company to do business. It's to limit his personal liability.

The Commiecrat elite do it too plus setup charitable organizations to launder illegally obtained money. They're lawyers and get into politics because they can scam huge numbers of people.

If Trump wants a building, he doesn't build it himself, he hires a construction company. The construction company may have it's own workers but also hires sub contractors and the construction company pays for all work done.

I worked for myself and wasn't paid for a lot of work I did when I trusted the wrong people. I learned who to trust and who to do business with. I learned from whom to get paid in advance. I went up on more than one roof and removed parts when I wasn't paid for work I did on an AC unit. If anyone gave me ANY problems with getting paid, I never responded to any more of their phone calls. Small businesses must fight for every penny they get. I couldn't hire an attorney if someone refused to pay $100.00, I couldn't stop working and spend my time in small claims court because it would cost me more than what I was owed. I had a jerk refuse to pay for some service work so I found out the bar he frequented. I put duct tape over his car tag and waited until he left the bar then called police about a man acting suspiciously and gave them a description of his car and which way it was traveling. The cops didn't kill him dammit but they did arrest him for drunk driving which cost the creep 10 times what he owed me. The fact that his tag was covered resulted in a felony stop where he wound up with more than one scrape, sprain and bruise. The 1099 method was also a good way of revenge and worked well. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Vengeful Monster

On 8/26/2016 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:12:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/24/2016 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:40:16 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:12:58 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:16:22 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 3:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:50:50 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 12:10 PM, wrote:


Same thing as electing a dangerous total idiot as president and
counting on Concress and Senate to mitigate the damage.


The problem with your statement is that Trump isn't an idiot.


An intelligent idiot perhaps - but still an idiot - and I'm not even
sure of the "perhaps" If idiot is not the proper word, berhaps fool is
closer.



The man isn't even close to being an idiot, and to get to where he is
today takes a great amount of intelligence, too.

If I had inherited over 75 million dollars after having been put
through expensive colleges by rich parents I could be "very
successful" too.

You might even manage it.


Many people if put in the position of inheriting millions of dollars
can't manage it and end up broke.

Trump isn't broke.

He might be if he paid all his bills. He has been broke several times
and no-one, including the donald himself, really knows what he is
worth, financially.


Hey, I can't fault him for whatever his financial worth is - he's doing
better than a lot of other people I can think of, including me.


How would you be doing if you had a top-notch education given to you
along with a minimum of 75 million 1970s dollars???


It doesn't matter.

Then nore does the "FACT" that Trump is a "successfull businesman"
have anything to do with proving he's not a total idiot. (or fool)


I'm not running for office. Trump is. If someone says he's a "total
idiot" and not qualified because he's a "total idiot", then the fact
that he's a successful businessman IS relevant.

--
Maggie

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On 8/26/2016 1:09 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message news:8e3b2e29-5774-

stuff snipped

Builders going bankrupt and stiffing their subs is more common than
you would think.

Except Trump has a long history of doing the stiffing without going
bankrupt. For example, there was a small cabinet maker from Philly
that had been doing work for Trump at one of his casinos. When the
work was done, Trump refused to pay them the last amount which was
substantial, like $100K. They went out of business shortly later.

Pretty likely because they were awful businessmen. Front $100K to
Trump?

From the stories I've read recently I'd not lend hom 20 bucks.

Nor would I and that's my point. But the calculus could change if I thought
it could pay off in some way. I've taken some fairly dubious work when I
was idle on the assumption the possibility of *some* income was better than
the certainty of *no* income.

His
reputation before as a huge billion dollar builder, 100k is nothing.
That was 25% of the contract, not uncommon terms in commercial work.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/a...tiffed-us.html

That appears to be a retelling of an a Philly Enquirer story. It said he
stiffed lawyers, too, but I know few who will float client money. They
almost always get a sizeable retainer up front. I don't have enough
interest to read the Philly piece but I did notice that Will Bunch's summary
didn't match Trader's. Apparently Trump DID claim the work was shoddy. Who
says he couldn't prove that in court?

Who really put the 100K at risk? Trump or the contractor that extended
that
amount of credit? Some have said people made so much money working on
Trump
projects that it still worked out in the end for many even with their
involuntary contributions though his bankruptcies.

So you accept it as OK to be stiffed?

No, of course not. That's why I asked why someone who DID get stiffed
didn't sue. If no bankruptcy was filed, why not sue? I lost $2K to a
bankruptcy fraudster in the 80's and even though I tried to recover the
funds, they had all evaporated (not really, but that's another story). But
I didn't just give up.

Would you sign a contract that didn't read "pay as you go" with a
character
as well-known as a deadbeat as you say Trump was? Builders have been
stiffing contractors since the building of the Pyramids.

He did get 75%. Yes, there may be more to the story as at 75% payment
his material cost and a chunk of his labor should have been covered.
Not enough information to draw a conclusion, but a 50 year old company
should be fairly sound fiscally.

If one big hit killed it, I suspect there was something wrong, somewhere. I
certainly wouldn't front a client so much money that a failure to get paid
would sink me. It's also not hard to believe that even an excellent
craftsman might not have the smarts to protect themselves against a
financial shark like Trump. His strategy could be to underpay everyone and
only settle up with the ones that sue.

Keep in mind, too, that news organs are suspect at the best of times but
during campaigns they'll print/televise some of the most scurrilous claims
ever. Ratings matter more than truth these days. )-:

--
Bobby G.

On Friday, August 26, 2016 at 9:14:22 PM UTC-4, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:21:20 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 21:34:08 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

What do you call not paying your contractors???
It's theft - pure and simple.

I'll say it again: if you want some entertainment Google "Trump
Discount"

Builders going bankrupt and stiffing their subs is more common than
you would think.


IT WAS ALL TRUMP'S FAULT, HE RIPPED THOSE PEOPLE OFF! Commiecrat worshiping peasants and entertainers have never run a business or formed their own corporation. If a businessman is wealthy enough, he will setup more than one corporation and holding company to do business. It's to limit his personal liability.

The Commiecrat elite do it too plus setup charitable organizations to launder illegally obtained money. They're lawyers and get into politics because they can scam huge numbers of people.

If Trump wants a building, he doesn't build it himself, he hires a construction company. The construction company may have it's own workers but also hires sub contractors and the construction company pays for all work done.


You would think all the people interviewed who said Trump stiffed them
would know whether it was Trump's company or a sub contractor that stiffed
them. The stories say it was Trump's company. I also provided a link
to a WSJ story where they quote Trump himself saying he stiffs people
who have done an OK or satisfactory job.

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 12:27:05 AM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/26/2016 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:12:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/24/2016 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:40:16 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:12:58 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:16:22 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 3:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:50:50 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 12:10 PM, wrote:


Same thing as electing a dangerous total idiot as president and
counting on Concress and Senate to mitigate the damage.


The problem with your statement is that Trump isn't an idiot.


An intelligent idiot perhaps - but still an idiot - and I'm not even
sure of the "perhaps" If idiot is not the proper word, berhaps fool is
closer.



The man isn't even close to being an idiot, and to get to where he is
today takes a great amount of intelligence, too.

If I had inherited over 75 million dollars after having been put
through expensive colleges by rich parents I could be "very
successful" too.

You might even manage it.


Many people if put in the position of inheriting millions of dollars
can't manage it and end up broke.

Trump isn't broke.

He might be if he paid all his bills. He has been broke several times
and no-one, including the donald himself, really knows what he is
worth, financially.


Hey, I can't fault him for whatever his financial worth is - he's doing
better than a lot of other people I can think of, including me.


How would you be doing if you had a top-notch education given to you
along with a minimum of 75 million 1970s dollars???


It doesn't matter.

Then nore does the "FACT" that Trump is a "successfull businesman"
have anything to do with proving he's not a total idiot. (or fool)


I'm not running for office. Trump is. If someone says he's a "total
idiot" and not qualified because he's a "total idiot", then the fact
that he's a successful businessman IS relevant.

--
Maggie

How do we know he's so successful? Four business bankruptcies, he
freely admits he's had a negative net worth of $1 bil at least once
and has been close to broke other times. Just prior to that being exposed
and hitting the fan, Trump looked just like he does now, a very succesful
businessman. He owned all kinds of properties, was motoring around in
his 280 ft yacht. Then suddenly it turned out he was really broke and
the banks forced him to sell off a bunch of assets, including the yacht,
which he took a big loss on. No tax returns, no independent accounting,
all we have are Trump's flapping gums as to his success and net worth.
Obviously he's hiding something by refusing to release his tax returns.

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:28:53 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:


No, of course not. That's why I asked why someone who DID get stiffed
didn't sue. If no bankruptcy was filed, why not sue?

There are other news stories about all the lawsuits that Trump has had,
thousands of them. The typical small guy, probably figures that Trump
is so lawyered up, that bringing a case against him isn't worth it.
Would a lawyer take it on contigency? IDK. And even if they did, what's
the cost of taking depositions, hiring expert witnesses, etc? And then
you win, Trump appeals and just keeps it going, just like he does with
all his other disputes. They likely look at it as throwing more good
money after bad.



I lost $2K to a
bankruptcy fraudster in the 80's and even though I tried to recover the
funds, they had all evaporated (not really, but that's another story). But
I didn't just give up.

Would you sign a contract that didn't read "pay as you go" with a
character
as well-known as a deadbeat as you say Trump was? Builders have been
stiffing contractors since the building of the Pyramids.

He did get 75%. Yes, there may be more to the story as at 75% payment
his material cost and a chunk of his labor should have been covered.
Not enough information to draw a conclusion, but a 50 year old company
should be fairly sound fiscally.

If one big hit killed it, I suspect there was something wrong, somewhere. I
certainly wouldn't front a client so much money that a failure to get paid
would sink me.

Most that got screwed by Trump probably didn't get sunk, I haven't
seen anyone claim that most did. Does that make it OK, right, just
because they didn't go under?



It's also not hard to believe that even an excellent
craftsman might not have the smarts to protect themselves against a
financial shark like Trump. His strategy could be to underpay everyone and
only settle up with the ones that sue.


Bingo, except that it appears he doesn't even settle with the ones that
sue. He has said his strategy is to never settle. It's worth it to
take each one all the way, to the bitter end, to intimidate the next
guy into not suing. Look at his scorched earth strategy with the
Mexican judge case.

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:27:11 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/26/2016 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:12:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/24/2016 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:40:16 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:12:58 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:16:22 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 3:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:50:50 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 12:10 PM, wrote:


Same thing as electing a dangerous total idiot as president and
counting on Concress and Senate to mitigate the damage.


The problem with your statement is that Trump isn't an idiot.


An intelligent idiot perhaps - but still an idiot - and I'm not even
sure of the "perhaps" If idiot is not the proper word, berhaps fool is
closer.



The man isn't even close to being an idiot, and to get to where he is
today takes a great amount of intelligence, too.

If I had inherited over 75 million dollars after having been put
through expensive colleges by rich parents I could be "very
successful" too.

You might even manage it.


Many people if put in the position of inheriting millions of dollars
can't manage it and end up broke.

Trump isn't broke.

He might be if he paid all his bills. He has been broke several times
and no-one, including the donald himself, really knows what he is
worth, financially.


Hey, I can't fault him for whatever his financial worth is - he's doing
better than a lot of other people I can think of, including me.


How would you be doing if you had a top-notch education given to you
along with a minimum of 75 million 1970s dollars???


It doesn't matter.

Then nore does the "FACT" that Trump is a "successfull businesman"
have anything to do with proving he's not a total idiot. (or fool)


I'm not running for office. Trump is. If someone says he's a "total
idiot" and not qualified because he's a "total idiot", then the fact
that he's a successful businessman IS relevant.
No it's not, because you can be a "successfull buisinessman" and
still be a total isiot or fool - and "successful businessman" doesn't
necessarily mean good president - and total idiot or fool more or less
means unqualified for the position.

On 8/27/2016 6:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:27:11 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/26/2016 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:12:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/24/2016 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:40:16 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:12:58 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:16:22 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 3:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:50:50 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 12:10 PM, wrote:


Same thing as electing a dangerous total idiot as president and
counting on Concress and Senate to mitigate the damage.


The problem with your statement is that Trump isn't an idiot.


An intelligent idiot perhaps - but still an idiot - and I'm not even
sure of the "perhaps" If idiot is not the proper word, berhaps fool is
closer.



The man isn't even close to being an idiot, and to get to where he is
today takes a great amount of intelligence, too.

If I had inherited over 75 million dollars after having been put
through expensive colleges by rich parents I could be "very
successful" too.

You might even manage it.


Many people if put in the position of inheriting millions of dollars
can't manage it and end up broke.

Trump isn't broke.

He might be if he paid all his bills. He has been broke several times
and no-one, including the donald himself, really knows what he is
worth, financially.


Hey, I can't fault him for whatever his financial worth is - he's doing
better than a lot of other people I can think of, including me.


How would you be doing if you had a top-notch education given to you
along with a minimum of 75 million 1970s dollars???


It doesn't matter.

Then nore does the "FACT" that Trump is a "successfull businesman"
have anything to do with proving he's not a total idiot. (or fool)


I'm not running for office. Trump is. If someone says he's a "total
idiot" and not qualified because he's a "total idiot", then the fact
that he's a successful businessman IS relevant.

No it's not, because you can be a "successfull buisinessman" and
still be a total isiot or fool - and "successful businessman" doesn't
necessarily mean good president - and total idiot or fool more or less
means unqualified for the position.


Successful businessman does mean he's not an idiot or a fool.



--
Maggie

On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 11:06:38 PM UTC-4, Muggles wrote:
On 8/27/2016 6:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 23:27:11 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/26/2016 11:20 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:12:29 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/24/2016 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:40:16 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 22:12:58 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 6:53 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:16:22 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 3:19 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 12:50:50 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 8/23/2016 12:10 PM, wrote:


Same thing as electing a dangerous total idiot as president and
counting on Concress and Senate to mitigate the damage.


The problem with your statement is that Trump isn't an idiot.


An intelligent idiot perhaps - but still an idiot - and I'm not even
sure of the "perhaps" If idiot is not the proper word, berhaps fool is
closer.



The man isn't even close to being an idiot, and to get to where he is
today takes a great amount of intelligence, too.

If I had inherited over 75 million dollars after having been put
through expensive colleges by rich parents I could be "very
successful" too.

You might even manage it.


Many people if put in the position of inheriting millions of dollars
can't manage it and end up broke.

Trump isn't broke.

He might be if he paid all his bills. He has been broke several times
and no-one, including the donald himself, really knows what he is
worth, financially.


Hey, I can't fault him for whatever his financial worth is - he's doing
better than a lot of other people I can think of, including me.


How would you be doing if you had a top-notch education given to you
along with a minimum of 75 million 1970s dollars???


It doesn't matter.

Then nore does the "FACT" that Trump is a "successfull businesman"
have anything to do with proving he's not a total idiot. (or fool)


I'm not running for office. Trump is. If someone says he's a "total
idiot" and not qualified because he's a "total idiot", then the fact
that he's a successful businessman IS relevant.

No it's not, because you can be a "successfull buisinessman" and
still be a total isiot or fool - and "successful businessman" doesn't
necessarily mean good president - and total idiot or fool more or less
means unqualified for the position.


Successful businessman does mean he's not an idiot or a fool.



--
Maggie

Would Howard Hughes have made a good president, been fit to serve?
He was a successful businessman. And how do we know Trump is successful?
He won't release his tax returns, his claim that he's worth $10 bil
is based solely on his own flapping gums. Trump freely admits that
he had a negative net worth of more than $1 bil at one point, was
broke at other points. And months prior to that crap hitting the
fan, everyone thought Trump was a successful businessman. Heck
everyone thought Bernie Madoff was a successful, wealthy businessman
too, until that total fraud was uncovered. It went on for decades.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:06:44 -0500, Muggles
wrote:


Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
You are entitled to your opinion and interpretation. I and many
thousands of others dissagree

On 8/28/2016 12:36 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:06:44 -0500, Muggles
wrote:


Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
You are entitled to your opinion and interpretation. I and many
thousands of others dissagree


huh? I've no idea what you're responding too.

--
Maggie

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:28:53 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:


No, of course not. That's why I asked why someone who DID get stiffed
didn't sue. If no bankruptcy was filed, why not sue?

There are other news stories about all the lawsuits that Trump has had,
thousands of them. The typical small guy, probably figures that Trump
is so lawyered up, that bringing a case against him isn't worth it.

I don't know about that. If it has the potentional to bankrupt the company,
I was say NOT proceeding is foolish. Sometimes guys like Trump (and many
other deadbeats, BTW) only pay up on the courthouse steps.

Would a lawyer take it on contigency? IDK. And even if they did, what's
the cost of taking depositions, hiring expert witnesses, etc? And then
you win, Trump appeals and just keeps it going, just like he does with
all his other disputes. They likely look at it as throwing more good
money after bad.

It still seems fishy to me. I thought craftsmen had the right to place a
mechanic's lien against a property for unpaid bills and encumber any future
transfer.

I lost $2K to a
bankruptcy fraudster in the 80's and even though I tried to recover the
funds, they had all evaporated (not really, but that's another story).
But
I didn't just give up.

Would you sign a contract that didn't read "pay as you go" with a
character
as well-known as a deadbeat as you say Trump was? Builders have
been
stiffing contractors since the building of the Pyramids.

He did get 75%. Yes, there may be more to the story as at 75% payment
his material cost and a chunk of his labor should have been covered.
Not enough information to draw a conclusion, but a 50 year old company
should be fairly sound fiscally.

If one big hit killed it, I suspect there was something wrong,
somewhere. I
certainly wouldn't front a client so much money that a failure to get
paid
would sink me.

Most that got screwed by Trump probably didn't get sunk, I haven't
seen anyone claim that most did.

So then he just gave them a "haircut" which is Wall St. slang for screwing
the small investors. If it's moral on Wall St., it should be moral on Main
St.

Does that make it OK, right, just because they didn't go under?

Did I ever say that it did? It's a painful world in the free market where
the only recourse IS a legal one. If someone fails to take legal action,
I'd say they are sleeping on their rights and deserve what happens. The
problem I have is that I agree that Trump's tactics were well-known and
STILL people worked for him. Sort of a caveat-emptor situation - they went
in knowing he might stiff them. Not suing just encourages future bad
behavior and it did. I suspect the smart ones "front loaded" the contracts
with high enough prices to guarantee making *some* money even if they didn't
get the last payment.

It's also not hard to believe that even an excellent
craftsman might not have the smarts to protect themselves against a
financial shark like Trump.

Why do you think so many small businesses fail? Because the owner is an
excellent chef, dentist, car repairman, etc. and a lousy businessman. I
learned something from every bad deal I got involved in over the years and
still get hosed every now and then.

His strategy could be to underpay everyone and
only settle up with the ones that sue.

Plenty of people do that. Even consumers deep in household debt.

Bingo, except that it appears he doesn't even settle with the ones that
sue. He has said his strategy is to never settle. It's worth it to
take each one all the way, to the bitter end, to intimidate the next
guy into not suing.

The question is does that really work? I don't know enough about his
business or litigation practices to know, nor do I care. He could be
attempting to get all the vendors to bear the cost of any overruns,
something that tends to happen as a project nears completion.

Look at his scorched earth strategy with the Mexican judge case.

I thought it was brilliant. Take the focus off Trump and put it elsewhere.
Now the judge is likely to cross every t and dot every i. Does it help his
Presidential campaign? Maybe not so much, but I don't think the average
blue collar worker thinks much of the court system or Mexicans so I can't
say if it will really hurt him.

--
Bobby G.

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 8:44:56 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 8:28:53 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:


No, of course not. That's why I asked why someone who DID get stiffed
didn't sue. If no bankruptcy was filed, why not sue?

There are other news stories about all the lawsuits that Trump has had,
thousands of them. The typical small guy, probably figures that Trump
is so lawyered up, that bringing a case against him isn't worth it.

I don't know about that. If it has the potentional to bankrupt the company,
I was say NOT proceeding is foolish.

If $50K or a $100K is going to bankrupt you, then you probably don't
have the money for lawyers and lawsuits either. And why the focus on
bankrupting anyone? There are many companies that say they got screwed
by Trump, I only know of one where they went out of business a year
or two later. And AFAIK, no one has used the word bankruptcy in
connection with that one either.


Sometimes guys like Trump (and many
other deadbeats, BTW) only pay up on the courthouse steps.


If you look at Trump's words and his actions, he isn't one of them.
He has said his policy is to fully litigate it forever so everyone
will know it and the next guy will be intimidated and not sue.
Is he settling the Trump U fraud case? He didn't give a damn about
settling that, even though he knew he was going to be running for
president and would have it hanging over him.


Would a lawyer take it on contigency? IDK. And even if they did, what's
the cost of taking depositions, hiring expert witnesses, etc? And then
you win, Trump appeals and just keeps it going, just like he does with
all his other disputes. They likely look at it as throwing more good
money after bad.

It still seems fishy to me. I thought craftsmen had the right to place a
mechanic's lien against a property for unpaid bills and encumber any future
transfer.

I lost $2K to a
bankruptcy fraudster in the 80's and even though I tried to recover the
funds, they had all evaporated (not really, but that's another story).
But
I didn't just give up.

Would you sign a contract that didn't read "pay as you go" with a
character
as well-known as a deadbeat as you say Trump was? Builders have
been
stiffing contractors since the building of the Pyramids.

He did get 75%. Yes, there may be more to the story as at 75% payment
his material cost and a chunk of his labor should have been covered.
Not enough information to draw a conclusion, but a 50 year old company
should be fairly sound fiscally.

If one big hit killed it, I suspect there was something wrong,
somewhere. I
certainly wouldn't front a client so much money that a failure to get
paid
would sink me.

Most that got screwed by Trump probably didn't get sunk, I haven't
seen anyone claim that most did.

So then he just gave them a "haircut" which is Wall St. slang for screwing
the small investors. If it's moral on Wall St., it should be moral on Main
St.

Does that make it OK, right, just because they didn't go under?

Did I ever say that it did?

You sure do seem to be implying it, but maybe that's because you're
a Trumpet and seek to excuse any and all things Trump does.



It's a painful world in the free market where
the only recourse IS a legal one. If someone fails to take legal action,
I'd say they are sleeping on their rights and deserve what happens.

See, there you go again. Sure sounds like blaming the victim to me.
How about if Trump counter sues you, comes up with 6 other BS lawsuits
that you have to defend against? You up for that? Or would you just
forget about the $20K he owes you?


The
problem I have is that I agree that Trump's tactics were well-known and
STILL people worked for him. Sort of a caveat-emptor situation - they went
in knowing he might stiff them. Not suing just encourages future bad
behavior and it did. I suspect the smart ones "front loaded" the contracts
with high enough prices to guarantee making *some* money even if they didn't
get the last payment.

It's also not hard to believe that even an excellent
craftsman might not have the smarts to protect themselves against a
financial shark like Trump.

Why do you think so many small businesses fail? Because the owner is an
excellent chef, dentist, car repairman, etc. and a lousy businessman. I
learned something from every bad deal I got involved in over the years and
still get hosed every now and then.

His strategy could be to underpay everyone and
only settle up with the ones that sue.

Plenty of people do that. Even consumers deep in household debt.


And that makes it right? That's the ethics of someone fit to be president?



Bingo, except that it appears he doesn't even settle with the ones that
sue. He has said his strategy is to never settle. It's worth it to
take each one all the way, to the bitter end, to intimidate the next
guy into not suing.

The question is does that really work? I don't know enough about his
business or litigation practices to know, nor do I care. He could be
attempting to get all the vendors to bear the cost of any overruns,
something that tends to happen as a project nears completion.


Everyone but himself, of course.



Look at his scorched earth strategy with the Mexican judge case.

I thought it was brilliant.

Figures, I've suspected you're a Trumpet.


Take the focus off Trump and put it elsewhere.
Now the judge is likely to cross every t and dot every i. Does it help his
Presidential campaign? Maybe not so much, but I don't think the average
blue collar worker thinks much of the court system or Mexicans so I can't
say if it will really hurt him.

--
Bobby G.