Report: Donald Trump's companies at least $650 million in debt

Besides, $650 mil works out to about $1 mil per company.

They don't understand how a balance sheet works because they're used to just getting everything for free without having to work for it or pay for it.

The concept of having to give back the things one borrows is too ethically complex for them, and the notion that you have to spend money to make money is like rocket science; nay, like reverse-engineering anti-gravity propulsion.

I've been on ATS for all of 20 minutes today and I've already had my fill of stupidity and ignorance.



Can this "election" cycle be over already? FFS

Here's the original New York Times story.
Link: www.nytimes.com...

CBS News obviously has a Trump-hating editor working today, or accepted a bribe from the Clinton Foundation slush fund..or both. CBS cherry-picked the most damning portions from the exhaustive NYTimes piece.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

It's his money anyway.

What are you talking about? You do understand he is $650 million in debt? He has $650 million worth of loans in real estate? It's not his money. We don't even know how much Trump is really worth because he refuses to release his tax returns. He may very well be less that what he owes in debt.

Unlike obam's 9 trillion and rising, which Americans are on the hook for

Ok.

1. You are talking about national debt, not personal debt. Nothing to do with the OP. Whatever you wish to argue about that, it's a complete different topic all together.

2. Republicans have held majorities and have controlled congress since 2010. Congress has the lowest approval rating compared to any other in recent history. Obama does not solely control the debt. That debate again is a totally different topic.

But carrying debt is no big deal.

Carrying debt is a big deal. Not sure why it suddenly isn't because we're discussing Trump. $650 million is alot of money to be in debt with, especially if it's to large multinational and foreign companies. Considering as well Trump has refused to release his tax returns which will reveal his actual worth, it's a problem.

This is a non story.

Yes, anything negative about Trump is a 'none story' on here, apparently. It's too bad these non-stories matter enough to the public and they end up hurting Trump in the end. You can scoff it off all you want buddy but you're not helping Trump ol' boy at all.

a reply to: Aazadan

Hmm well it's no secret he has donated to Democratic causes... infact I posted a thread already pointing out more than 50% of his donations have been to the Democratic Party. Nobody flinched an eye lid on here when I posted that.

I do believe it's to do with his net worth. Since he has been so reluctant to release his tax returns I am beginning to suspect more and more as the days go by that his worth is less than a $1 billion. I mean he'd still be wealthy.... though it would totally put him to shame considering he had been flaunting his $$ billions over the years. In addition to this, for fact in his personal debts, his partnerships that have monies owing, and then you have the fact he isn't even a billionaire, it doesn't look good.

Time will tell. Trump did say he was going to release his tax returns at the beginning of his run but suspect he didn't think he'd get this far for the Clinton Machine (yes I still believe he's a plant of the Clinton Machine).

a reply to: Southern Guardian

It wasn't her funds it was our funds.

m.washingtontimes.com...

Her funds in the Clinton foundation have gone up billions , but surrounded with questionable accounting .

You are lying to yourself at best if you think she is any better.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

It wasn't her funds it was our funds.

m.washingtontimes.com...

Her funds in the Clinton foundation have gone up billions , but surrounded with questionable accounting .

You are lying to yourself at best if you think she is any better.

a reply to: interupt42

That's a lie. Politifact debunked that claim, labelled it as a 'pants on fire':

During Clinton’s tenure at as secretary of state, the department was reprimanded for shoddy paperwork affecting $6 billion worth of contracts, not "losing" the money.

www.politifact.com...

You are lying to yourself

I'm the one apparently lying to myself yet you're the one linking me to the very biased Washington Times on a story that was debunked a long time ago.

Are you going to admit you were wrong after this? For some reason I highly doubt it.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: interupt42

If it makes you feel better hillary lost 6 billion under her watch.

Hillary Clinton lost $6 billion of her own funds due to being personally in debt? Really? Where's your source I'm curious. Better yet start a thread on that, I'll chime in.

No. It was our money she "lost".

a reply to: Southern Guardian

From your own source

In other words, the State Department was terrible at paperwork. The $6 billion figure refers to the total amount affected by file mismanagement. It’s akin to spending $20 on lunch and losing or not asking for a receipt. Documentation over where that $20 went was lost, but not the $20 itself.

So the State Department under Clinton, who wasn’t mentioned in the alert, may have been financially disorganized, but it didn’t "lose" $6 billion.

In other words the 6B was spent but they have no documentation to prove on what, hence uncounted for.

a reply to: Aazadan

Sure, we know about his business but judging by his track record can you imagine what his personal debt is?! Having such debt can most definitely be used against him as leverage.

To put it in perspective, if you're gonna work for the gov't/military and require a clearance (TS/S/C) you have to pass a background check which includes your debt. If you have too much debt you don't get a clearance and that's because it could potentially be used to lure you into selling information. So with that, I suspect Trump is full of debt and continues to be grossly disqualified to be POTUS.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

No, I do believe in a sane world it would completely disqualify him. That said, somehow Clinton is still in the race and probably gonna be president. So, yeah, we don't live in a sane world.

Well, looks like Trump is breaking all kinds of records with his candidacy. Not releasing tax returns, most disliked candidate in US history, what else? Does getting the most amount of free MSM airtime count?

a reply to: interupt42

They article clearly says they didn't lose $6 billion. It's a pants on fire.

This was the tweet that Politifact labelled as a pants on fire:

Says Hillary Clinton "presided over $6 billion lost at the State Department, sold uranium to the Russians through (her) faux charity, illegally deleted public records, and murdered an ambassador."

www.politifact.com...

It's false. You can either put on your big boy pants, admit you were wrong or you can continue making excuses.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Can you or SD account for the 6 billion?

Your artcle says NO .


Despite the spin of it not being labeled as lost because they know it was spent, it's unaccounted for because they can't prove on what or who cause of lack of documentation.

in other words the 6B is unaccounted for. heck it could have even gone into the unaccounted millions in the Clinton foundation .

a reply to: interupt42

Despite the spin

There's no spin buddy. Politifact. The fact checker on all things politics, has labelled the claim a 'pants of fire'. This is the absolute worst label you could get. Hillary didn't 'lose' $6 billion. There's no evidence this happened at all.

You can't claim she has to now prove she didn't lose it when this claim was pulled out of thin air in the first place.

Are you a space fearing reptilian from Mars? Ah, you haven't proven you aren't so there for you must be! What logic.

Each and everytime you persist with this claim, that has nothing to do with the OP mind you, you make yourself look more and more ignorant. It's time to stop pal... for your own sake.

Here's the link to the Politifact article again:
www.politifact.com...

I can't take you seriously anymore.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Maybe you are knew to the internet, but just because a website has facts on its domain name it doesn't make it so.

Again can you or the SD account for the 6 billions and prove it was properly spent with documentation ? According to your source , no you cant. Hence unaccounted for.

This is silly. Forbes lists his net worth as 4.5B. Assets to debt people.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Damn leftist media and their facts!

I don't believe it!

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Thanks for the link. Amazing the lengths the faithful will go to so as not to face the truth about Donald. He really is the candidate of Stupid.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Damn leftist media and their facts!

I don't believe it!

Is that the same media that worked with the DNC to screw Bernie over and manipulate it for in favor of hillary?

In there own article they state they have no documentation for the 6 billion. it's unaccounted for, because they have no documentation to prove on what or who.