Donald Trump, Well-known Hobo

If you don't like the game, don't change the player; change the game. Trump's business enterprises took advantage of all the opportunities afforded them by our system. Was there something wrong with what he did at the time? You might find fault with the system and, if so, change it, but don't find fault with Trump for using the system. But, keep in mind any unintended consequences that might rear their ugly heads. Bankruptcy laws help a lot of people and corporations.

 

So when Trump bankrupts the entire country, what system will he use to rescue us?

 

We are currently $18,423,000,000,000 in debt. You can't possibly expect anyone to be any worse that our current leader who has put nearly half of that on us.

That would be to enable business growth.

 

Ahhhhh, yeah!

 

Yes, I said chapter 11. Almost exclusively used as a way for businesses to renege on their commitments and screw their creditors, right? I believe most personal bankruptcies are 13s

I haven't got time to check your figures right now, but there are all sorts of different kinds of startups. And I would guess that most of them are not started and run by a wealthy well-connected, self proclaimed business genius with an access to talent and funding that far exceeds anything available to a main street entrepreneur or a non-tech garage startup.

 

In case you have not figured it out yet, an American corporation is REQUIRED BY LAW to run itself in a economically sound method. That means that if the government puts too many tax/regulatory requirement on corporations, they are REQUIRED BY LAW to move operations where it is more profitable. Just like people who move to avoid our taxes, so do companies - only they are required to do so.

 

Total nonsense. Why do you defend these leeches with these types of lies? You just come here and regurgitate Right-wing stupidity without even knowing what the hell you're talking about.

To quote the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in the recent Hobby Lobby case: “Modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not.”

 

Look at those word closely. Nothing says they are not required to run the company fiscally responsibly. And if you don't believe that, just look up the number of CEO's/CFO's who have been sued for not making better profits.

There is also a major difference between say GM (for instance) and Hobby Lobby. One is a PRIVATE company and one is a PUBLIC company. Nothing requires private companies to be fiscally responsible. An individual can waste as mush money as he desires. Public companies are a whole different ballgame.

 

You're parsing words you don't understand. You statement was false period! I'm going to take the Supreme Court's opinion over your opinion for some reason.

 

Try looking up eBay v. Newmark. BTW, you just called Sen. Franken a liar.

 

NO! If there is something relevant to your nonsense points, don't be so damn lazy, POST IT!

 

If companies want out of the U.S., they shouldn't benefit from the U.S.

 

Sorry, but I am not your secretary. Do it yourself. You might actually learn something or is that what you are afraid of?

 

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Newmark was not a federal case, as you seem to imply, but involved two entities incorporated under the laws of Delaware and tried in a Delaware state court. As such it was a ruling based on the court's interpretation of Delaware statute.

The court seemed to base its decision on the doctrine that maximization of shareholder value is the primary responsibility of a Delaware corporate entity. Maximization of shareholder value is not necessarily the same thing as fiscal responsibility. Or even profitability.

Fiscal responsibility might dictate pouring profits into research and development. Replacing aging equipment. Raising pay to attract or keep good employees. That kind of thing doesn't usually boost a company's stock price or allow for healthy dividends which seem to be the primary measures of shareholder value.

I think where shareholder value really comes to the fore is when a company is being sold and the long term isn't much of a factor because there isn't a long term. Or, in the case of Newmark, when there is a coup afoot and where the kind of poison pill that was put into place to deter it is deemed by the court to be not supportive of shareholder value. This is the context and the question on which the court was ruling. Although it did say more broadly that under Delaware law, the maximization of shareholder value must be the paramount responsibility of a Delaware corporation.

Speaking of paramount, Paramount v Time is a similar case, but one in which the court ruled against shareholder value in favor of other considerations. It seems to me that the question of to what purpose corporations exist is still an open one and to make the blanket assertion that this or that is mandated by law to be the primary reason for corporate existence is a little premature. I don't think we're quite to that point yet.

 

In 1995 I bought one third of the shares in a failing company. The two other shareholders/owners voted me Secretary and at board meetings the majority rules with the three officers casting one vote each. I sold my one third interest three years later making a tidy sum from my $10,000 investment. Then I started playing the stock market making a substantial sum and I retired at 58. Never once in my life have I ever taken a government handout even though one time in my life I was living in my old car. I am just pointing out that the American Dream is still alive and well for a person who only has a High School education.

 

But I thought success can only be achieved through the benevolence of our government?

 

Do you have some inside info that the rest of us don't that he is in fact going to bankrupt the country??

Personally I don't see it happening.

What I do see is a guy running for president and talking about slashing the very system that has made him a very wealthy man if you can consider 10 Billion wealthy compared to the list below.
Which is more than I see coming from the likes of:
Bill gates--- net worth 76 Billion
Warren Buffet ---net worth 67 Billion
Larry Ellison---net worth 47.5 Billion
Jeff Bezos---net worth 47 Billion
Mark Zuckerberg---net worth 40.3 Billion
Jim Walton---33.7 Billion
Larry Page---33.3 Billion
George Soros---28.7 Billion
Total=373.5 BILLION dollars
2/3 of the liberals in Hollywood would add up to another 35-40 Billion.

All registered Democrats dumping money into Democratic policies/candidates to further their net Billions in money's/assets and turn this once great country into a socialist/communist society that does nothing but TAKE TAKE TAKE.
Oh I'm sure some do good for some but it always seems to have strings/kickbacks for em.

And yet you seem to want to call out the one guy with his meager 10 Billion willing to use his knowledge to expose the corruption that made him wealthy???

 

Kasich won the last debate and all Bush got was a bloody nose. Carson has taken the lead over Trump but there is still a little over a year before the election. Sanders is pulling ahead of Clinton and Clintonites have their panties in a wad. Sanders could pick Clinton as a running mate and that could doom the GOP but I doubt that would satisfy her megalomania and she would storm off in a hissy fit.

 

Clinton is close to 40 points ahead of Sanders. Where do you get your information? You ass?