meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:Trump is no genius, he just inherited a lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0

Because as rich as the Republican presidential nominee is, his stewardship of the $200 million real estate empire he took control of four decades ago has failed to keep pace with either the general real estate market or the economy as a whole.

Trump has frequently put a dollar amount on the “small loan” he mentioned Monday: $1 million. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got under his skin at the first presidential debate last week by using the figure $14 million.

Either number misses a key point. The loan had little to do with the main source of Trump’s wealth, which was the real estate and construction company his father had built over a number of decades.

Trump took over running that company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Wow didn't realize he had inherited that much. Wonder why Hillary doesn't use this against him? This is pure gold. 200MM wow.

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:Trump is no genius, he just inherited a lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0

Because as rich as the Republican presidential nominee is, his stewardship of the $200 million real estate empire he took control of four decades ago has failed to keep pace with either the general real estate market or the economy as a whole.

Trump has frequently put a dollar amount on the “small loan” he mentioned Monday: $1 million. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got under his skin at the first presidential debate last week by using the figure $14 million.

Either number misses a key point. The loan had little to do with the main source of Trump’s wealth, which was the real estate and construction company his father had built over a number of decades.

Trump took over running that company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Wow didn't realize he had inherited that much. Wonder why Hillary doesn't use this against him? This is pure gold. 200MM wow.

Where have you been? This has been out there forever. Also, do you know of any other "billionaire" who gets involved in pyramid schemes (Trump Network) or sets up phony universities (Trump University)?

Obviously not dialed into Trumpian Transgressioms!! There are too many to really worry about.
But I disagree that bringing this up in a debate would be too complicated. I think it needs to be highlighted whenever possible.

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:Trump is no genius, he just inherited a lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0

Because as rich as the Republican presidential nominee is, his stewardship of the $200 million real estate empire he took control of four decades ago has failed to keep pace with either the general real estate market or the economy as a whole.

Trump has frequently put a dollar amount on the “small loan” he mentioned Monday: $1 million. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got under his skin at the first presidential debate last week by using the figure $14 million.

Either number misses a key point. The loan had little to do with the main source of Trump’s wealth, which was the real estate and construction company his father had built over a number of decades.

Trump took over running that company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Wow didn't realize he had inherited that much. Wonder why Hillary doesn't use this against him? This is pure gold. 200MM wow.

Where have you been? This has been out there forever. Also, do you know of any other "billionaire" who gets involved in pyramid schemes (Trump Network) or sets up phony universities (Trump University)?

Obviously not dialed into Trumpian Transgressioms!! There are too many to really worry about.
But I disagree that bringing this up in a debate would be too complicated. I think it needs to be highlighted whenever possible.

Hillary touched on it at the last debate.

Maybe have missed it, but thought she was talking about the loan he got from his dad, not the amount he inherited. I would just make a blunt statement like:

Given your inheritance an average Joe with no experience in investing could have produced three times as much money as your self proclaimed brilliant strategy did, without even having to work on it.

Nalod wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:Trump is no genius, he just inherited a lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0

Because as rich as the Republican presidential nominee is, his stewardship of the $200 million real estate empire he took control of four decades ago has failed to keep pace with either the general real estate market or the economy as a whole.

Trump has frequently put a dollar amount on the “small loan” he mentioned Monday: $1 million. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got under his skin at the first presidential debate last week by using the figure $14 million.

Either number misses a key point. The loan had little to do with the main source of Trump’s wealth, which was the real estate and construction company his father had built over a number of decades.

Trump took over running that company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Wow didn't realize he had inherited that much. Wonder why Hillary doesn't use this against him? This is pure gold. 200MM wow.

Where have you been? This has been out there forever. Also, do you know of any other "billionaire" who gets involved in pyramid schemes (Trump Network) or sets up phony universities (Trump University)?

Obviously not dialed into Trumpian Transgressioms!! There are too many to really worry about.
But I disagree that bringing this up in a debate would be too complicated. I think it needs to be highlighted whenever possible.

Hillary touched on it at the last debate.

Maybe have missed it, but thought she was talking about the loan he got from his dad, not the amount he inherited. I would just make a blunt statement like:

Given your inheritance an average Joe with no experience in investing could have produced three times as much money as your self proclaimed brilliant strategy did, without even having to work on it.

Average joe does not even know what a stock index is. They know lottery tickets.
They don't understand "Carry forward losses" at the corp level vs. individual. Trump took a high salary while his company went down the drain. Legal, yet immoral.
My wife and her partners recently sold a company that manufactured capital equipment and in the face of globalization and less costly labor overseas had to either get bigger by making acquisitions or be acquired. She choose the later. To make the company appealing she and others in the partnership took pay cuts and reduced expenses as to make it more appealing to be acquired. There was talk of closing the doors, selling the assets, settling debts, and severace to employees. Never was bankruptcy an issue because the assets were enough to settle. The moral is don't bleed a company for personal gain and leave your partners, investors and employees in the dust. Trump is on record saying how well he personally did in Atlantic City and yet was see a trail of losses, a trail of unpaid contractors, New Jersey Taxpayers who gave him and others tax credits to create industry, all legal btw. The thing is, he played the system and the thought by many is that he'll play the system for them.

If the prism is that your not going to vote for Hillary as one becomes gullible to the "Fox" rhetoric, then Trumps discretions become excusable to those who support him. The thing is, when you look objectively Mrs. Clinton has been subjected to intense scrutiny and GOP has done everything to bring her down, and yet can't find a credible legal issue to do so. Trump has bought this scrutiny upon himself by becoming a presidential candidate. If we are vetting both with a fine tooth comb, then its fair to bring up his history. Nobody told him to leave the private sector to uphold the constitution of the United States.

The man is not worthy of the office. Hillary is not loved by any means, but she is far more qualified. Its a two horse race. Only one choice.

Amen

Nalod wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:Trump is no genius, he just inherited a lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0

Because as rich as the Republican presidential nominee is, his stewardship of the $200 million real estate empire he took control of four decades ago has failed to keep pace with either the general real estate market or the economy as a whole.

Trump has frequently put a dollar amount on the “small loan” he mentioned Monday: $1 million. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got under his skin at the first presidential debate last week by using the figure $14 million.

Either number misses a key point. The loan had little to do with the main source of Trump’s wealth, which was the real estate and construction company his father had built over a number of decades.

Trump took over running that company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Wow didn't realize he had inherited that much. Wonder why Hillary doesn't use this against him? This is pure gold. 200MM wow.

Where have you been? This has been out there forever. Also, do you know of any other "billionaire" who gets involved in pyramid schemes (Trump Network) or sets up phony universities (Trump University)?

Obviously not dialed into Trumpian Transgressioms!! There are too many to really worry about.
But I disagree that bringing this up in a debate would be too complicated. I think it needs to be highlighted whenever possible.

Hillary touched on it at the last debate.

Maybe have missed it, but thought she was talking about the loan he got from his dad, not the amount he inherited. I would just make a blunt statement like:

Given your inheritance an average Joe with no experience in investing could have produced three times as much money as your self proclaimed brilliant strategy did, without even having to work on it.

Average joe does not even know what a stock index is. They know lottery tickets.
They don't understand "Carry forward losses" at the corp level vs. individual. Trump took a high salary while his company went down the drain. Legal, yet immoral.
My wife and her partners recently sold a company that manufactured capital equipment and in the face of globalization and less costly labor overseas had to either get bigger by making acquisitions or be acquired. She choose the later. To make the company appealing she and others in the partnership took pay cuts and reduced expenses as to make it more appealing to be acquired. There was talk of closing the doors, selling the assets, settling debts, and severace to employees. Never was bankruptcy an issue because the assets were enough to settle. The moral is don't bleed a company for personal gain and leave your partners, investors and employees in the dust. Trump is on record saying how well he personally did in Atlantic City and yet was see a trail of losses, a trail of unpaid contractors, New Jersey Taxpayers who gave him and others tax credits to create industry, all legal btw. The thing is, he played the system and the thought by many is that he'll play the system for them.

If the prism is that your not going to vote for Hillary as one becomes gullible to the "Fox" rhetoric, then Trumps discretions become excusable to those who support him. The thing is, when you look objectively Mrs. Clinton has been subjected to intense scrutiny and GOP has done everything to bring her down, and yet can't find a credible legal issue to do so. Trump has bought this scrutiny upon himself by becoming a presidential candidate. If we are vetting both with a fine tooth comb, then its fair to bring up his history. Nobody told him to leave the private sector to uphold the constitution of the United States.

The man is not worthy of the office. Hillary is not loved by any means, but she is far more qualified. Its a two horse race. Only one choice.

I think this broad brush labeling of people as stupid is dangerous. I talk to a lot of people supportinget him who understand the market just fine. The idea is to give them something to think about and keep hitting it as an issue. Every argument won't speak to everyone.

Nalod wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Nalod wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:Trump is no genius, he just inherited a lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0

Because as rich as the Republican presidential nominee is, his stewardship of the $200 million real estate empire he took control of four decades ago has failed to keep pace with either the general real estate market or the economy as a whole.

Trump has frequently put a dollar amount on the “small loan” he mentioned Monday: $1 million. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got under his skin at the first presidential debate last week by using the figure $14 million.

Either number misses a key point. The loan had little to do with the main source of Trump’s wealth, which was the real estate and construction company his father had built over a number of decades.

Trump took over running that company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Wow didn't realize he had inherited that much. Wonder why Hillary doesn't use this against him? This is pure gold. 200MM wow.

Where have you been? This has been out there forever. Also, do you know of any other "billionaire" who gets involved in pyramid schemes (Trump Network) or sets up phony universities (Trump University)?

Obviously not dialed into Trumpian Transgressioms!! There are too many to really worry about.
But I disagree that bringing this up in a debate would be too complicated. I think it needs to be highlighted whenever possible.

Hillary touched on it at the last debate.

Maybe have missed it, but thought she was talking about the loan he got from his dad, not the amount he inherited. I would just make a blunt statement like:

Given your inheritance an average Joe with no experience in investing could have produced three times as much money as your self proclaimed brilliant strategy did, without even having to work on it.

Average joe does not even know what a stock index is. They know lottery tickets.
They don't understand "Carry forward losses" at the corp level vs. individual. Trump took a high salary while his company went down the drain. Legal, yet immoral.
My wife and her partners recently sold a company that manufactured capital equipment and in the face of globalization and less costly labor overseas had to either get bigger by making acquisitions or be acquired. She choose the later. To make the company appealing she and others in the partnership took pay cuts and reduced expenses as to make it more appealing to be acquired. There was talk of closing the doors, selling the assets, settling debts, and severace to employees. Never was bankruptcy an issue because the assets were enough to settle. The moral is don't bleed a company for personal gain and leave your partners, investors and employees in the dust. Trump is on record saying how well he personally did in Atlantic City and yet was see a trail of losses, a trail of unpaid contractors, New Jersey Taxpayers who gave him and others tax credits to create industry, all legal btw. The thing is, he played the system and the thought by many is that he'll play the system for them.

If the prism is that your not going to vote for Hillary as one becomes gullible to the "Fox" rhetoric, then Trumps discretions become excusable to those who support him. The thing is, when you look objectively Mrs. Clinton has been subjected to intense scrutiny and GOP has done everything to bring her down, and yet can't find a credible legal issue to do so. Trump has bought this scrutiny upon himself by becoming a presidential candidate. If we are vetting both with a fine tooth comb, then its fair to bring up his history. Nobody told him to leave the private sector to uphold the constitution of the United States.

The man is not worthy of the office. Hillary is not loved by any means, but she is far more qualified. Its a two horse race. Only one choice.

I think this broad brush labeling of people as stupid is dangerous. I talk to a lot of people supportinget him who understand the market just fine. The idea is to give them something to think about and keep hitting it as an issue. Every argument won't speak to everyone.

Hillary said "Half of trump supporters are a basket of deplorables". Trump deletes "Half".
I said "average Joe". Trump's highest supporting demographic is white voters who do not have a college degree. That is "average Joe" in my book.
If you look at low savings rates, high debt, income, those on social assistance etc, they are in the lower socio economic segment. I never said they were not good people.
Why would they understand corp. loss carry forward? If Gulliani, said it was "genius", that's good enough! Afterall, he is the guy that did "Stop and Frisk" and bought "Law and Order" to NYC! That's good enough for them.

Are lower socio economic people bad? Of course not. If they protest "Trump that Bitch", or "Muslims go to hell", or waive their confederate flag in support of white power, then yeah, they are in the basket.
I'll use a poster here like Briggs as an example who seems like a good guy, appears to understand some advanced financial concepts so I would not put him in the "Basket", or call him ignorant. He has not shown himself to be "racist", if anything a bit naïve (in my opinion) to some issues. In the end Trump resonates with a lot of people. Briggs is more confident Trump can address some issues better than Hillary. The man expressed himself well and we don't agree. No, I don't think Trump supporters are all ignorant. Some will make a binary decision. The spin that the Trump campaign puts out insults my intelligence. I am still a registered republican. I voted for Reagan, Daddy Bush once, Bill Twice, Gore once, W. once, Obama twice.......and I have respected each of their opponents win or lose!!! I have no respect for Trump. Never has a candidate lacked in so many ways. Trump does poorly among educated voters.
Im educated. I will change my registration one day to independent as I don't support one ideology over another. I support the democratic process and those that interpret the constitution without prejudice or for profit. I am not naïve that historically has not been executed in that manor but "STRIVE" is big in my book.

Nalod wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

martin wrote:Trump is no genius, he just inherited a lot

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0

Because as rich as the Republican presidential nominee is, his stewardship of the $200 million real estate empire he took control of four decades ago has failed to keep pace with either the general real estate market or the economy as a whole.

Trump has frequently put a dollar amount on the “small loan” he mentioned Monday: $1 million. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton got under his skin at the first presidential debate last week by using the figure $14 million.

Either number misses a key point. The loan had little to do with the main source of Trump’s wealth, which was the real estate and construction company his father had built over a number of decades.

Trump took over running that company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Wow didn't realize he had inherited that much. Wonder why Hillary doesn't use this against him? This is pure gold. 200MM wow.

Where have you been? This has been out there forever. Also, do you know of any other "billionaire" who gets involved in pyramid schemes (Trump Network) or sets up phony universities (Trump University)?

Obviously not dialed into Trumpian Transgressioms!! There are too many to really worry about.
But I disagree that bringing this up in a debate would be too complicated. I think it needs to be highlighted whenever possible.

Hillary touched on it at the last debate.

Maybe have missed it, but thought she was talking about the loan he got from his dad, not the amount he inherited. I would just make a blunt statement like:

Given your inheritance an average Joe with no experience in investing could have produced three times as much money as your self proclaimed brilliant strategy did, without even having to work on it.

Average joe does not even know what a stock index is. They know lottery tickets.
They don't understand "Carry forward losses" at the corp level vs. individual. Trump took a high salary while his company went down the drain. Legal, yet immoral.
My wife and her partners recently sold a company that manufactured capital equipment and in the face of globalization and less costly labor overseas had to either get bigger by making acquisitions or be acquired. She choose the later. To make the company appealing she and others in the partnership took pay cuts and reduced expenses as to make it more appealing to be acquired. There was talk of closing the doors, selling the assets, settling debts, and severace to employees. Never was bankruptcy an issue because the assets were enough to settle. The moral is don't bleed a company for personal gain and leave your partners, investors and employees in the dust. Trump is on record saying how well he personally did in Atlantic City and yet was see a trail of losses, a trail of unpaid contractors, New Jersey Taxpayers who gave him and others tax credits to create industry, all legal btw. The thing is, he played the system and the thought by many is that he'll play the system for them.

If the prism is that your not going to vote for Hillary as one becomes gullible to the "Fox" rhetoric, then Trumps discretions become excusable to those who support him. The thing is, when you look objectively Mrs. Clinton has been subjected to intense scrutiny and GOP has done everything to bring her down, and yet can't find a credible legal issue to do so. Trump has bought this scrutiny upon himself by becoming a presidential candidate. If we are vetting both with a fine tooth comb, then its fair to bring up his history. Nobody told him to leave the private sector to uphold the constitution of the United States.

The man is not worthy of the office. Hillary is not loved by any means, but she is far more qualified. Its a two horse race. Only one choice.

Amen....

arkrud wrote:New interesting face in the campaign with some inside info:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/have-a-question-for-independent-presidential-candidate-evan-mcmullin-ask-it-now-2016-10-03
This elections is the last cry for current edging political elite.
Time for new generation to kick in.
Geriatric leaders will not get us too far and for sure not out of stagnation we are in.
Time for change is coming and it is inevitable.

Nalod wrote:A new generation has kicked in. Rubio, Cruz, Ryan (dude looks good compared to the first two) and other robot party homers who are professional politicians that are too controlled by the money that installed them.
Pat Mcrory, North Carolina Gov. was a moderate progressive mayor in Charlotte but had to bow to the machine if he wanted to be Governor and sold his sole. This young up and coming group of conservatives are unyielding party homers who are moving the party so far to the right they are fracturing the GOP and at the same time dividing the masses!

No thank you, I'll take the old guard who was far from perfect but at least crossed the isle and governed. Witness the idiocy of overturning Obama's veto on 911 victims able to sue Saudi Arabia, and then overturning the veto by majority. Sounds like Obama did some "Muslim friendly" act right? No, if we enact abilty to sue a sovereign nation, then THEY CAN DO THE SAME TO US!!! Morons are now backpeddling and blaming Obama for not giving them enough time. THE MORONS OVERTURNED THE VETO!!! Look it up people, this is the new young GOP who don't think, they react AGAINST OBAMA.

This fellow Mcmullin? Former CIA operative now Goldman Sachs banker. Isn't that "Jack Ryan" from Tom Clancy novels?

+1 so true. The republican party needs a, "it's not you, it's me" moment.