Trump Beholden to the Chinese!

[Underhill]

So for just a minute lets forget about what could be a potential conflict of interest with Hillary and her Clinton Foundation Charity and look instead at this glaring fact.

Trump took out a 950 million dollar loan that was paid for by several entities including Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China. So when Trump talks about holding China accountable, how likely is that really? When was the last time we had a president that owed millions to an arm of a foreign government?

And the second big player in this loan is Goldman Sachs, the company that Trump claims bought Hillary with a large speaking fee. Yet he owes them millions of dollars.

So really, who do we think is going to be more beholden to China and the big banks... a rich woman who was paid a one time speaking fee or a man who owes them boatloads of money?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...o-bank-of-china-goldman-sachs/article/2599815

 

[esmith]

So for just a minute lets forget about what could be a potential conflict of interest with Hillary and her Clinton Foundation Charity and look instead at this glaring fact.

Trump took out a 950 million dollar loan that was paid for by several entities including Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China. So when Trump talks about holding China accountable, how likely is that really? When was the last time we had a president that owed millions to an arm of a foreign government?

And the second big player in this loan is Goldman Sachs, the company that Trump claims bought Hillary with a large speaking fee. Yet he owes them millions of dollars.

So really, who do we think is going to be more beholden to China and the big banks... a rich woman who was paid a one time speaking fee or a man who owes them boatloads of money?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...o-bank-of-china-goldman-sachs/article/2599815

Hmm loan vs donations......One has to pay back a loan with interest with ones own money not the taxpayers money; what does one have to do to pay back a donation or do to receive more donations.

Grasping at straws are we?

 

[Underhill]

Hmm loan vs donations......One has to pay back a loan with interest with ones own money not the taxpayers money; what does one have to do to pay back a donation or do to receive more donations.

Grasping at straws are we?

Yes, one is a donation to a charity. The other is money owed to a foreign power.

So let's say Trump were to get into a negotiation with China over something important... say the North China Sea or Taiwanese independence.. what is to stop the Chinese from influencing his decision with threats of calling in his debt? Far fetched? Probably. But then so is a secretary of state risking her lifelong goals over some charitable donations.

 

[Revoltingest]

So for just a minute lets forget about what could be a potential conflict of interest with Hillary and her Clinton Foundation Charity and look instead at this glaring fact.

Trump took out a 950 million dollar loan that was paid for by several entities including Goldman Sachs and the Bank of China. So when Trump talks about holding China accountable, how likely is that really? When was the last time we had a president that owed millions to an arm of a foreign government?

And the second big player in this loan is Goldman Sachs, the company that Trump claims bought Hillary with a large speaking fee. Yet he owes them millions of dollars.

So really, who do we think is going to be more beholden to China and the big banks... a rich woman who was paid a one time speaking fee or a man who owes them boatloads of money?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...o-bank-of-china-goldman-sachs/article/2599815

I just discovered that you don't know anything about finance.
This isn't an insult....it's just that there's a fundamental thing about debt which is little known.
Old saying.....
If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, the bank owns you.
If you owe the bank a million dollars, you own the bank.
(This chestnut isn't adjusted for inflation. A million is chump change now.)

What does this mean?
When I walk into my bank, they greet me, check my pulse, & offer me bacon.
They cant' squeeze me...it wouldn't do any good.
If anything Trump is more financially independent of the Chinese than anyone else in the country.
Except maybe Sam Walton.

 

[Wu Wei]

The US government owes the Chinese government over a trillion dollars so when the US President talks about holding China accountable, how likely is that really?


祝你今天愉快
Zhù nǐ jīntiān yúkuài

 

[Underhill]

I just discovered that you don't know anything about finance.
This isn't an insult....it's just that there's a fundamental thing about debt which is little known.
Old saying.....
If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, the bank owns you.
If you owe the bank a million dollars, you own the bank.
(This chestnut isn't adjusted for inflation. A million is chump change now.)

What does this mean?
When I walk into my bank, they greet me, check my pulse, & offer me bacon.
They cant' squeeze me...it wouldn't do any good.
If anything Trump is more financially independent of the Chinese than anyone else in the country.
Except maybe Sam Walton.

That may be true with the local banks. But you are talking about a bank owned by the Chinese government. They would drop a 500 million dollar bomb in a heartbeat if they saw it as a benefit to national interest.

 

[tytlyf]

We know Trump is working with America's enemies. Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, Iran, etc. There is zero chance he can win. Will conservatives stop supporting the corporate republican party after 2016? Depends on their media.

 

[Revoltingest]

That may be true with the local banks. But you are talking about a bank owned by the Chinese government. They would drop a 500 million dollar bomb in a heartbeat if they saw it as a benefit to national interest.

If they want their money back, what can they do?
Their only real option is to work with the debtor, & wait for repayment.
That's how it works.

 

[Revoltingest]

We know Trump is working with America's enemies.

This claim makes a good argument for electing Trump.
I want a president to work with our enemies.
That can prevent them from being so enemyish.
It beats invading them.

 

[Wu Wei]

That may be true with the local banks. But you are talking about a bank owned by the Chinese government. They would drop a 500 million dollar bomb in a heartbeat if they saw it as a benefit to national interest.

And they have not done that to the US yet...but by your logic they could at any moment since the USA owes the Chinese government over a trillion dollars...

It is not good for either economy to do such things.....

 

[Underhill]

And they have not done that to the US yet...but by your logic they could at any moment since the USA owes the Chinese government over a trillion dollars...

It is not good for either economy to do such things.....

It's not the worst thing. This isn't the same thing as the Trump debt. The US government sells bonds with fixed terms. The Chinese buy them and hold them. It's not like a private loan where the bank writes the rules. It's actually good in some ways.

But if it goes to far, and I think we are approaching that point, it could be bad. No question about that.

 

[Underhill]

If they want their money back, what can they do?
Their only real option is to work with the debtor, & wait for repayment.
That's how it works.

Depends on the situation. I assume the buildings are collateral. Potentially they could reposes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends on the situation. I assume the buildings are collateral. Potentially they could reposes.

They could also launch missiles at us.
But they will do what's in their best interest, not just anything they could do.
Foreclosure would cost the Chinese more than Trump.
Consider....
If a property isn't producing the income needed to make loan payments, then it's worth less than the loan itself.
To take it in foreclosure is to get an asset worth less than the loan.
And lenders are bad at managing properties (really bad), so the property would be worth even less in their hands.
Thus, to maximize their return, they won't foreclose.
This is how it typically works.
(Been there & done that.)

Btw, I do have a friend who did "work outs" for banks with bad borrowers.
(Some fun stories there.)
He avoided foreclosure if at all possible.
But sometimes borrowers had debilitating mental health issues, & it was better to take & manage it themselves until they sold it.

 

[Underhill]

They could also launch missiles at us.
But they will do what's in their best interest, not just anything they could do.
Foreclosure would cost the Chinese more than Trump.
Consider....
If a property isn't producing the income needed to make loan payments, then it's worth less than the loan itself.
To take it in foreclosure is to get an asset worth less than the loan.
And lenders are bad at managing properties (really bad), so the property would be worth even less in their hands.
Thus, to maximize their return, they won't foreclose.
This is how it typically works.
(Been there & done that.)

Btw, I do have a friend who did "work outs" for banks with bad borrowers.
(Some fun stories there.)
He avoided foreclosure if at all possible.
But sometimes borrowers had debilitating mental health issues, & it was better to take & manage it themselves until they sold it.

I get all that. You missed my point. If the potential upside of this kind of action would be to influence the president of the US to drop support of Taiwan or allow them to have control of the North Sea Oil (as extreme examples) the Chinese would be more than willing to eat the losses.

So I agree with you. China will do what is in the best interest of China.

 

[Revoltingest]

I get all that. You missed my point. If the potential upside of this kind of action would be to influence the president of the US to drop support of Taiwan or allow them to have control of the North Sea Oil (as extreme examples) the Chinese would be more than willing to eat the losses.

No, I see your point.
I just disagree with it.
Consider that if Trump were prez, & the Chinese tried to strongarm him using the loans as
leverage, then Trump would be in a position to utterly ruin them, eg, trade sanctions, tariffs.
The scenario you propose is just too unlikely.
A difference is that Hillary needs the continual influx of money. This is to be their b***h.
Trump already has their money. This is to be in the driver's seat.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Reality is that power...whether political, military, economic, whatever...is complex and difficult. Most of the options being discussed here relate to catastrophic action--calling in on a loan, launching the nukes, etc.--and have little to do with actual day-to-day relationships. There's an awful lot of lying, misdirection, sleight of hand, dealing and double-dealing (as well as other strategies and tactics) that goes on in international affairs (not to mention in business--and in fact business is one of the tools of the trade, so to speak).

Trump is not free of external influence--people own his debt (which is why Trump casino in Atlantic City was owned by other people, who acquired it to resolve one of his bankruptcies and found that they were not able to make it succeed in a failing marketplace, either...). Hillary is also not free of external influence.

At the level they are operating at, it is impossible to be completely free of influence from others--it's just that the pool of individuals/organizations that have influence over Trump and Hillary are largely different; his is largely related to his business enterprises, hers is largely related to the political machine of the US. Even Bernie, Stein and what's-his-name, have external influences that own part of their skin...and if elected, could affect how they act...

 

[Underhill]

No, I see your point.
I just disagree with it.
Consider that if Trump were prez, & the Chinese tried to strongarm him using the loans as
leverage, then Trump would be in a position to utterly ruin them, eg, trade sanctions, tariffs.
The scenario you propose is just too unlikely.
A difference is that Hillary needs the continual influx of money. This is to be their b***h.
Trump already has their money. This is to be in the driver's seat.

Why does Hillary need money? I was just told by someone else that the money was irrelevant.

 

[Underhill]

Reality is that power...whether political, military, economic, whatever...is complex and difficult. Most of the options being discussed here relate to catastrophic action--calling in on a loan, launching the nukes, etc.--and have little to do with actual day-to-day relationships. There's an awful lot of lying, misdirection, sleight of hand, dealing and double-dealing (as well as other strategies and tactics) that goes on in international affairs (not to mention in business--and in fact business is one of the tools of the trade, so to speak).

Trump is not free of external influence--people own his debt (which is why Trump casino in Atlantic City was owned by other people, who acquired it to resolve one of his bankruptcies and found that they were not able to make it succeed in a failing marketplace, either...). Hillary is also not free of external influence.

At the level they are operating at, it is impossible to be completely free of influence from others--it's just that the pool of individuals/organizations that have influence over Trump and Hillary are largely different; his is largely related to his business enterprises, hers is largely related to the political machine of the US. Even Bernie, Stein and what's-his-name, have external influences that own part of their skin...and if elected, could affect how they act...

I agree with that.

 

[Augustus]

Why does Hillary need money?

Because she wants to be President, and then she wants to be president again. This requires money.

After that point she doesn't need money and will be able to gain nice fat 'speaking' or 'consultancy' fees like all good politicians get if they play ball during their time in office.

Ignoring Trump/Hillary as it is too partisan, I'd contend it is better in theory to have a politician who got rich before coming to power, rather than one who got rich afterwards.

When public office acts as a precursor to riches, it's pretty hard to trust public office to act in societies best interests.

I hate Trump, and if I were American could never vote for him, but were I American I would be very concerned about the people who have enriched Hillary personally and politically, Goldman Sachs, Saudis and all.

Ignoring Trump, are you not concerned about those to whom Hillary may have certain 'obligations'?

 

[fantome profane]

One has to pay back a loan

Trump has a long history of not paying back loans.

Which is one of the reasons he needs foreign money, U.S. banks won't give him loans.