Subscribe to Receive the Daily Report

Wednesday, October 28th, 2020

The $1.1 billion rabbit hole: Here’s a staggering list of Trump debts — and who he owes money to

Author:     Meaghan Ellis
Source:     AlterNet
Publication Date:     October 27, 2020
 Link: The $1.1 billion rabbit hole: Here’s a staggering list of Trump debts — and who he owes money to
Stephan:   If you owe a man or a company hundreds of millions of dollars do you think that he or it may have some power over you? Would you find it hard to say no to something he or it asked?  We have a president who owes sums so great most people cannot even conceptualize them. How unsuccessful as a business man do you have to be to be that far in debt? Do you think that is a good thing? Is that good for the country?

The 2020 election may be President Donald Trump’s last attempt to dodge the consequences he could face for the staggering amount of debt that will come due over the next four years.

Ever since The New York Times’ bombshell report about Trump’s taxes, there has been heightened speculation about the president’s debt and who he owes. Now, the Financial Times is shedding light on the illusion of Trump’s windfall. The publication reports that Trump has more than $1.1 billion in debt and much of the debt is owed to creditors and banks.

In most cases, the president has used real estate —mostly linked to a small number of buildings and golf courses that form the core of the Trump business empire, according to the publication— as collateral to secure the loans. It has been reported that approximately $900 million of the $1.1 billion debt will come due at some point during Trump’s second term if he wins the election.

According to the publication’s graph, Trump’s debts are broken down into five categories:

  1. Vornado Realty Trust: $447 million owed as part of a partnership […]
Read the Full Article

1 Comment

  1. Teresa on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 at 8:04 am

    Wondering if trump downplayed the virus because he knew lockdowns would hurt his hotel and recreational property income?? Would that have been his primary reasoning?