Tom Tancredo For Governor The Official Thread

[flan7211]

I'll support either brophy or tancredo. I just wish they'd quit calling me.

[Cujo0920]

TARP has been repaid plus interest payments of around $28B. TARP ended up being a good thing for tax payers but the mass media doesn't want anyone to know that any of Bush's policies worked.

TARP was a horrible deal for taxpayers, and has been "repaid" with more stimulus (money printing) gambling money and stealth bailouts. Bernanke (appointed by Bush) foisted 3 TRILLION dollars in toxic-waste mortgages onto taxpayers - which are owed by your children and mine - and now Bernanke is debasing the currency with his "QE-to-infinity" which punishes savers and the responsible and will ultimately feed hyperinflation. All the Powers that Be ended up doing is kicking the can down the road and deferring our national reckoning day by printing money and perpetuating crony capitalism by transferring bankster gambling debts onto the public books. Is this your idea of a "good deal" for taxpayers?

Bush and Obama are two sides of the same coin, with not a dimes worth of difference between them. Tancredo is a tool of the banksters despite his populist rabble-rousing. Don't be fooled and don't be a sheep.

[Bailey Guns]

I was pretty much with you until:

Bush and Obama are two sides of the same coin, with not a dimes worth of difference between them.

If you meant that in terms of economic policy, I wouldn't argue that too much...though I think Bush would've had sense enough not to push failing policy as far as Obama.

If you meant that in general, overall terms, sounds like you're one of the sheep you're warning others not to be.

If you're a libertarian...just disregard everything I've said. I've learned (from this forum) that arguing with a libertarian is far worse than arguing with a liberal.

[sniper7]

Brophy is the go to guy IMO.

[Cujo0920]

I was pretty much with you until:

If you meant that in terms of economic policy, I wouldn't argue that too much...though I think Bush would've had sense enough not to push failing policy as far as Obama.

If you meant that in general, overall terms, sounds like you're one of the sheep you're warning others not to be.

If you're a libertarian...just disregard everything I've said. I've learned (from this forum) that arguing with a libertarian is far worse than arguing with a liberal.

I'm not a libertarian - more like a fiscal conservative who believes in individual liberties and who is opposed to crony capitalism that privatizes profits and shifts liabilities and losses onto the public ledgers, i.e. taxpayers. That is exactly what Tancredo & Co. did with TARP.

As far as Bush and Obama, I'd be hard pressed to tell you the difference between them on the issues that really matter.

[Cujo0920]

Tancredo was part and parcel of the Wall Street-Federal Reserve capture of our monetary policy and enrichment of the 1% at the expense of the 99%, as explained brilliantly by former Reagonite David Stockman.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-1...undown-america

The so-called financial crisis, therefore, consisted first and foremost of a violent mark-down of hugely leveraged, multi-trillion Wall Street balance sheets that were loaded with toxic securities--- that is, the residue of speculative trading books and undistributed underwritings of sub-prime CDOs, junk bonds, commercial real estate securitizations, hung LBO bridge loans, CDOs squared---- and which had been recklessly funded with massive dollops of overnight repo and other short-term wholesale money.

This was just one more iteration of the speculator’s age old folly of investing long and illiquid and funding short and hot.

By the time of the frenzied bailout of AIG on September 16th, led by Bernanke and Hank Paulson, the most dangerous unguided missile every to rain down on the free market from the third floor of the Treasury building, it was nearly all over except for the shouting. Bear Stearns, Lehman and Merrill Lynch were already gone because they were insolvent and should have been liquidated----including the bondholders who have foolishly invested in their junior capital for a few basis points of extra yield.

Likewise, Morgan Stanley was bankrupt, too----propped up ultimately by $100 billion of Fed loans and guarantees that accomplished no public purpose whatsoever, except to keep a gambling house alive that the nation doesn’t need, and to rescue the value of stock held by insiders and bonds owned by money manager who had feasted for years on its reckless bets and rickety balance sheet.

Indeed, at the end of the day the only real purpose of the September 2008 bailouts was to rescue Goldman Sachs from short-sellers who would have taken it down, had not Paulson and Bernanke bailed out Morgan Stanley first, and then outlawed the right of free citizens to sell short the stock of any financial company s until the crisis had passed.

[Bailey Guns]

As far as Bush and Obama, I'd be hard pressed to tell you the difference between them on the issues that really matter.

Well that sounds quite profound on the surface. But what are the "issues that really matter" in your opinion?

[Aloha_Shooter]

As far as Bush and Obama, I'd be hard pressed to tell you the difference between them on the issues that really matter.

Oh c'mon, I'm no fan of Bush's but this kind of hyperbole hurts my head.

Bush appointed Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Just a slight difference in judicial temperament and philosophy there, don't you think? Or don't you think rulings like DC v. Heller mattered? Would you have preferred justices like Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan on cases like that? I'm sure Obama would love to replace Scalia and Thomas when they decide to retire.

Name one time Bush decided to completely ignore and void the "advise and consent" of the Senate the way Obama did by claiming Congress was in recess when it wasn't and just appointing the people he wanted. Avoid, yes, plenty of presidents have done so. Void? Not so much.

Do you honestly think Bush and John Ashcroft would have sponsored and okayed "Fast and Furious"?

Name one time Bush ignored the law to terminate corporate license contracts (car dealerships) and just gave billions of dollars in ownership stock to his cronies with no legal justification whatsoever.

Bush took most of his vacations at Camp David or his ranch in TX to minimize cost to the taxpayers. Obama spent $100M on a single trip and his missus has taken her own independent international jaunts costing the taxpayers millions.

Bush still visits the troops unheralded by any cameras but those of the troops or their families. Obama can't go anywhere without turning it into a photo op.

[DOC]

Tencrato didn't back 4 anti gun laws that we may never get rid of. They may chip away at it or do nothing because it doesn't affect those once in power.

[DavieD55]

Tancredo was part and parcel of the Wall Street-Federal Reserve capture of our monetary policy and enrichment of the 1% at the expense of the 99%, as explained brilliantly by former Reagonite David Stockman.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-1...undown-america

The so-called financial crisis, therefore, consisted first and foremost of a violent mark-down of hugely leveraged, multi-trillion Wall Street balance sheets that were loaded with toxic securities--- that is, the residue of speculative trading books and undistributed underwritings of sub-prime CDOs, junk bonds, commercial real estate securitizations, hung LBO bridge loans, CDOs squared---- and which had been recklessly funded with massive dollops of overnight repo and other short-term wholesale money.

This was just one more iteration of the speculator’s age old folly of investing long and illiquid and funding short and hot.

By the time of the frenzied bailout of AIG on September 16th, led by Bernanke and Hank Paulson, the most dangerous unguided missile every to rain down on the free market from the third floor of the Treasury building, it was nearly all over except for the shouting. Bear Stearns, Lehman and Merrill Lynch were already gone because they were insolvent and should have been liquidated----including the bondholders who have foolishly invested in their junior capital for a few basis points of extra yield.

Likewise, Morgan Stanley was bankrupt, too----propped up ultimately by $100 billion of Fed loans and guarantees that accomplished no public purpose whatsoever, except to keep a gambling house alive that the nation doesn’t need, and to rescue the value of stock held by insiders and bonds owned by money manager who had feasted for years on its reckless bets and rickety balance sheet.

Indeed, at the end of the day the only real purpose of the September 2008 bailouts was to rescue Goldman Sachs from short-sellers who would have taken it down, had not Paulson and Bernanke bailed out Morgan Stanley first, and then outlawed the right of free citizens to sell short the stock of any financial company s until the crisis had passed.

There are two sides to the same coin but many don't want to acknowledge that.