Posted on 01/13/2016 3:50:20 PM PST by Alter Kaker
I posted the following on a dupe thread I’ll do the same here:
This seems like a non-story to me. The main reason I’m posting to this thread is to have access to the salient points that make it a non-issue IMO namely:
The Times sensationalism is just that; this WAS reported in numerous places, just not every ‘I’was dotted or ‘T’ was crossed. Anyone thinking there’s a ‘gotcha’ here should ask themselves, “How good at hiding this info were they (the Cruzes) if they reported this info virtually everywhere else but on one form?” It seems more likely to me that it was indeed a simple oversight.
This was known information for quite some time. The Times is recycling garbage in a nakedly desperate attempt to discredit Cruz.
Some seem to be making hay out of the fact that during his Senate campaign he was saying how he and his wife were sacrificing much and going down to their last penny to fund the campaign but yet they really took out a loan to do it. So they were “lying”. This is patently uncharitable if not inaccurate to say because really, why does anyone take out a loan for anything? Because one doesn’t have the money to do what is desired, duh!
The fact he (they) took out a loan only shows MORE how they were “down to their last penny” not less! And as another pointed out, while they were repaid some of the loan by the campaign, not all of it was repaid and even as the Times documents, they are still on the hook for at least $500 G’s. So it’s actually a net loss for them.
Did they take out a loan? Yes. But they did so because they are responsible people and didn’t want to just dump all their money into something that could fail. Think if the campaign hadn’t been successful. Or even now that it was successful. Either way, if they hadn’t taken out the loan, all the money their children need to live off of would be gone. At least this way they would still have money in the bank if things went south! It’s responsible behavior, to be commended and not chastised.
And who cares if it’s from Goldman Sachs. It’s still a loan that they are responsible for. Get back to me if the loan suddenly “disappears” for no reason at all. Then you might have a case for improper transactions and such. Until then, all this is is a big nothing burger. Courtesy of the Times.
When have FReepers been so willing to work with the Times anyway; to smear the most conservative candidate to come along in literally decades?
Something stinks, like stale French fries. And it’s not Ted Cruz.
Cruz tried to be sneaky and thought he would skate. He’s too cute by half. 0 Canada!
Good post. This IS a non-story for the following reasons:
1. The loan was essentially a loan to himself. It was based on an investment account he and his wife had at GS. Why there? Because for compliance reasons it’s very difficult to have an account anywhere other than where you work
2. Anyone can get this loan because you are essentially loaning yourself your own money. If you have a small CD at a bank, go ask if they can loan you money based on the CD. They will do that. Why? because the money is safe for them.. it’s “your” money they are loaning.
3. Where did the NYTimes get this big news? From Cruz’s own public filings.
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/687461435522285568
this has all been publicly disclosed in multiple ways. There was no coverup, no secrecy.
4. As he was loaning himself money, he was essentially putting at risk somewhere around a 1/3 of he and his wife’s life savings.
there is a longer response by Cruz here.
https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/687463737431842816
I thought it was a good thing for candidates to spend their own money trying to do the right thing even when they were an underdog in the race?
This is not the way he Ted and Mrs Goldman presented it to the voters.
Right you are. The only real issue is that if he used this money for his campaign, that should have been reported, from what I gather.
It seems to me like he borrowed from his own accounts, so I am not sure why there is a major uproar.
Kid of like taking a 401K loan out.
All of this is a matter of public record, so it is strange to say they were hiding anything.
It’s nothing like taking a 401k loan out.
Correct, in the case of a 401K loan you are loaning your own money to yourself. A 401K has a bit less flexibility, but it is still loaning money to yourself.
This is quite simple, which is why his enemies are doing there best to make it seem complicated and different.
This is a nothing point as I pointed out in my post 281. Honestly, the most you (or anyone) can criticize him for NOW is for, instead of literally using every penny he had in the bank, instead of that taking out a loan on that SAME money? This is a significant difference for you?
I submit that is no significant difference for the reasons I posted to whit: why does ANYONE take out a loan for anything. Precisely because such a person doesn't have the money for the desired item
So what he said in 2012 isn't misleading in any way! He (and his wife) were indeed "down to their last penny" down so much, they had to take out a loan to continue the campaign!
Also worth pointing out the Times is going out of their way to say this “wasn’t reported”. While technically true, it wasn’t reported on one of the many myriad of forms one must file to be in complete compliance, it WAS “reported” by the Cruzes elsewhere. See this post by caww on another thread that proves this.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3383473/posts?page=4#4
One must ask oneself (if one wishes to believe oneself is “reasonable”): If the Cruzes wanted to “hide” this, if this were such a “bombshell” as the Times is clearly implying, they (the Cruzes) didn’t do a real good job of “hiding” it did they, by reporting it virtually EVERYWHERE ELSE?
I know it isn’t exactly the same, but my point is, he is borrowing against his own assets.
Down to their last penny...what other couple claimed this...oh, that’s right, Bill and Hillary, but they were broke!
Oh, no, you don’t understand. Levin has worked for the conservative cause and for the Constitution since his days with the Reagan administration, but because he won’t fall on his knees in front of the lying liberal reality-show celebrity, he’s a piece of crap.
LOL
To: CatherineofAragon
BTW. want to double down on “Mark Levin is a monkey”?
He’s a stupid Chimpanzee, a knuckle dragging buffoon, an idiot and, in the words of Michael Savage, a low down fraud, who bans folks from his facebook page if they ask him inconvenient stuff that would require him to spend 5 minutes vetting the candidates he carries water for.
93 posted on 11/23/2015, 3:12:10 PM by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
This is NY Times. If I were to speculate, I’d say the media will now take out Cruz, likely on behalf of the GOPe, like they did for McCain leaving Rubio for the GOPe to take out Trump. They are convinced their man is Rubio and will do things we’ll all be surprised before this is over to make it happen.
Love. How ironic this report comes out on the same day as his smarmy “New York Values” show at Trump.
This is going to bury Cruz’s campaign and I can’t want to watch it burn to the ground.
Make America Great is a sincere goal of Trump and he has talked on the subject for decades. New York Values? Really. I do get angry thinking about that.
exactly
Anti Cruzer’s are notorious for not reading.
Oh no! He borrowed money against his own equities!
AT NORMAL COMMERCIAL TERMS!
AND PAID IT BACK!
Shocking!
In related news, he is knowledgeable about taxes and didn’t want to get screwed!
“The interest rates for a margin loan seem to be a lot higher than what Cruz obtained - 3%”
Yeah, because the market is falling.
When this loan was made, it was stable. It was also the normal rate quoted to GS employees.
I got loans against equities I got in an IPO at that rate.
The problem is that he DIDN’T DISCLOSE IT!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.