Posted on 01/14/2016 1:14:01 AM PST by Greetings_Puny_Humans
As Ted Cruz tells it, the story of how he financed his upstart campaign for the United States Senate four years ago is an endearing example of loyalty and shared sacrifice between a married couple.
"Sweetheart, I'd like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth, and put it into the campaign," he says he told his wife, Heidi, who readily agreed.
But the couple's decision to pump more than $1 million into Mr. Cruz's successful Tea Party-darling Senate bid in Texas was made easier by a large loan from Goldman Sachs, where Mrs. Cruz works. That loan was not disclosed in campaign finance reports. Those reports show that in the critical weeks before the May 2012 Republican primary, Mr. Cruz — currently a leading contender for his party’s presidential nomination — put "personal funds" totaling $960,000 into his Senate campaign. Two months later, shortly before a scheduled runoff election, he added more, bringing the total to $1.2 million — "which is all we had saved," as Mr. Cruz described it in an interview with The New York Times several years ago.
A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all the money he spent on his campaign. What it does show, however, is that in the first half of 2012, Ted and Heidi Cruz obtained the low-interest loan from Goldman Sachs, as well as another one from Citibank. The loans totaled as much as $750,000 and eventually increased to a maximum of $1 million before being paid down later that year. There is no explanation of their purpose. Neither loan appears in reports the Ted Cruz for Senate Committee filed with the Federal Election Commission...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yeah he rebuilt without all those family connections. Right.
It is not that he obtained a loan, it is the company who gave it and the fact that it was not reported. It did not fit his campaign narrative. In other words, he was not CONSISTENT.
Sen. “Goldmann Sachs” Cruz is a lying scum
who voted for SECRET ObamaCARE because he had
a financial reason ..... beyond his wife.
Apparently Cruz and his wife were pulling in more than a million dollars a year at that time, more than the loan. In fact, after the election, Cruz was worth 400 thousand more than he did before.
Feeding your voters tales of how you're selling your asserts and spending your savings, implying they were willing to sacrifice it all and were if he had lost, then failing to tell everyone you did no such thing and simply got a really big loan to cover it.
ObamaCARE => ObamaTRADE.
Could you offer context to this link you showed me? Actual quotes are better. I’m willing to vet, but only here on FR.
Fair enough?
http://nypost.com/2015/08/16/melania-trump-would-be-a-first-lady-for-the-ages
‘Yeah he rebuilt without all those family connections. Right.’
I agree. Connections help. Fair point.
Also nice to know he gets along with his family so well even after wiping out his fortune.
I’m convinced half the population including those on FR care more about the cult of personality than in America being a free nation.
People are sheep. They always flock to the popular kid without even knowing why.
It was reported years ago, numerous times.
It does not bother anyone that Goldman Sachs is in on this? I love Cruz, but GS is the sleaziest bank on Wall Street and funds most of the globalization of America.
Pray America wakes
Both sides are guilty. But people only feel the arrow that hits them. Then there are some that are thoroughly unreasonable and enjoy slamming others just for sport — the poster of this thread, for example.
Anyway, thank you for the positive Cruz comments.
Yes they are and they have their hands in everyone’s pocket.
But saying one bank is more sleazy than the others is a difficult call. They are all sleazy.
Note that campaign law does not allow the campaign to repay but a certain portion of the loan, so Cruze will never be repaid more than $400,000 from that loan.
Exactly
They’ll wonder how and why their target improves his standing in the polls after they attack
It takes different kinds of people to vet candidates during a primary while others just scream bloody murder or turn into gleeful imps. I try to never get too attached to anyone.
FRegards ....
The thing about Goldman Sachs is said best in Google ...
bailout profited “goldman sachs”
site:freerepublic.com
Yes, but GS was one of the big allies of Obama during the 08 crash. They are the definition of Crony Capitalism.
I am a Trump supporter. I believe Cruz is a NBS. This Goldman-Sachs loan is troubling.
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.
But ... here is some context ...
Copy of Rush transcript BTW. For those who think that Rush is too close to Trump? Think again. Rush calls it like he sees it ...
Trump, Goldman Sachs, and the 2008 Bailout:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/26/donald-trump-on-700-billion-bailout-plan.html
[snippets ...]
If you did not spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a yearly basis on the war, and if we got oil down, or if somebody knew how to speak to OPEC the proper way, the hard way, the tough way, so that oil would be down to $50, instead of $150, and now it is dropping, and, as I always say, all over the world, you have ships, tankers loaded up with oil.
There’s so much oil, people don’t know what to do with it. And, yet, because of OPEC, that is the story. It is very sad. But, if we got rid of this war, and if we got oil down, this country would be unbelievable.
[snip - already thinking about ‘Art of the Deal’]
TRUMP: On your show two years ago, I really, I mentioned the word depression then. [2006 he predicted a huge downturn?]
[snip]
So, wouldn’t this be a more expensive version of that?
TRUMP: It could very well be.
The fact is, nobody knows what is going to happen. The day it is passed, maybe things go to hell anyway. Nobody really knows what is going to happen. But, psychologically, people want it to happen. And, if you have the right people running it and that is the big question, but, if you have the right people running it, you can make a lot of money. You can take over companies, and, frankly, take big chunks of companies. If you loan this money the way Goldman Sachs perhaps used to loan money, or whatever, you would have, I think you could make some phenomenal deals.
CAVUTO: Well, you have done some phenomenal deals in down in soft times. There is talk here about getting some sort of an economic czar in either a Republican or Democratic administration. Would you ever be interested in that?
TRUMP: Well, it is not something I exactly have thought of. I love the real estate business. I love what I’m doing.
But, if you got the right person in there, they would take that money, and you would double it, triple it, quadruple it. And then you would sell those companies back in good times. But, when they go into this fund, you have got to take a very, very big pound of flesh.
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.