Posted on 11/10/2015 10:38:19 PM PST by Isara
|
| Presidential candidate and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz at the fourth GOP debate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on November 10, 2015. |
Asked toward the end of the fourth GOP presidential debate about the banking crisis of 2008, and the notion of the government treating some banks as "too big to fail," Cruz said he would let them.
"Senator, I really want to be really clear. Are you saying, sir, that if Bank of America were on the brink, you would let it go?" Fox Business News moderator Neil Cavuto asked.
"Yes," Cruz answered. Ohio Gov. John Kasich jumped on Cruz's response, arguing that depositors should be protected, but Cruz held firm in his most spirited exchange of a debate in which he seemed to neither gain nor lose significant ground.
A potential showdown with Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio — emerging with Cruz as growing favorites to be the last men standing in the GOP field — never developed. The Milwaukee debate lacked the drama of the most recent CNBC debate, and Rubio earned the biggest audience response.
Cruz, a former Princeton debate champ, had one misstep that set Democrats atwittering about echoes of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry's presidential run four years ago.
Offering details of his tax and budgets pans, Cruz said he has identified $500 billion in specific budget cuts, including axing whole federal agencies.
"Five major agencies that I would eliminate: the IRS, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and H.U.D.," Cruz said. Instead of repeating Commerce, Cruz meant to list the Department of Education.
It was no "oops" moment, but a bit of Texas deja vu of Perry disastrously taking a stab at the same line as a presidential candidate four years ago.
“I would do away with the Education, Commerce and, let’s see,” Perry said at a Michigan debate in 2011. “I can’t. The third one I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”
A spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee instantly pounced.
"Ted Cruz will eliminate the Department of Commerce more than any other GOP candidate," tweeted DNC spokeswoman Holly Shulman. "Not just once but twice!!"
Overall, Cruz sparingly interjected himself into a debate focused on economic issues. Some political observers projected that the FBN decision to relegate Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to the undercard debate would give Cruz more room to monopolize and court the evangelical vote.
That moment could come in a later debate that does not cater to a business-centric audience. Instead, Cruz focused repeatedly on promises to abolish the IRS.
However, as predicted, Cruz segued into discussing immigration, a point on which Cruz can isolate Rubio from the conservative base, yet he did not mention his Florida rival on Tuesday.
"Now, I want to go back to the discussion we had a minute ago, because, you know, what was said was right: the Democrats are laughing, because if Republicans join Democrats as the party of amnesty, we will lose," Cruz said.
Well yeah, I heard that myself and you are right, it was nothing...a flurry of words and he had little faux pas.
But this article above refers to the banking debate he got into with gov K.....the village idiot.
Yes, but the flub referred to in this article is the “commerce dept.” flub.
“Should the IRS and their powers be scaled back? Absolutely. But you can’t eliminate a tax collector altogether.”
Eliminate it and replace it with something smaller and with less powers.
Seriously LOL.
I just read it again, and the lead is all about banking, and flub is mentioned further down,fouth or fifth paragraph as a Texas joke of sorts..
I am quite they think Cruz and Perry are a joke as well. Otherwise they would not have written it.
News stories generally if written correctly, say what the purpose of the piece is in the first and second paragraph and then close it at the end.This one is all over the place. it’s not written well, has no real point to it and they omit any substantive reporting.. and it closes with a quote...and no summary.
I think it’s just more junk journalism.
Everything before the 'but' was about the "commerce dept." mistake. That's why the 'but' is there to separate two ideas contained in that first sentence. I'm not going to argue that it was a well written article. It's not.
Nope...it’s not...
I can’t even tell if it’s pro or con...
Maybe it’s just a Texas thing...
It was no "oops" moment, but a bit of Texas deja vu of Perry disastrously taking a stab at the same line as a presidential candidate four years ago.
So it's a flub but not a oops...
2008 was a systemic problem.
Allowing large banks to fail in such an environment can lead to much bigger problems.
Some around here seem to want another Great Depression but I don’t think it’s the way to go. It didn’t work out for Hoover or the rest of the GOP. We ended up with a bunch of socialist programs from the Democrats.
After the 2008 bailout we ended up with a bunch of socialist programs from the Democrats.
It’s not that, we don’t want intentional failures cascading, but that’s what the federal Reserve is for..It’s not there to create jobs.
One of the primary reasons, perhaps the only reason of substance that this economy never rebounded as we have after most every major recession except for one in 1929, was that the Government intervened far too much and for too long at far too high of a price.
We watched as this occurred in Japan with the same results, and we have our own history of 1929, a depression/recession that lasted up until WWII.
The markets, including the banking system which is a integral part of it, has to fail in order to clear and recover. If we don’t let it, and keep trying to hold itup as they have done now for 10 years of zero interests rates, then you have placed a body cast on the economic engines.
The people paying for this crap, are the savers whose assets have depleted because they cannot earn interest on their money, and the young who are the growth engines new blood. They are working part time jobs with college degrees and totally wasting precious time. They may never recover to help contribute to a renewed growth phase..
Government once again has tried to help for political reasons, and totally screwed the economy and a entire generation of kids.
That’s what we are talking about..
The source is the “Texas Tribune”, which is another of the liberal sites/rags in deep blue Austin TX. Trash.
It's because history has repeated. The Government did too much intervention for too long of a time in 29.
When it happened in 2008, they repeated it but thought they were doing it better. They doubled, tripled, quadrupled down with the same results as some expected.
You have to allow the failures. You can prop up the ones that can recover quickly, but banks like Citi should have failed. And yes, people loose their investments and their livelihoods, but they can recover. But only if the economy bounces back.
That did not happen, and contrary to govt stats, it still has not happened.
I own some Bank of America stock, and I completely agree with Ted Cruz on this.You own stock in a failing bank? Who's the fool in that picture?
We survived - and grew faster than any nation in history - without an income tax for 134 years. The government was run on tariffs and fees collected at the point of service by federal agents.
Cruz is 100% right! The Establishment hates this because then they lose control.
The bank accounts are FDIC insured. So people would not lose their money. They would just move their money to another bank, and the middle size banks would pick up what is left of the big bank. That is how Capitalism works.
Anyone for bailing out the banks ... Liked the TARP and like Cronyism because that is what it was.
The worst thing you can do is keep a business in business when they have failed.
There is an easier way to reduce the risk of a big bank fail. First reinstate Glass-Stegall separating commercial banks from investment banks. Secondly the mega banks need to be broken up into regional units
IRS could be eliminated by having a tax structure that I call representative apportionment.
In that model, taxes are assessed to each State based upon the division of the total tax bill into a per representative and per senator basis. Each state would then have a tax bill that would be based upon their representation in Congress. Take that amount and divide it by 12 for a monthly bill. This would then be collected and enforced by the Treasury.
Good. Cruz is the only one talking about eliminating entire departments.
This is red meat for the grass roots.
The Democrat media can keep talking.
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.