So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5280and420
.... If 8 years of Bush's policies didn't cause a global meltdown, then.. hold on...
But wait! This past summer was one of the hottest in recorded history, soooo.....
;)
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5280and420
There's that rational thinking I've come to love from the right... "be scared as hell or else!!! The worst is upon us!!!!" If 8 years of Bush's policies didn't cause a global meltdown, then.. hold on...
I'm a registered Democrat. How do you like me now? :D Nice ASSumption though.
Just because you don't want to recognize certain things doesn't mean they aren't happening. Do a little research instead of believing everything you see on MSNBC or FOX.
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zedleppelin
I cant support anyone who makes statements such as we should send Obama back to Kenya.
Well after him spending 3 TRILLION dollars in the last 20 months to try and micro-manage this economy--maybe we should buy him a plane ticket--LOL.
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
that's all spin. here's a good article from last week. The stimulus may break even or even turn a profit. The politicians don't know what to do - blame it on the other side or take credit.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/business/01tarp.html
9/30/2010
TARP Bailout to Cost Less Than Once Anticipated
By JACKIE CALMES
WASHINGTON ?? Even as voters rage and candidates put up ads against government bailouts, the reviled mother of them all ?? the $700 billion lifeline to banks, insurance and auto companies ?? will expire after Sunday at a fraction of that cost, and could conceivably earn taxpayers a profit.
A final accounting of the government??s full range of interventions in the economy, including the bailouts of the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is years off and will most likely remain controversial and potentially costly.
But the once-unthinkable possibility that the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program could end up costing far less, or even nothing, became more likely on Thursday with the news that the government had negotiated a plan with the American International Group to begin repaying taxpayers.
The rescue of the troubled insurer included $70 billion from the bailout program that was enacted two years ago, at the height of the global financial crisis late in the Bush administration, initially to prop up big banks.
At the White House on Thursday, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, briefed President Obama about A.I.G. and about the broader outlook for the expiring rescue program, putting the projected losses at less than $50 billion, at most. Yet neither the White House nor Congressional Democrats are likely to boast much in the month remaining before midterm elections. For most voters, TARP remains a four-letter word.
Brian A. Bethune, the chief financial economist in the United States for IHS/Global Insight, while critical of parts, called the program over all ??a tremendous success. Now obviously, they can??t go out on the campaign trail and say that, because certainly, for a lot of voters, it??s just not going to resonate.?
The ??bank bailout? was the first big issue, before the Obama administration??s roughly $800 billion stimulus plan and its health insurance overhaul, to stoke the rise of the Tea Party movement. After supporting TARP, several Republicans have lost elections largely because of their votes. For many Americans, TARP is more than a vote; it is a symbol of big government at its worst, intervening in private markets with taxpayers?? billions to save Wall Street plutocrats while average Americans struggle through the recession those financiers spawned.
Fewer than three in 10 Americans say they believe the program was necessary ??to prevent the financial industry from failing and drastically hurting the U.S. economy,? according to a poll in July for Bloomberg News.
??This is the best federal program of any real size to be despised by the public like this,? said Douglas J. Elliott, a former investment banker now associated with the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.
??It was probably the only effective method available to us to keep from having a financial meltdown much worse than we actually had. Had that happened, unemployment would be substantially higher than it is now, the deficit would have gone up even more than it has,? Mr. Elliott added. ??But it really cuts against the grain for a public that is so angry at banks to think that something that so plainly helped the banks could also be good for the public.?
After Sunday the Treasury can no longer commit money to new initiatives or recycle repayments to other purposes.
The Treasury never tapped the full $700 billion. It committed $470 billion and has disbursed $387 billion, mostly to hundreds of banks and later to A.I.G., the car industry ?? Chrysler, General Motors, the G.M. financing company and suppliers ?? and to what is, so far, a failed effort to help homeowners avoid foreclosures.
When Mr. Obama took office, the financial system remained so weak that his first budget indicated the Treasury might need another $750 billion for TARP. The administration soon dropped that idea as Mr. Geithner overhauled the rescue program and the banking system stabilized. Still, by mid-2009, the administration projected that TARP could lose $341 billion, a figure that reflected new commitments to A.I.G. and the auto industry.
The Congressional Budget Office, which had a slightly higher loss estimate initially, in August reduced that to $66 billion.
Now Treasury reckons that taxpayers will lose less than $50 billion at worst, but at best could break even or even make money. Its best-case assumptions, however, assume that A.I.G. and the auto companies will remain profitable and that Treasury will get a good price as it sells its corporate shares in coming years.
??We??d have to be very lucky to have both A.I.G. and the auto companies pay us back in full,? Mr. Elliott said.
Also, the best result for taxpayers could mean bad results for squeezed homeowners. Treasury has been ready to use up to $50 billion to help modify mortgages for people facing foreclosure, but its initiatives have been such a failure that little has been spent.
Whatever the final losses from housing, auto companies, A.I.G. or smaller banks, those will be offset by taxpayers?? profits from the big banks that have been the focus of their ire since 2008.
They have repaid their loans and Treasury has collected about $25 billion more from dividends and proceeds from the sale of warrants held as collateral, officials say. Many smaller banks hold on to their loans, however, reflecting their weakness and the desire of some others to keep the money given its advantageous terms. Scores are behind on dividend payments to the Treasury.
By any measure, TARP??s final tally will be less than expected amid the crisis. But the program remains a big loser politically.
On Wednesday, four days before its expiration, House Republicans nonetheless unsuccessfully forced a vote on legislation to end TARP. ??We would be much better served if private institutions would either fail or be successful on their own,? said Representative Erik Paulsen of Minnesota, in an interview.
Among those who voted for the program in 2008, several Republicans have lost nominating contests for re-election or for another office, and others are on the defensive in fall races.
Senator Robert F. Bennett of Utah was ??Bailout Bob? to Republicans who refused to re-nominate him for a fourth term.
??For those who were screaming at me ?? and screaming was the operative word ?? ??You??ve just saddled our children and grandchildren with $700 billion,?? I said, ??No, I haven??t,? Mr. Bennett said in an interview.
??My career is over,? he added. ??But I do hope that we can get the word out that TARP, number one, did save the world from a financial meltdown and, number two, did so in a manner that, I believe, won??t cost the taxpayer anything. And even if it did not all get paid back, it was still the thing to do.?
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverbear
he's only saying what 50 pct of the population is saying and after he forced the too pricey health care on us it would not bother me if he left the country after selling us out big time.
Ditto--the "most" transperant adminstration in history--turned out to be the "buy your vote policy of"--of course behind closed doors.
1. The Union deal--where non-union workers paid taxes on their health care benefits 5 years before a union worker did--which UNION also includes government workers.
2. The Louisiana purchase.
3. The Gator-Aid deal--where seniors in Florida have no reductions in their medicare cost--but the rest of the nation does.
4. The Corn-Husker deal--Nebraska who was so embarrased they chased their senator out of a Pizza parlour over it--LOL
Yep--this is the "Hope and Change" we all wanted--lol
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
Quote:
Originally Posted by rightwinger
Ditto--the "most" transperant adminstration in history--turned out to be the "buy your vote policy of"--of course behind closed doors.
1. The Union deal--where non-union workers paid taxes on their health care benefits 5 years before a union worker did--which UNION also includes government workers.
2. The Louisiana purchase.
3. The Gator-Aid deal--where seniors in Florida have no reductions in their medicare cost--but the rest of the nation does.
4. The Corn-Husker deal--Nebraska who was so embarrased they chased their senator out of a Pizza parlour over it--LOL
Yep--this is the "Hope and Change" we all wanted--lol
Sure beats lying to Congress and the public to invade a country for the sole purpose to make your oil friends rich, don't ya think?
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
For me the situation in our political arena is crystal clear. Unless we as a citizenship demand campaign reform for all levels of elected officials nothing will change.
Democrats and Republicans are the same because they are all bought and sold by those that put them in office. The major concern of most elected officials is to stay in office, this takes campaigning and campaigning cost lots and lots of money. We all know how they get all this cash and what they give in return. It's about who has the deepest pockets, if an individual does not have huge financial assets they will not be able to compete with millions and millions of dollars in advertising ads, few will hear their name, know their platform or know they exist.
The fact that contributions to political campaigns can be anonymous is inconceivable, the fact that they can be from foreign interest makes it frighting. I do not understand why it was an out of state organization that put the offensive pamphlet on my door in support of Amendment 63. I was appalled that someone but a picture of an aborted fetus on my door step. I guess the fact it had a christian cross on the photo makes it okay.
Unless we remove the ability of special interests to purchase our elected officials nothing will change. We will hear what we want from them while campaigning and then they will really only represent the interests of the money that got them elected.
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
62 is the abortion one, 63 is the health care thing from the Independence Institute.
Although, really, to me the fact that we have sooooo many constitutional amendments in Colorado is part of the problem. It's nice that citizens have the ability to change things independent of the legislature, but come on. Half the reason our budget is so messed up is because we have things that should be laws stuck in our constitution. Should be easy to change laws, extremely difficult to change the constitution.
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
Republicans and democrats work for the same people. Foreign banks. These issues like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, and gun control are what I like to call "wedge issues", meant to divide and conquer the people. As long as the people are divided enough, they will never choose someone who is in a 3rd party...someone who is out of the control of the foreign bankers.
This forum is a perfect example. You have a candidate that is openly willing to do what everyone in the cannabis scene wants. We finally have a chance to legalize, and you people wont let it happen, because you are distracted by these wedge issues the establishment likes to throw around, for this very reason. This is a mmj forum, the #1 issue in this election is who is most mmj friendly and the answer is BY FAR....tancredo. None of his other politics matter enough for you people to be saying "dont legalize it now"..."lets wait another lifetime for a chance at legalization".
The biggest difference I can see between the two is that hickenlooper is and always will work for the man. He is a member of this single party false democracy we have, and tancredo is not. Tancredo at least claims to work for the constitution, and is not in the bankers democrat/republican parties.
"i could never vote to legalize mj bc the guy that wants to said something mean about my buddy, barry "barrack huisen obama" soetoro years ago"....give me a break. No candidate will ever be perfect, and you will disagree with something every candidate has to say, no matter what their stance. Im not gay, not in the military, im not going to have an abortion, but I do smoke mj....so im going to vote for the important issue. The one ive been waiting half my life to vote on, the issue thats actually going to effect me.
Vote for the constitution and the people, not for banker cartels and the establishment. If people REALLY wanted true change, then they would vote for a 3rd party for the first time in how many years?? "change" coming from a republican or democrat is just a lie geared towards getting voters....nothing will ever change with either republican or democrat running things.
Vote for legalization, not for regulation. Its as simple as that.
So which Governor candidate is most pro-legalization? Tancredo
Quote:
Originally Posted by ds0110
Republicans and democrats work for the same people. Foreign banks. These issues like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, and gun control are what I like to call "wedge issues", meant to divide and conquer the people. As long as the people are divided enough, they will never choose someone who is in a 3rd party...someone who is out of the control of the foreign bankers.
This forum is a perfect example. You have a candidate that is openly willing to do what everyone in the cannabis scene wants. We finally have a chance to legalize, and you people wont let it happen, because you are distracted by these wedge issues the establishment likes to throw around, for this very reason. This is a mmj forum, the #1 issue in this election is who is most mmj friendly and the answer is BY FAR....tancredo. None of his other politics matter enough for you people to be saying "dont legalize it now"..."lets wait another lifetime for a chance at legalization".
The biggest difference I can see between the two is that hickenlooper is and always will work for the man. He is a member of this single party false democracy we have, and tancredo is not. Tancredo at least claims to work for the constitution, and is not in the bankers democrat/republican parties.
"i could never vote to legalize mj bc the guy that wants to said something mean about my buddy, barry "barrack huisen obama" soetoro years ago"....give me a break. No candidate will ever be perfect, and you will disagree with something every candidate has to say, no matter what their stance. Im not gay, not in the military, im not going to have an abortion, but I do smoke mj....so im going to vote for the important issue. The one ive been waiting half my life to vote on, the issue thats actually going to effect me.
Vote for the constitution and the people, not for banker cartels and the establishment. If people REALLY wanted true change, then they would vote for a 3rd party for the first time in how many years?? "change" coming from a republican or democrat is just a lie geared towards getting voters....nothing will ever change with either republican or democrat running things.
Vote for legalization, not for regulation. Its as simple as that.
NEWSFLASH: Tancredo is a republican.
