Tancredo impressive on economics.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ivon Denosovich, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    I disagree with Tancredo's stance on the war, but these points give me pause:

    And it gets better...

    And, finally, the best part:

    (Bolding mine.) Tancredo is very, very impressive on economics. He's equally impressive on fighting illegal immigration. He's the sole candidae (including Paul) that I'm aware of who's advocating cutting SS benefits. That takes more courage than most political hacks could ever find within themselves.

    If I can't get a Paul ticket (which I still want) Tancredo is my next choice!
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tancredo definitely has good qualities. He is indeed a conservative, more so than Paul, Rudy, and the other psuedo-conservatives, and has a much better pro-life record. I am deeply disappointed that the is leaving the House.

    I do believe Thompson has argued for cutting SS benefits as well, btw.

    However, I don't think Tancredo's statement should be entirely construed to mean he is a benefit cutter. He (and Huckabee) have argued for people choosing to get out of the system. But he is right. Benefits are going to have to be cut somewhere, somehow.

    Here is a fuller statement from his website:
    I believe the deepest cuts should be in other programs, then we can either eliminate it altogether (best choice) or have it funded like a private 401K. But is it the government's place to provide retirement funds for its citizens?

    Just a thought.

    Anyway, Tancredo is a good candidate. Like Paul, he's a one note banjo, though. His incessant need to tie immigration to every problem (like Paul's incessant clamorings about the so-called "real" reason we provoked 9/11) tend to drown out the better things he has to say (not that Tom doesn't have good points on immigration).
     
  3. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    TomVols, I would say that isn't the government's role to provide retirement at all. I'd like to see Washington give us a police, military, and court system-- and nothing more.

    I googled Tancredo and he gets more impressive on economics. He's fought to require partial repayments from bankruptcy clowns and says he wants to balance the budget. Sounds like a plan to me.

    ETA: Here Tancredo stands up to UniHC and advocates tort reform. Again, very impressive. If Tancredo would moderate his views on the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq war, and drug issues he'd be my hands down favorite.
     
    #3 Ivon Denosovich, Nov 5, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2007
  4. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would legal aliens get the govt monthly pay check under te "fair tax?" The citizen children of illegal aliens?
     
  5. Dagwood

    Dagwood
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any politician who will cut SS benefits will not get elected, thank God!
     
  6. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    0
    You may be right, but that's worth lamenting in prayer. Everyone concedes that SS is going bankrupt. Here, Jon Corzine (D-NJ) even pauses in compassion long enough to acknowledge, "long-term pressures," on SS. Further, no one is payed the interest necessary on their "investments" to offset the rising cost of living as a Yale University study concluded in 1999:

    (Source here)

    Also, as Reason notes, there's a vast disconnect between liberal economics and SS benefits:

    As the Reason article notes, Bush favors, "Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." Amazingly, by demanding that filthy rich seniors receive the exact same benefits as the poor, Dems not only oppose a plan for financial solvency in the program, they also oppose their own basic tenant of redistributing wealth.

    Case in point: this source notes that GE billionarie, Jack Welch, receives $1,500 a month of SS benefits. Still think it's wrong to cut SS benefits, Dagwood? Or do you disagree with this article: On Not Paying For Warren Buffet's Retirement? It seems to me that Dems would support making benefits overtly supportive of the poor instead of fair.
     
    #6 Ivon Denosovich, Nov 6, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 6, 2007
  7. Roy

    Roy
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/0710.gif>

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2001
    Messages:
    745
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a Tancredo fan, but I wish Tom was more articulate. I feel bad for him in the debates because words don't seem to come to him as easily as they do for his opponents. Despite that, his replies are direct and to the point. When asked if we should drill oil off the Florida coast, most of his opponents gave glossy statements about balancing environmental concerns with the needs of the country. Tancredo said that we currently buy oil from people who would like nothing better than to see us all dead, therefore we need to drill oil anywhere where we can find it.

    Roy
     

Share This Page

Loading...