data compiled from federal records by Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit watchdog that tracks the recipients of agricultural subsidies in the United States, shows that Bachmann has an inner Marxist that is perfectly at ease with profiting from taxpayer largesse. According to the organization’s records, Bachmann’s family farm received $251,973 in federal subsidies between 1995 and 2006. The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law and took in roughly $20,000 in 2006 and $28,000 in 2005, with the bulk of the subsidies going to dairy and corn. Both dairy and corn are heavily subsidized—or “socialized”—businesses in America (in 2005 alone, Washington spent $4.8 billion propping up corn prices) and are subject to strict government price controls. These subsidies are at the heart of America’s bizarre planned agricultural economy and as far away from Michele Bachmann’s free-market dream world as Cuba’s free medical system.
Some of the loudest shrieks from within the conservative movement are rather misplaced. The reason for this is because this is what politicians do - get benefits for their states. There's always been ego massaging and secret deals cut to gain even the smallest of voting numbers for the greater good of American. Now, had this been a threat to close a military base in order to gain a vote, then that would be another story entirely - but it isn't. But conservatives are acting like this sort of political maneuvering never existed until the last 30 days.
But back to Bachman - the very fact that she has benefited from this ( a form of Socialism that she claims to be staunchly against ) brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Republican Hypocrisy".
5 comments:
So, basicly your saying both sides are corrupt. And your OK with this. No, I think your only OK when a Rep is corrupt, but Dem. are magicly infalible. Face it, this guy is a creep. He held the whole works just to get a payoff, with this 'principle stand.' In all reality, he wanted to bring home the bacon for his state when he knows we, as a country, can't afford more waistful spending so he can put his name on another highway. Call a creep a creep and don't justify a despicable person's action by comparing to another despicable person from another party then calling that person a worse actor. This type of argument follows a material fallacy. Your comparative example does not make a one to one equation.
"Bachmann and her husband, Marcus, live in Stillwater where they own a small business mental health care practice that employs 42 people."
She and her husband own a looney bin! :o)
To Bombshell, I would say this - did you not read the posting? The reason that I ask is because it is laid before you in rather plain English that even someone in grade school could understand. Bachman is a hypocrite because she decries receiving government assistance with one breath and then her family receives a rather substantial farm assistance windfall and is mum about the whole thing while lambasting the "socialistic" nature of the Obama administration.
The problem that you seem to have with your rebuttal is that you are looking at this through the glaze of conservative ideology.
If Bachman had brought home money, goods, or services that benefited her entire state and not just her immediate family, then I would have no issue with that - aside from her hypocritical stance on government assistance. But that simply isn't the case here.
Nelson and Landrieu brought home money to their state, because that is what politicians are there to do - insure that the state they were elected to represent benefits from their position as political representative.
And you call that corruption?
I have a feeling that you need to re-evaluate your definition of waste and corruption.
No wonder no one post here, you treat people like dirt with you grade school put downs. I have an idea, why don't you try a civil discussion rather than name calling. You also assume that I am a conservative. Did you read my post, I don't defend the Bachman. I don't think anyone should be getting farm subsidies and not because it is 'socialist' to do so, but because farm subsidies are keeping 3rd world nations from competing. Both Rep and Dem are for farm subsidies and they shouldn't support a system that keeps other nations poor.
It is true that there is nothing wrong with a representive bring something home to his/her state. I just don't think the way Nelson held up the Healthcare bill to strong arm his States way out of helping pay for the bill was good for us/US as a whole. Sometimes a person should rise up above himself and his state to serve a greater purpose. I just don't think Nelson did that.
Bombshell: no, a grade-school put down would be me calling you a booger-face that who smells like poop.
And yes, despite your best effort to convince yourself that I didn't, I read your initial response thouroughly. And while you didn't defend or excuse Bachman explicitly, I didn't claim that you did either of these - this was simply you projecting in your last comment.
But moreover, if you want to talk about people holding up the legislative process, perhaps you should look at what the GOP has been doing since Jan. 20th. They can't stand that Obama and many within the Democratic party are trying to focus on domestic policy that the Bush administration completely ignored or destroyed over the previous 8 years.
From the start it's been pure, unadulterated, obstructionism and the GOP freely admits it. They have no policy ideas that will benefit every American, only ones that help the special interests and big business that have filled their coffers for years.
And while I can't claim that I have hundreds of commenters a day, those that do respond to my posting generally have the ability to make a cogent arguement.
Post a Comment