Bachmann Literally Praised Government Pork In Letter To Obama Official

[Sgt Meowenstein]

I guess Bachmann is a socialist. How long before she launches an investigation against herself?

Michele Bachmann Literally Praised Government Pork In Letter To Obama Official

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has built a large part of her conservative appeal on strict opposition to federal intervention in the free market. Her real-time criticism of the Troubled Asset Relief Program earned her plaudits among the base voters who will soon decide Republican primary elections. Her pledge to repeal President Obama's health care law, on grounds that it imposes an across-the-board government solution, has become a focal point of her presidential campaign.

When it comes to the agriculture industry, however, Bachmann's record doesn't match the fiscal conservative hype. A Freedom of Information Act request for communications the Minnesota Republican has had with the Department of Agriculture shows that she leaned heavily on federal officials for help -- never more so than when it came to aiding the pork and dairy producers in her state.

On Oct. 5, 2009, Bachmann wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack praising him for injecting money into the pork industry through the form of direct government purchases. She went on to request additional assistance.

"Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota, and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases and working to expand trade outlets for these and other agricultural goods," Bachmann wrote.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

I guess Bachmann is a socialist. How long before she launches an investigation against herself?

Of course she's happy about it...

Anti-socialist Bachmann got $250K in federal farm subsidies - On Congress - POLITICO.com

Some of it goes straight into her pockets.

But it's not socialism when Tea Party members suckle the government teat (we have Stephen Fincher in Tennessee, who has been getting an average of $320,000 a year in government farm subsidies).

 

[xpiher]

If you don't want to see someone like her win the repub nomination, register repub and vote against her in the primary.

 

[Councilman]

I see nothing wrong with accepting federal farm subsidies if you legitimately qualify, and the repeal President Obama's health care law is of the utmost importance to any recovery we hope to have.

Anyone who knows anything knows that in the last 30 years or so that farms have been hit with restrictions taxes and all kinds of things that have made it hard to stay in business or pass on family farms, farm subsidies keep these needed businesses working.

Without the farms we don't eat.

I am not a big fan of Bachmann but I could learn to be.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

If you don't want to see someone like her win the repub nomination, register repub and vote against her in the primary.

I think most liberals/Dems would love to see her win the nomination.

 

[ptif219]

What should the feds do buy food overseas?

 

[Deuce]

I see nothing wrong with accepting federal farm subsidies if you legitimately qualify, and the repeal President Obama's health care law is of the utmost importance to any recovery we hope to have.

Anyone who knows anything knows that in the last 30 years or so that farms have been hit with restrictions taxes and all kinds of things that have made it hard to stay in business or pass on family farms, farm subsidies keep these needed businesses working.

Without the farms we don't eat.

I am not a big fan of Bachmann but I could learn to be.

Well, since subsidies and bailouts are ok under the right circumstances apparently, will you stop treating government spending as some sort of fundamental ideological difference between liberals and conservatives? I think you've just proven that your disagreement isn't on principle but rather on implementation. You like government spending and interference with the free market, just in different places.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What were the commodities bought for?

Im going to assume they were not bought to sit in a freezer. What use were they put to after purchase?

What if it went to school districts?
What if it went to the military?

Either use wouldnt be a subsidy but a legitimate purchase of goods for government use.

Why dont we know? Because the author was either lazy or didnt want us to know.
Final note from the article :

The specific pork purchases Bachmann referenced aren't technically a subsidy.

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

What were the commodities bought for?

Im going to assume they were not bought to sit in a freezer. What use were they put to after purchase?

What if it went to school districts?
What if it went to the military?

Either use wouldnt be a subsidy but a legitimate purchase of goods for government use.

Why dont we know? Because the author was either lazy or didnt want us to know.
Final note from the article :

The bottom line is that she took advantage of some gov't spending out of one side of her mouth while bashing gov't spending out of the other side. It's not that what she did was bad. It's that she says one thing but does another. It's hypocritical and inconsistent. I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing it out.

 

[ptif219]

The bottom line is that she took advantage of some gov't spending out of one side of her mouth while bashing gov't spending out of the other side. It's not that what she did was bad. It's that she says one thing but does another. It's hypocritical and inconsistent. I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing it out.

If the product was bought for government use say the military she did nothing wrong. Of course that does not matter to liberals

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

If the product was bought for government use say the military she did nothing wrong. Of course that does not matter to liberals

I just said that I don't feel she did anything wrong by asking for assistance from the fed gov't. I actually believe that the gov't should invest when it's needed. Bachmann's problem is that she constantly rails against gov't spending while simultaneously taking advantage of gov't spending. It's hypocritical. It needs to be pointed out.

 

[pbrauer]

If the product was bought for government use say the military she did nothing wrong. Of course that does not matter to liberals

She's a hypocrite, she bashes what she calls socialism and for smaller government, but when it comes to her family farm she's right there with pork feedbag on.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Not jumping to any conclusions. We dont know what it was spent for. Yeah, maybe there is something there. But we dont know for sure. I would have to assume the food wasnt bought to simply rot, so it was used for something. What that something is we dont know.

Pbrauer and Sgtloudmouthenstein, until we know what the stuff was bought for we dont know how legitimate the expenditure was. Do either of you agree to that much?
Or are you going with the fire breathing rhetoric that requires no thought on your part?

 

[ptif219]

I just said that I don't feel she did anything wrong by asking for assistance from the fed gov't. I actually believe that the gov't should invest when it's needed. Bachmann's problem is that she constantly rails against gov't spending while simultaneously taking advantage of gov't spending. It's hypocritical. It needs to be pointed out.

It is not if it is not a sudsidy which it is not. You just trying to find something to demean her with

 

[ptif219]

She's a hypocrite, she bashes what she calls socialism and for smaller government, but when it comes to her family farm she's right there with pork feedbag on.

Thats crap. Thanking the government for buying products from her state is legitimate

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

Not jumping to any conclusions. We dont know what it was spent for. Yeah, maybe there is something there. But we dont know for sure. I would have to assume the food wasnt bought to simply rot, so it was used for something. What that something is we dont know.

Pbrauer and Sgtloudmouthenstein, until we know what the stuff was bought for we dont know how legitimate the expenditure was. Do either of you agree to that much?
Or are you going with the fire breathing rhetoric that requires no thought on your part?

No I won't agree with you. She's a hypocrite and a liar. Only morons take her seriously or give her any credit. If you had an ounce of intelligence, you'd run from her as fast as you can. Of course, I could be nicer; but since you want to throw out insults, I think I'll take a pass on being nice. Can we agree on that much, Opportunity C O C K?

 

[Red Crow]

The bottom line is that she took advantage of some gov't spending out of one side of her mouth while bashing gov't spending out of the other side. It's not that what she did was bad. It's that she says one thing but does another. It's hypocritical and inconsistent. I'm not surprised. I'm just pointing it out.

Lets face it... all these politicians (I don't care what party they belong to) only look after themselves only and the hell with the rest of us.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No I won't agree with you. She's a hypocrite and a liar. Only morons take her seriously or give her any credit. If you had an ounce of intelligence, you'd run from her as fast as you can. Of course, I could be nicer; but since you want to throw out insults, I think I'll take a pass on being nice. Can we agree on that much, Opportunity C O C K?

Apparently I hit a nerve. Dont post angry Sarge.
Again, we dont know how legitmate the expenditures were, the "reporter" seemed to have an oar in the water on the subject and didnt look at why the money was spent he went straight for the outrage button and you and PB obliged.

 

[obvious Child]

Apparently I hit a nerve. Dont post angry Sarge.
Again, we dont know how legitmate the expenditures were, the "reporter" seemed to have an oar in the water on the subject and didnt look at why the money was spent he went straight for the outrage button and you and PB obliged.

That's actually irrelevant. Bachmann is explicitly praising government intervention into a market to prop up industry.

"Your efforts to stabilize prices through direct government purchasing of pork and dairy products are very much welcomed by the producers in Minnesota, and I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases and working to expand trade outlets for these and other agricultural goods,"

That's a position diametrically opposed to less government. Effectively the federal government bailed out pork producers by artificially creating market demand. Even more amusingly, the notion of stabilizing prices was a Democrat idea that harks back to the Depression. She explicitly wrote for the government to buy more goods. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with this in the right circumstances, but this is not a consistent position for Bachmann.

 

[OpportunityCost]

You see it as a consistency issue, I dont think we have all the available facts on what the expenditures went to. Nor are we likely to because there is no interest in it if you guys are take the baited hook in that easily. If it is, excuse the pun, pork spending that wasnt required for either school lunches or military commisaries (only two legit things I can think of) then yeah, Bachmann was wrong to encourage it.

 

[ptif219]

That's actually irrelevant. Bachmann is explicitly praising government intervention into a market to prop up industry.



That's a position diametrically opposed to less government. Effectively the federal government bailed out pork producers by artificially creating market demand. Even more amusingly, the notion of stabilizing prices was a Democrat idea that harks back to the Depression. She explicitly wrote for the government to buy more goods. Now, I don't necessarily have a problem with this in the right circumstances, but this is not a consistent position for Bachmann.

What proof do you have? Would you rather have the government purchase products from a foreign country?

 

[Zyphlin]

Moderator's Warning:

Do not purposefully change an individuals user name in an attempt to belittle, insult, mock, degrade, etc. This is viewed as baiting and will have action taken when seen. Thank you.

 

[FilmFestGuy]

I see nothing wrong with accepting federal farm subsidies if you legitimately qualify, and the repeal President Obama's health care law is of the utmost importance to any recovery we hope to have.

Anyone who knows anything knows that in the last 30 years or so that farms have been hit with restrictions taxes and all kinds of things that have made it hard to stay in business or pass on family farms, farm subsidies keep these needed businesses working.

Without the farms we don't eat.

I am not a big fan of Bachmann but I could learn to be.

I'm a 12% owner of a family farm and we've never received subsidies.

The family farm is largely a myth. Obviously they exist (again, I'm partial owner of one), but the term "family farm" is really misused now. One family may own, for instance, that chicken ranch, but if they're contracted out to Perdue or Tyson, they are essentially owned by that corporation. Farming sucks (with all due respect to the people who do it and I have much respect for those who do), but we do NOT need our tax dollars continuously going to the pockets of the board of directors at Monsanto, Smithfield, and Tyson - which is where that money really ends up.

And no matter what you say, I think it's 100% hypocritical to take government money on one hand and complain about government spending on the other.

If they would subsidize broccoli farms or other healthy organic products, I might change my mind.

 

[obvious Child]

You see it as a consistency issue, I dont think we have all the available facts on what the expenditures went to.

Still irrelevant. For someone who has made a position of anti-government everything, it is extremely hypocritical to essentially demand the government buy more products.

Nor are we likely to because there is no interest in it if you guys are take the baited hook in that easily. If it is, excuse the pun, pork spending that wasnt required for either school lunches or military commisaries (only two legit things I can think of) then yeah, Bachmann was wrong to encourage it.

How is it consistent to be for less government everywhere...except for several items of your choosing?

Or are we defining consistency however we want these days with no regard for its actual definition?

 

[obvious Child]

What proof do you have?

Did you even read my post? Seriously.She OUTRIGHT STATED for the government to buy more goods. Seriously, English, do you read it?

Would you rather have the government purchase products from a foreign country?

And this is about me how? I'm merely pointing out that Bachmann is a hypocrite (but most politicians are). I do find it amusing that you on one hand are for less government and on the other are for more government at the same time.