• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bachmann Literally Praised Government Pork In Letter To Obama Official

OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you think? You insult me and then you're surprised that I got angry? If you want to make a point, you can do it without insults. But since you want to play that way. Your point is ignorant nonsense. Pretty much everything you say is ignorant nonsense. If your head wasn't planted firmly in your ass, you'd realize that.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Where do you find fault with this?

"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.

She wants the Feds to buy farm products from Minnesota, the State she represents, and encourage trade. I'd want my representative to do the same and would be annoyed if they didn't make the effort.
 
Grant said:
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.

Where do you find fault with this?

"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.

She wants the Feds to buy farm products from Minnesota, the State she represents, and encourage trade. I'd want my representative to do the same and would be annoyed if they didn't make the effort.
Click to expand...

I find fault in her consistency. She wants less government everywhere (except defense) especially in the market yet at the same explicitly calls for government to buy goods in the private market, creating an artificial floor and thereby increasing intervention. How can you be consistent when you bash Obama for interfering with the market while you have praised government intervention in the market? Simple: You can't.

Personally, as I have stated earlier, I'm not against the government buying goods. But Bachmann is a hypocrite for saying this.
 
obvious Child said:
I find fault in her consistency. She wants less government everywhere (except defense) especially in the market yet at the same explicitly calls for government to buy goods in the private market, creating an artificial floor and thereby increasing intervention. How can you be consistent when you bash Obama for interfering with the market while you have praised government intervention in the market? Simple: You can't.

Personally, as I have stated earlier, I'm not against the government buying goods. But Bachmann is a hypocrite for saying this.
Click to expand...

Where was she interfering in the market?? The government buys food stuffs for the military. for example, and she would like them to buy Minnesota products. If she becomes President then she will encourage others to buy American goods. This is not "interfering in the market". This is promoting the people you represent.

This is not the scandal you're hoping for, but you keep digging.
 
obvious Child said:
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. How is it consistent to be for less government everywhere...except for several items of your choosing?
Click to expand...

Of course I'll not call you a liar, or ever suggesting such a thing, but can you provide a link to Michelle Bachman claiming she was "anti-government everything".

I have a hunch you just made that up.
 
Grant said:
Where was she interfering in the market??
Click to expand...

She? Did I say she was interfering? The federal government was distorting market prices by setting an artificial floor. How is that not government interference with the market?

The government buys food stuffs for the military. for example, and she would like them to buy Minnesota products. If she becomes President then she will encourage others to buy American goods. This is not "interfering in the market". This is promoting the people you represent.
Click to expand...

You realize you just said that government setting artificial price floors is not interfering in the market?

This is not the scandal you're hoping for, but you keep digging.
Click to expand...

And where did I say this was a scandal? I'm merely pointing out she's a hypocrite.

Michelle Bachman claiming she was "anti-government everything".
Click to expand...

Do you take Bachmann as the candidate for more government?

Funny thing is she bashed TARP which essentially was the same thing as a market stabilizer.

Michele Bachmann - TARP and GM

Bachmann on less government:

Bachmann praises NH voters, touts less govt., confuses NH history at Senator Tea Party – Jim DeMint

Limited government, opposition to bailouts...except when it's her district she wants more spending and price controls.
 
obvious Child said:
She? Did I say she was interfering? The federal government was distorting market prices by setting an artificial floor. How is that not government interference with the market?
Click to expand...

If the government is distorting market prices, and it seems they are in many areas, you should take that up with the Obama administration, not Michelle Bachman.

You realize you just said that government setting artificial price floors is not interfering in the market
Click to expand...
?

I realize I said no such thing. Are you being deliberately obtuse?


And where did I say this was a scandal? I'm merely pointing out she's a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I realize that Leftists don't believe hypocrisy is scandal-worthy, given that they wallow in it, but it is a scandal to those who expect more from their political representatives.
Do you take Bachmann as the candidate for more government?
Click to expand...

You said she was "anti-government everything". Either prove it with a link, or take it back.
Funny thing is she bashed TARP which essentially was the same thing as a market stabilizer.
Click to expand...

It was not a "market stabilizer".
Limited government, opposition to bailouts...except when it's her district she wants more spending and price controls.
Click to expand...

Can you point out where she wanted price controls in Minnesota? And you should understand the "spending" by now.
 
republican hypocrite. but then i repeat myself
... despite her broadsides against "socialized medicine," Bachmann's husband, Marcus, applied for public funds for his counseling clinic, Bachmann & Associates. Since 2006, he has received nearly $30,000 ...That program was financed in part by the federal government.
Michele Bachmann lists the Lake Elmo, Minn.-based clinic — which aims to provide "quality Christian counseling in a sensitive, loving environment," according to its website — as one of her assets on her financial disclosure forms. ...

... . A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies. ...
... Bachmann said in December that the subsidies went to her in-laws and she never received "one penny" from the farm, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. However, in financial disclosure forms, she reported receiving between $32,503 and $105,000 in income from the farm, at minimum, between 2006 and 2009.
Publicly, Bachmann has objected strongly to federal farm payments. ...

... Bachmann wrote six letters to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood asking for stimulus-financed grants for infrastructure projects in her district ...
... "Just because you're against government spending doesn't mean you shouldn't get any funds you're legally entitled to," said Grubbs, a former chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. ...
Click to expand...
Bachmann's had her share of government aid - Post Bulletin
 
interesting. does anyone have anything on record of her opposing agricultural subsidies?
 
so she's consistently in favor of agricultural subsidies, but also profits from them.
 
cpwill said:
so she's consistently in favor of agricultural subsidies, but also profits from them.
Click to expand...

All the while being against other forms if subsidies


Overall an upstanding, consistant candidate, who looks out for the electorate rather then her own pocketbook
 
cpwill said:
so she's consistently in favor of agricultural subsidies, but also profits from them.
Click to expand...

Government spending for Michelle - good.
Government spending for others - bad.

Thats not ideology. Thats simple greed and selfishness.
 
haymarket said:
Government spending for Michelle - good.
Government spending for others - bad.

Thats not ideology. Thats simple greed and selfishness.
Click to expand...

Is it not possible that she wants to eliminate subsidies for everyone?
 
Grant said:
Is it not possible that she wants to eliminate subsidies for everyone?
Click to expand...

were you asleep for the previous 40 posts?
her letter encourages the federal government to intervene further in the hog belly markets
 
justabubba said:
were you asleep for the previous 40 posts?
her letter encourages the federal government to intervene further in the hog belly markets
Click to expand...

I've seen a few of those interpretations and they appear to be written by Leftist hillbillies.
 
Grant said:
I've seen a few of those interpretations and they appear to be written by Leftist hillbillies.
Click to expand...

then read her words
Just a year later, however, Bachmann wrote to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, praising the federal government for helping prop up the prices of pig products and dairy by directly buying the commodities, a move that benefited her constituents.

"I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases,"
Click to expand...
she wrote on Oct. 5, 2009.
Click to expand...
Rep. Michele Bachmann: She's had her share of government aid - latimes.com
 
So, let me see if I got this straight, she got some "subsidies" that when push came to shove, she voted to end funding for. Wouldnt that be the definition of putting your money where your mouth is?

Second, DU and McClatchy?...well I guess the LA Times is nominally better anyways.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So, let me see if I got this straight, she got some "subsidies" that when push came to shove, she voted to end funding for. Wouldnt that be the definition of putting your money where your mouth is?

Second, DU and McClatchy?...well I guess the LA Times is nominally better anyways.
Click to expand...

let's see what resulted when she put pen to paper in the letter to the federal dept of agriculture:
"I would encourage you to take any additional steps necessary to prevent further deterioration of these critical industries, such as making additional commodity purchases,"
Click to expand...
sounds like someone who wants more federal subsidies
tell me why i am wrong to believe that
 
haymarket said:
By claiming them for herself as a start? hardly.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't she be doing a disservice to her constituents if she refused monies which were available for her state as well as all states? The people of Minnesota would be justifiably angry about that.
 
OpportunityCost said:
So, let me see if I got this straight, she got some "subsidies" that when push came to shove, she voted to end funding for. Wouldnt that be the definition of putting your money where your mouth is?
Click to expand...

No it's the definition of "hypocrisy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom