• 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

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.

What she is - a self serving hypocrite who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk. .... is all that counts.
 
Did you even read my post? Seriously.She OUTRIGHT STATED for the government to buy more goods. Seriously, English, do you read it?



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.

If the purchase is for the military or schools or the poor your point is moot
 
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.

How so since the government is going to purchase them she should try to get it to be from her state.
 
Government spending for Michelle - good.
Government spending for others - bad.

Thats not ideology. Thats simple greed and selfishness.


:roll: yeah? tell me how you feel about (say) government spending in Iraq v government spending on public education.



If more on this comes out and is verified, it will hopefully hurt her with Tea Party-esque voters a'la Miller in Alaska.


Lord Tammerlain said:
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

well, her electorate did indeed benefit from agricultural subsidies - it just seems she did so as well. However, I agree that Aggy subsidies are no better than any other form of governmenal attempt at price-fixing.
 
let's see what resulted when she put pen to paper in the letter to the federal dept of agriculture:

sounds like someone who wants more federal subsidies
tell me why i am wrong to believe that

Again if you can not show what the products are used for it is all BS
 
If the purchase is for the military or schools or the poor your point is moot

she seemed to suggest that they were for "price stabilization" purposes - which is indeed one of the forms that our agricultural subsidies take.
 
she seemed to suggest that they were for "price stabilization" purposes - which is indeed one of the forms that our agricultural subsidies take.

But what do they do with the product?
 
Right. She wants the government to buy her state's products, something that has never occurred to any other politician.

For that idea alone she deserves to be President.

what you insist you are unable to grasp is the obvious
she would have no reason to write to the federal agricultural agency, encouraging more federal buys, if it was simply purchasing goods as needed for federal purposes
what she was advocating was more federal government manipulation of the hog belly market, via its significant purchases, thereby propping up pork prices
and benefiting her own financial position to boot, thru her partnership in a farm realizing the ag subsidies

all the while pretending to inveigh against federal intervention in commodity markets
a republican. a hypocrite. yes, i did repeat myself
 
what you insist you are unable to grasp is the obvious
she would have no reason to write to the federal agricultural agency, encouraging more federal buys, if it was simply purchasing goods as needed for federal purposes
what she was advocating was more federal government manipulation of the hog belly market, via its significant purchases, thereby propping up pork prices
and benefiting her own financial position to boot, thru her partnership in a farm realizing the ag subsidies

all the while pretending to inveigh against federal intervention in commodity markets
a republican. a hypocrite. yes, i did repeat myself

This is only believable if you can show what the government did with the products
 
This is only believable if you can show what the government did with the products

we know from bachmann's letter that the fedeeral government was intervening in the commodity markets and she wanted them to do more of it

thereby placing her hypocrisy on display
 
we know from bachmann's letter that the fedeeral government was intervening in the commodity markets and she wanted them to do more of it

thereby placing her hypocrisy on display

What did they do with the products? It seems a legitimate purchase to me
 
What did they do with the products? It seems a legitimate purchase to me

only a dense person would be unable to figure out that bachmann would not need to write a letter encouragig more subsidies if all that transpired was the government simply meeting is logistic needs
 
No it's the definition of "hypocrisy".

Bachmann voted to end a subsidy that she personally gained from financially. That is hypocrisy? I think you need to look up the word because that doesnt seem to fit.

Going to go back to the use of the commodities bought, because I have yet to see that addressed, if it is used to supply schools or the military would that be a legitimate expenditure?
 
Bachmann voted to end a subsidy that she personally gained from financially. That is hypocrisy? I think you need to look up the word because that doesnt seem to fit.

interesting - can you link? or are you referring to the Ryan Budget?

Going to go back to the use of the commodities bought, because I have yet to see that addressed, if it is used to supply schools or the military would that be a legitimate expenditure?

if that were the case, then yes. But she said it was used for "price stabilization". IE: reducing supply to drive up the price of food.
 
only a dense person would be unable to figure out that bachmann would not need to write a letter encouragig more subsidies if all that transpired was the government simply meeting is logistic needs

Another words you can not say why it was bought or what the government did with it
 
if they can, they store it, otherwise they destroy it.


What proof do we have this product was destroyed? You are telling me with global hunger the US Government buys product to destroy it?
 
Another words you can not say why it was bought or what the government did with it

what we do know is bachmann liked that the government intervened in the hog bellies market
we have her letter to the department of agriculture to prove it

so she is against government intervention and the government subsidies ... unless she is for it
 
what we do know is bachmann liked that the government intervened in the hog bellies market
we have her letter to the department of agriculture to prove it

so she is against government intervention and the government subsidies ... unless she is for it

And this will be the main issue with Obamaniacs. It's pitiful what America has become.
 
And this will be the main issue with Obamaniacs. It's pitiful what America has become.

what is pitiful is those kool aid drinkers who support and defend republican hypocrisy
 
Stick with the hog belly issue, Bubba. That obviously holds a lot of interest for you.

what interests (concerns) me is those who defend republican hypocrisy
 
Bachmann voted to end a subsidy that she personally gained from financially. That is hypocrisy? I think you need to look up the word because that doesnt seem to fit.

Going to go back to the use of the commodities bought, because I have yet to see that addressed, if it is used to supply schools or the military would that be a legitimate expenditure?

Praising & encouraging it makes her a hypocrite.
She publicly votes against something and then privately praises it when she benefits. Tsk, tsk.

And stop throwing out a red herring.
 
Back
Top Bottom