Confirmed: Bachmann is either an epic hypocrite or a moron

[sjt18]

Bachmann has said:

-- that Obama is a socialist

-- that Pelosi or Obama backed legislation is the "crown jewel of socialism"



Turns out, her family owns a farm. Her personal stake has grown from $2,000 to $50,000, according to her disclosures.

The problem is that between 1995 and 2006 the farm got $250,000 in federal subsidies!

So, which is it. Is Bachmann an incredible hypocrite, whining about socialism on the one hand, whilst accepting federal government subsidies on the other?

Or, does she just not understand that a family farm taking a quarter mill from the feds over the course of a decade is pretty much the definition of socialism?

You decide. My money is on moron.

So over an 11 year period the farm got $250K in subsidies, correct? Just under $23K per year.

What kind of subsidies were they? How large was the farm? Do you know or are you just willing to accept anything you think makes a conservative look bad?

I disagree with subsidies generally however food is a strategic commodity. While market forces are still needed to punish the inefficient... you can't have so many farmers go out of business in one cycle that you cannot recover.

IF she owns part of an average sized farm... say 4000 tillable acres.... then the gross income for the farm would be something around $3 million per year for the period you mentioned. Are you really trying to claim that this is a collective farm because .7% of its income came from subsidies?


Once again you have embarrassed yourself by talking about something that you know virtually nothing about.

 

[IPorange]

Also, she has a relatively small stake in the farm. I don't see how her parents being the main party accepting the benefits means she is a hypocrite. Are you going to tell your parents not to accept benefits because it is against your political views?

No, but I wouldn't label the current functioning of the US government as socialism while actively participating and benefiting from it either.

 

[volinbham]

Once again you have embarrassed yourself by talking about something that you know virtually nothing about.

So what's the verdict; epic moron or epic hypocrite?

 

[utvolpj]

So what's the verdict; epic moron or epic hypocrite?

depends on who the vote is about

 

[volinbham]

depends on who the vote is about

:whistling:

 

[SamRebel35]

No, but I wouldn't label the current functioning of the US government as socialism while actively participating and benefiting from it either.

Perhaps you're right. Since her stake is negligable compared to her net worth, she might best be served to cut ties with the farm so she doesn't appear wishy washy on the topic. But to call her an epic hypocrite for having having a small percentage stake in her parents' farm is silly imo.

 

[sjt18]

So what's the verdict; epic moron or epic hypocrite?

LG or Bachmann?

I am fairly certain that Bachmann is neither... probably a little better than the norm for the average citizen and top 5 percentile for politicians on both accounts. She may be wrong (though I don't think so most of the time) but I detect little in the way of hypocrisy or that she lacks intellectual capacity.

 

[utgibbs]

What?...because they produce more than just Pringles?

First of all, capitalism allowed for innovations in agriculture that made us so productive we can not only feed the whole world, we can make it fat (so much for Malthus' theory). Incorrect in every regard.

Second, today agriculture in the US has a lot more government involvement than most industries, so pointing to it as an example of free market failure is nonsensical. When the government wasn't involved, it failed catastrophically several times, and still does around the world.

First of all, we don't feed the world.

Second, only a small percentage of the world is fat.

Third, agriculture has been a systemic market failure from the beginning. Government is involved because of those failures.

Fourth, Pringles are the gold standard of quality and taste for the chip market, especially for the "deep fried gnocchi" sector.

The IMF imposes strict market for less developed countries in order to 1. force them into their comparative advantage niche, thereby, 2. becoming big importers from Western producers.

Worldwide agriculture has been a systemic market failure from the beginning, and it's getting worse (see new post).

 

[sjt18]

So the choices couldn’t be hypocrite or moron. It’s “epic” hypocrite or moron. What makes it epic?

She's a conservative associated with the TP. If you had a similar situation with liberals then it is either "slight" hypocrisy, no problem at all, or a magnificent example of flexibility.

Ex: Liberal politicians and leaders of teacher's unions who send their own kids to private schools. Civil rights leaders who make speeches about poverty in the Projects then climb back in the limo parked around the corner for the ride back to their mansion.

 

[sjt18]

First of all, we don't feed the world.

The US currently has about 5% of the world's population. Canada and the US combined might have 6%.

"The United States produces about half of the world's corn and 10 percent of its wheat. It also accounts for 20 percent of the globe's beef, pork, and lamb."

United States of America Agriculture, Information about Agriculture in United States of America

So yeah... we do far more than our share.

Third, agriculture has been a systemic market failure from the beginning. Government is involved because of those failures.

No. You are 100% wrong. The free market application to agriculture has worked since the beginning of civilization. It has worked to create equillibrium. That equillibrium included famines and national/societal collapses... but less broadly or severely as the failures of collective farming everywhere it has been tried. The most significant example was the former USSR.

As mentioned, food is a strategic resource. We use a combination of insurance, land use rules, allotments, and subsidies to prevent mass farm failures due to "acts of God". As farms have grown larger and can benefit from economies of scale.... these subsidies need to go away.

Worldwide agriculture has been a systemic market failure from the beginning, and it's getting worse (see new post).

Yet agricultural output as a direct result of free enterprise with "insurance" against mass failure has been an undeniable success. For every American employed in agriculture.... 97 people are fed.

 

[n_huffhines]

First of all, we don't feed the world.

Second, only a small percentage of the world is fat.

Third, agriculture has been a systemic market failure from the beginning. Government is involved because of those failures.

Fourth, Pringles are the gold standard of quality and taste for the chip market, especially for the "deep fried gnocchi" sector.

The IMF imposes strict market for less developed countries in order to 1. force them into their comparative advantage niche, thereby, 2. becoming big importers from Western producers.

Worldwide agriculture has been a systemic market failure from the beginning, and it's getting worse (see new post).

Really? I said we have the ability to feed the world and make it fat. I didn't say we are feeding the world and making it fat. If you know about Malthus you know that he was a doomsdayer claiming humans would die of mass starvation because agriculture couldn't keep up with population growth. Now we only have like 3% as many farms as we had when Malthus was around and we can feed everyone until they are fat. Market failure? I'd say that's market success.

What are the systemic market failures of agriculture? You keep saying that they exist without backing it up? I'll show you agricultural failure...FDR paying farmers to burn crops to drive up market prices while Americans were starving. You want more government in agriculture?

 

[lawgator1]

I see a lot of excuses here along the lines that its not that much money, or that if the program is there, then its okay for her farm to take the subsidy.

Neither is particularly satisfying. You simply cannot on the one hand constantly blast government programs as universally evil because they redistribute tax dollars, and then on the other take a subsidy.

 

[lumberjack4]

I heard Michelle Bachman had 23 foster children.

 

[n_huffhines]

I see a lot of excuses here along the lines that its not that much money, or that if the program is there, then its okay for her farm to take the subsidy.

Neither is particularly satisfying. You simply cannot on the one hand constantly blast government programs as universally evil because they redistribute tax dollars, and then on the other take a subsidy.

Actually, I justified it. I'll be paying into these stupid programs the rest of my life so I don't feel like the $3K I got in pell grant money is hypocritical at all. If Bachmann is getting back more than she's putting in then I have a problem with it.

 

[volinbham]

I see a lot of excuses here along the lines that its not that much money, or that if the program is there, then its okay for her farm to take the subsidy.

Neither is particularly satisfying. You simply cannot on the one hand constantly blast government programs as universally evil because they redistribute tax dollars, and then on the other take a subsidy.

When I see you make the same claims (e.g. epic hypocrisy) about ANY politician that does something similar I'll take this post seriously - until then aren't you being hypocritical (maybe even epic)?

 

[SamRebel35]

I see a lot of excuses here along the lines that its not that much money, or that if the program is there, then its okay for her farm to take the subsidy.

Neither is particularly satisfying. You simply cannot on the one hand constantly blast government programs as universally evil because they redistribute tax dollars, and then on the other take a subsidy.

I really don't think she has much of a say in what subsidies the farm takes seeing as how her stake is only a sliver of the total.

 

[lawgator1]

Actually, I justified it. I'll be paying into these stupid programs the rest of my life so I don't feel like the $3K I got in pell grant money is hypocritical at all. If Bachmann is getting back more than she's putting in then I have a problem with it.

So because you pay taxes, its okay for you to accept redistributed tax dollars in the form of a grant.

Know what that's called?

Socialism.

When I see you make the same claims (e.g. epic hypocrisy) about ANY politician that does something similar I'll take this post seriously - until then aren't you being hypocritical (maybe even epic)?

I agree that all politicians are hypocritical. But sometimes its a matter of degree. Bachmann literally screeches against the very economic model that she has utilized.

I'm not saying she's the only one. But on this issue she says one thing and does pretty much the opposite.

I really don't think she has much of a say in what subsidies the farm takes seeing as how her stake is only a sliver of the total.

I am not aware of what her stake is relative to others'.

And if she was a person of principle who truly believes what she says, she'd have divested herself and returned whatever her share might be of the subsidy.





The main point of this is to illustrate, not that she's the lone politician hypocrite out there, but to illustrate that she doesn't know what she's talking about.

I think it most likely that, until this report came to light, it never once crossed her mind that the subsidy paid to her family farm is, in some measure, a function of an economic and political system with socialist components to it. The reason is not because she isn't paying attention, but because she does not fundamentally understand what socialism is.

No, she's not about to nationalize industry or vote for universal health care. But I think it a fair criticism of her to note that she is using the term as a scare tactic and she just doesn't have the mental or knowledge horsepower to understand what the term means in every day life, including her own.

 

[VOLatile]

Of course... anyone who is conservative must be a "moron" since they disagree with you smart people, right? That is especially true if they are female or black and choose to think for themselves. Only morons step out of line. Only morons choose to defy the classifications they've been put in by the left.

Who does she think she is disagreeing with you smart people?

Intelligence is not divided by party lines. There are morons on both sides. Don't even try to make it look like I said she's a moron because she's conservative. It's a combination of many, many things.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[lawgator1]

Intelligence is not divided by party lines. There are morons on both sides. Don't even try to make it look like I said she's a moron because she's conservative. It's a combination of many, many things.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

+ 1.

There are plenty of morons on the left. Where do we begin?

As to Bachmann, I think what irks me so much is that there is this borderline pride these days on the right about being ignorant, uneducated. My gosh, Palin has almost made it a trademark to express disdain for book learnin'.

And what is shocking is that so many seem ready to rally around people that promote their lack of understanding what the f is going on.

 

[GAVol]

Now we're at the crux of the issue. You think conservatives are fundamentally simpletons. It's got to irk you that a moron like Bachmann is an attorney.

 

[volinbham]

+ 1.

There are plenty of morons on the left. Where do we begin?

As to Bachmann, I think what irks me so much is that there is this borderline pride these days on the right about being ignorant, uneducated. My gosh, Palin has almost made it a trademark to express disdain for book learnin'.

And what is shocking is that so many seem ready to rally around people that promote their lack of understanding what the f is going on.

What is it specifically that makes Bachmann ignorant or uneducated? She has an undergrad, 2 law degrees and was a practicing tax attorney.

Honestly all the answers so far are "she believes in stuff I do not."

 

[volinbham]

Now we're at the crux of the issue. You think conservatives are fundamentally simpletons. It's got to irk you that a moron like Bachmann is an attorney.

This is the recurring theme - they believe crazy (according to me) things so they must be dumb.

 

[SamRebel35]

+ 1.

There are plenty of morons on the left. Where do we begin?

As to Bachmann, I think what irks me so much is that there is this borderline pride these days on the right about being ignorant, uneducated. My gosh, Palin has almost made it a trademark to express disdain for book learnin'.

And what is shocking is that so many seem ready to rally around people that promote their lack of understanding what the f is going on.

I really don't think farming subsidies are the evil social programs that most republicans want to blast as being socialist. Farming subsidies are there to ensure a continual production of crops through good times and bad. This helps not only the farmers who get the subsidies, but also the consumers and ,ultimately, the economy. I think social security, medicare, and welfare are the programs most likely deemed socialist, as they do not benefit anyone but the person receiving the benefits.

 

[VOLatile]

I really don't think farming subsidies are the evil social programs that most republicans want to blast as being socialist. Farming subsidies are there to ensure a continual production of crops through good times and bad. This helps not only the farmers who get the subsidies, but also the consumers and ,ultimately, the economy. I think social security, medicare, and welfare are the programs most likely deemed socialist, as they do not benefit anyone but the person receiving the benefits.

Social programs are there to keep people afloat when times are bad. They're just repeatedly abused. Reform, not reduction.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[utgibbs]

+ 1.

There are plenty of morons on the left. Where do we begin?

As to Bachmann, I think what irks me so much is that there is this borderline pride these days on the right about being ignorant, uneducated. My gosh, Palin has almost made it a trademark to express disdain for book learnin'.

And what is shocking is that so many seem ready to rally around people that promote their lack of understanding what the f is going on.

This was 90% of the public school population in West Tennessee. I have a feeling it was 95% of the school population in Gainsville.

There has been a counter-revolution 40 years strong now against the Enlightenment, LG. Evolution, global heating, stem cells, the real world outside the back door....

The hilariously ironic part is, of course, the gift of the Enlightenment is THE reason wealth increased in the 20th century allowing the consolidation of bourgeois social metabolic reproduction.