"Michele Bachman: Welfare Queen" ???

[Macky-Mac]

an interesting but kinda disgusting article (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/michelle_bachman_welfare_queen_20091221/) about government subsidies (also known as the taxpayers' cash) flowing into the pockets of some of the politicians complaining about "socialism".....turns out some of them are quite familiar with the concept! :rolleyes:


Michele Bachmann: Welfare Queen

Michele Bachmann has become well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics, protesting health care reform and every other government “handout” as socialism. What her followers probably don’t know is that Rep. Bachmann is, to use that anti-government slur, something of a welfare queen. That’s right, the anti-government insurrectionist has taken more than a quarter-million dollars in government handouts thanks to corrupt farming subsidies she has been collecting for at least a decade.

And she’s not the only one who has been padding her bank account with taxpayer money.

Bachmann, of Minnesota, has spent much of this year agitating against health care reform, whipping up the so-called tea-baggers with stories of death panels and rationed health care. She has called for a revolution against what she sees as Barack Obama’s attempted socialist takeover of America, saying presidential policy is “reaching down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom.”

But 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. If American farms such as hers were forced to compete in the global free market, they would collapse.

However, Bachmann doesn’t think other Americans should benefit from such protection and assistance. She voted against every foreclosure relief bill aimed at helping average homeowners (despite the fact that her district had the highest foreclosure rate in Minnesota), saying that bailing out homeowners would be “rewarding the irresponsible while punishing those who have been playing by the rules.” That’s right, the subsidy queen wants the rest of us to be responsible...

....Chuck Grassley, the longtime Republican senator from Iowa who warns his constituents of Obama’s “trend toward socialism,” has seen his family collect $1 million in federal handouts over an 11-year period, with Grassley’s son receiving $699,248 and the senator himself pocketing $238,974. Even Grassley’s grandson is learning to ride through life on training wheels, snagging $5,964 in 2005 and $2,363 in 2006. In the Grassley family they learn early how to enjoy other people’s money.

Sen. Grassley railed against government intervention in the health care market, telling The Washington Times, “Whenever the government does more ... that’s a movement toward socialism.”

....Then there’s Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., whose family has been on the government take for at least the past 11 years, pocketing some $500,000. The senator recently held a “prayercast” with Michele Bachmann to beseech God to kill health care reform as soon as possible because it would bring an evil socialist spirit into America.....

...Not surprisingly, Blue Dog Democrats are on board with this welfare-for-the-rich thing. Max Baucus, the fiscally conservative Democratic senator from Montana who did his best to sabotage the health care reform process before it ever began, collected $250,000 in taxpayer subsidies to his family’s farm while fighting to keep Americans at the mercy of free-market health insurance. Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, another Democrat, also helped hold the line against so-called socialized medicine for Americans who need assistance, even though her family farm business follows the socialized subsidy playbook to a T. The Lincolns pocketed $715,000 in farm subsidies over a 10-year period, and the senator even admitted to using $10,000 of it as petty cash in 2007. Democratic Rep. Stephanie Sandlin of South Dakota stayed true to her conservative free-market roots by voting against the public option. Meanwhile, her daddy, Lars Herseth, a former South Dakota legislator, collected a welfare jackpot of $844,725 paid out between 1995 and 2006....

[abijnk]

Surprise!!! Oh, wait, no... This isn't a surprise at all.

[zap2]

One set of rules for them, different set for "us" common folk!

[IntheNet]

an interesting but kinda disgusting article (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/michelle_bachman_welfare_queen_20091221/)...

Most if not all small farms today rely on agricultural subsidies on either milk (dairy), grain (corn) or a variety of meat subsidies that members of both parties have approved for decades for small farms. Just so, hundreds of thousands of residents of every town, city, and state in the country, have been on welfare subsidies for decades. Is your point to selectively single out Michele Bachman, Chuck Grassley, Sam Brownback, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Stephanie Sandlin to some standard that all this nation's politicians (local, state, and federal) should be held?

[LethalWolfe]

Most if not all small farms today rely on agricultural subsidies on either milk (dairy), grain (corn) or a variety of meat subsidies that members of both parties have approved for decades for small farms. Just so, hundreds of thousands of residents of every town, city, and state in the country, have been on welfare subsidies for decades. Is your point to selectively single out Michele Bachman, Chuck Grassley, Sam Brownback, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Stephanie Sandlin to some standard that all this nation's politicians (local, state, and federal) should be held?
I really hope this is some attempt at humor 'cause I really, truly, honestly want to find it hard to believe that you can't see the hypocrisy of someone speaking out vehemently against government subsidies while at the same time receiving government subsidies.


Lethal

[zap2]

Most if not all small farms today rely on agricultural subsidies on either milk (dairy), grain (corn) or a variety of meat subsidies that members of both parties have approved for decades for small farms. Just so, hundreds of thousands of residents of every town, city, and state in the country, have been on welfare subsidies for decades. Is your point to selectively single out Michele Bachman, Chuck Grassley, Sam Brownback, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, and Stephanie Sandlin to some standard that all this nation's politicians (local, state, and federal) should be held?

Funny joke?!

I'm assume you understand the OP's point, not that the subsidies are inherently wrong, but when your political life is based on "teh government is evil and socialist!", you likely shouldn't be take government money

[IntheNet]

...I really, truly, honestly want to find it hard to believe that you can't see the hypocrisy...

I was not taking specific exception to the "hypocrisy" alleged (one can find "hypocrisy" from all politicians if you dig deep enough); more important, as I maintained in my prior post, I was curious if the article's author would subject this criticism to all politicians since the article was overtly partisan; i.e., the first sentence: "...well known for her anti-government tea-bagger antics..."which seems strange since Michele Bachmann is the United States Representative of Minnesota's 6th Congressional District - so the "anti-government" claim is a bit over the top!

[Zombie Acorn]

You deal with either having farm subsidies or relying on your food coming from overseas, I will take the former rather than the later. Its in the government's/people's interest and it doesn't make someone a "welfare queen".

[Macky-Mac]

I was not taking specific exception to the "hypocrisy" alleged (one can find "hypocrisy" from all politicians if you dig deep enough); more important, as I maintained in my prior post, I was curious if the article's author would subject this criticism to all politicians.....

the author did indeed identify democrats as well republicans who are scooping up these fat subsidies while posturing about the horrors of "socialism".....so the answer to your question would be "yes"

[Zombie Acorn]

the author did indeed identify democrats as well republicans who are scooping up these fat subsidies while posturing about the horrors of "socialism".....so the answer to your question would be "yes"

So if your father in-law gets subsidies I can call you a welfare queen? :confused:

[zap2]

So if your father in-law gets subsidies I can call you a welfare queen? :confused:

Perhaps is Macky-Mac's family was also getting the subsidies, and speaking against government involvement in the "free market"...then yes..

[abijnk]

Just for anyone keeping score:

The World According To InTheNet
Working for the government -> Theft from the American Taxpayers
Accepting Subsidies from the Government -> Perfectly Acceptable way to earn a living

[Macky-Mac]

So if your father in-law gets subsidies I can call you a welfare queen? :confused:

Well, if you read the article you would have seen that she's one of the owners of the business and receives income directly from it, so there's little point in pretending this is about her deceased father-in-law (unless she's using him to hide her financial involvement).

So now you've become a supporter of government cash subsidies to businesses that aren't financially viable?

[IntheNet]

Just for anyone keeping score

My posts questioned whether the article's author* would subject such criticism of Bachmann to all politicians since the article was overtly partisan.

*Yasha Levine (from Truth Dig) which self-identifies itself as "A Progressive Journal"

[Zombie Acorn]

Well, if you read the article you would have seen that she's one of the owners of the business and receives income directly from it, so there's little point in pretending this is about her deceased father-in-law (unless she's using him to hide her financial involvement).

So now you've become a supporter of government cash subsidies to businesses that aren't financially viable?

If it means I can eat food that was grown here: yes. I don't think we should subsidize at quite the level we do, but giving up our nation's food capacity and letting some foreign nation feed us seems a bit short sighted.

[NT1440]

If it means I can eat food that was grown here: yes.

Ah, I love when people can take general stances against something, but find it perfectly acceptable when and only when it can benefit them in some way. If only we had a word for that kind of mentality...

[NT1440]

My posts questioned whether the article's author would subject such criticism of Bachmann to all politicians since the article was overtly partisan.

Overly partisan? It went and pointed out democrats that do the same damn thing!

[Zombie Acorn]

Ah, I love when people can take general stances against something, but find it perfectly acceptable when and only when it can benefit them in some way. If only we had a word for that kind of mentality...

If you don't see any problem with our food supply being controlled by foreign nations I don't know what to say. We can't live without food, we can live without cars, planes, other ********. This article seems to be anti-food subsidies, something I think is valuable if we want to keep our nation secure.

[LethalWolfe]

If it means I can eat food that was grown here: yes. I don't think we should subsidize at quite the level we do, but giving up our nation's food capacity and letting some foreign nation feed us seems a bit short sighted.
Giving up our food capacity? Most corn in the US, for example, is not even fit for human consumption but genetically engineered to be used in industrial applications (animal feed, fuel, food additives, etc.,). Tons of corn gets destroyed each year because it's more profitable in the short term to grow corn and let it rot because of the subsidy. The idea of the subsidy is good, but the execution is lacking.

But now we are gettin' kinda OT.

This article seems to be anti-food subsidies, something I think is valuable if we want to keep our nation secure.
Really? It's not anti-food subsidies. It's just pointing out another example of hypocrisy by some of our elected officials. In this specific case it's pointing out people who rail against, and vote against, government subsidies yet in fact have made a lot of money from government subsidies themselves.


Lethal

[NT1440]

If you don't see any problem with our food supply being controlled by foreign nations I don't know what to say. We can't live without food, we can live without cars, planes, other ********. This article seems to be anti-food subsidies, something I think is valuable if we want to keep our nation secure.

I'd just like to see Bachman's stance on the issue.

[Schtumple]

Just for anyone keeping score:

The World According To InTheNet
Working for the government -> Theft from the American Taxpayers
Accepting Subsidies from the Government -> Perfectly Acceptable way to earn a living

As soon as I saw the name I gave up even trying to follow the discussion :p

[abijnk]

My posts questioned whether the article's author* would subject such criticism of Bachmann to all politicians since the article was overtly partisan.

*Yasha Levine (from Truth Dig) which self-identifies itself as "A Progressive Journal"

My apologies, please let me correct my post:

Sources According To InTheNet:
Contains the word "progressive" -> "overtly partisan"
Contains the word "conservative" -> Legitimate news source not to be questioned

That about right?

My point was that you aren't capable of having an on-topic conversation on here.

[Zombie Acorn]

Really? It's not anti-food subsidies. It's just pointing out another example of hypocrisy by some of our elected officials. In this specific case it's pointing out people who rail against, and vote against, government subsidies yet in fact have made a lot of money from government subsidies themselves.


Lethal

Its not hypocrisy to rally against one type of subsidy while getting paid by another. Some people view some subsidies as good, others bad.

[Macky-Mac]

Its not hypocrisy to rally against one type of subsidy while getting paid by another. Some people view some subsidies as good, others bad.

it's hypocrisy when politicians get to the point of voting subsidies for businesses they own while claiming such subsidies for others are "evil socialism"

I assume you live in one of our "socialist" farm states? you people have been getting fat off the taxes paid by others for years all while claiming that businesses that can't survive on their own should be allowed to collapse.....unless it's your farm businesses.....then subsidies are suddenly a national necessity.....The idea that corporate farms, those that now dominate american agriculture, can't operate without subsidies is simply nonsense

edit; it's one thing for a politician to support subsidies for some type of business, but when it comes to voting to send money to line their own pockets, it's just corruption.

[IntheNet]

My point was that you aren't capable of having an on-topic conversation on here.

So for this thread, in your view, "on-topic" would mean bashing Minnesota's Representative from the 6th District? Or defending her as I have done? Which is "on-topic" in your view?

[Macky-Mac]

So for this thread, in your view, "on-topic" would mean bashing Minnesota's Representative from the 6th District? Or defending her as I have done? Which is "on-topic" in your view?

well, on topic would be whether you think she should be voting to line her pockets with subsidies paid for by taxpayers

[LethalWolfe]

Its not hypocrisy to rally against one type of subsidy while getting paid by another. Some people view some subsidies as good, others bad.
When someone is painting w/a broad brush, as these politicians are, it is hypocrisy. Using socialism as a four letter word or saying things like "Whenever the government does more ... that’s a movement toward socialism" while getting a fair share of your annual income from government subsidies is hypocritical.

But that's by and large American politics. Be simple minded. Be divisive. Be black and white. Shades of grade are complicated and our now! now! now! culture of instant gratification and decision making based on catchphrase friendly soundbites doesn't want to be bothered with actually having to think. But that, like farm subsidies, is a thread in and of itself.


Lethal

[Eraserhead]

You deal with either having farm subsidies or relying on your food coming from overseas, I will take the former rather than the later. Its in the government's/people's interest and it doesn't make someone a "welfare queen".

Except that farm subsidies impoverish further some of the poorest people on the planet (farmers in developing countries), they make food more expensive to buy in the West, and they are grossly unfair and go against our free-trade standards.

Buying local food could be promoted in other ways (such as reducing food miles) and farmers could be subsidised to stay on the most difficult land (e.g. hill farms).

well, on topic would be whether you think she should be voting to line her pockets with subsidies paid for by taxpayers

Overall though if you are accepting farming subsidies then you shouldn't be campaigning against other government programs - its hypocritical.

[IntheNet]

Overall though if you are accepting farming subsidies then you shouldn't be campaigning against other government programs - its hypocritical.

But Rep. Backmann is not accepting the subsidies! From the article:

"...The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law..."

So for starters, barring some evidence of Michele Bachmann’s participation in operating the family farm beyond it being managed by her late father-in-law, I’m not sure it’s fair to hold her accountable for these subsidies. As I said earlier, there is more than enough hypocrisy to go around; in this case, however, the article is painting Bachmann with smear for something she herself is not responsible for... unless, of course, you hold all politicians and their families liable for every policy comment they make...

[Ugg]

Except that farm subsidies impoverish further some of the poorest people on the planet (farmers in developing countries), they make food more expensive to buy in the West, and they are grossly unfair and go against our free-trade standards.

Buying local food could be promoted in other ways (such as reducing food miles) and farmers could be subsidised to stay on the most difficult land (e.g. hill farms).

Overall though if you are accepting farming subsidies then you shouldn't be campaigning against other government programs - its hypocritical.

Few people understand that EU, Japanese and American farm subsidies are responsible for a great deal of food poverty in Africa. I often wonder how much money ADM, Cargill and Monsanto pump into advertising for famine fundraisers. They're guaranteed a huge return on their investment.

The latest US farm bill made a tiny effort to promote local food, but the US is decades away from any substantial change.

US farmers have totally lost any credibility when it comes to their "need" for subsidies. They've sold their souls to the above mentioned agri giants while trashing organic and local food movements. They want all the advantages of global markets but expect Uncle Sam to be there and bail them out when they gamble the farm and lose.

Michelle Bachmann and her ilk have fed at the trough for too long. They feel that it's their patriotic duty to receive this entitlement. Her hypocrisy is astounding.

[abijnk]

So for this thread, in your view, "on-topic" would mean bashing Minnesota's Representative from the 6th District? Or defending her as I have done? Which is "on-topic" in your view?

The topic of the article is the blatant hypocrisy shown, not only by Bachman, but by all of these members of congress screaming socialism and the like while participating in socialized programs. I thought it was rather obvious...

There isn't a question about whether or not it is hypocritical, the question is do you think it is ok? No one is "bashing" Bachman. You can't "bash" someone with the truth...

[LethalWolfe]

But Rep. Backmann is not accepting the subsidies! From the article:

"...The farm had been managed by Bachmann’s recently deceased father-in-law..."

So for starters, barring some evidence of Michele Bachmann’s participation in operating the family farm beyond it being managed by her late father-in-law, I’m not sure it’s fair to hold her accountable for these subsidies.
From a little further down in the article:
"Bachmann’s financial disclosure forms indicate that her personal stake in the family farm is worth up to $250,000. They also show that she has been earning income from the farm business, and that the income grew in just a few years from $2,000 to as much as $50,000 for 2008."

Is Bachmann involved in the day-to-day operations of the farm? I Don't know. Is Bachmann financially involved w/the farm? Yes, according to the article. Is Bachmann earning income from the farm and therefore earning income from farm subsidies? Yes, according to the article.


Lethal

[Counterfit]

Is Bachmann involved in the day-to-day operations of the farm? I Don't know. Is Bachmann financially involved w/the farm? Yes, according to the article. Is Bachmann earning income from the farm and therefore earning income from farm subsidies? Yes, according to the article.

InTheNet ignores this post in 3... 2... 1...

[Zombie Acorn]

Except that farm subsidies impoverish further some of the poorest people on the planet (farmers in developing countries), they make food more expensive to buy in the West, and they are grossly unfair and go against our free-trade standards.

Buying local food could be promoted in other ways (such as reducing food miles) and farmers could be subsidised to stay on the most difficult land (e.g. hill farms).


I provide for my nation first and others next. The same reason I think our troops should be home right now is the same reason we shouldn't give up our farming land to foreign nations.

[Eraserhead]

I provide for my nation first and others next. The same reason I think our troops should be home right now is the same reason we shouldn't give up our farming land to foreign nations.

OK then, you're making food prices higher for the 99% of the population who aren't farmers and you could spend the money you spend on agricultural subsidies on something else.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The thing of it is--does she really run a family farm?

How much of the subsidized funding actually goes to the farm, and how much of it just gets pocketed?

[Macky-Mac]

I provide for my nation first and others next. The same reason I think our troops should be home right now is the same reason we shouldn't give up our farming land to foreign nations.

Is there actually a real threat that americans are about to stop growing our own food? That's not the reason that's given for these programs.

From a research paper by the Heritage Foundation entitled How Farm Subsidies Became America's Largest Corporate Welfare Program (http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1520.cfm):

...Farm subsidies are traditionally defended as--in the words of Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA)--a "safety net" supplementing the incomes of poor farmers. One would expect farm safety-net programs to target poor farmers, just as other safety-net programs such as food stamps and Medicaid limit eligibility to low-income families.

In reality, however, the opposite is true: Farm subsidies are distributed not on the basis of need, but with regard to two other criteria: (1) the type of crop grown, with 90 percent of all farm subsidies awarded to farms that produce wheat, corn, cotton, rice and soybeans, and (2) the amount of crops grown, with farmers who grow more crops receiving higher subsidies. Therefore, large farms and agribusinesses--which, as a result of economies of scale, are also the most profitable farms--are eligible for massive subsidies as long as they grow the crops the government wants them to grow. Meanwhile, small lower-income farms growing the same five crops receive only a fraction of what large farms receive; and farmers planting the 400 other crops, regardless of their need, are completely excluded from most farm subsidies.

In sum, although farm subsidies are promoted as being necessary to provide income maintenance for poor farmers, they are designed to function as the largest corporate welfare program maintained by the federal government...

As the report points out;

...Although farm subsidies are justified as helping struggling family farmers make ends meet, the bulk of subsidy payments goes to the largest high-income farms. In fact, current farm policy allocates two out of every three farm subsidy dollars to the top 10 percent of subsidy recipients while completely shutting 60 percent of farmers out of subsidy programs.

And the reality of all these subsidies?

As a result, taxpayers are paying billions of dollars to subsidize prosperous farms