Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I remember correctly, the pork industry was suffering because of President Skippy referring to "swine flu", which caused people to stop eating pork. Since he caused the problem, one could argue that government should help those affected.
So you like government spending?
One could argue that everything President Obama spent in the stimulus was caused by President Bush's mistake, and he was simply trying to correct that problem, right?
I really hate this argument because we need to eliminate it altogether, why should the taxpayers in her district not receive the benefits of their tax dollars while another reaps the benefits.
As long as it exists it's not hypocritical to take those funds.
One could argue that everything President Obama spent in the stimulus was caused by President Bush's mistake, and he was simply trying to correct that problem, right?
They had to buy food for gov't employees anyway, right? Why not spend it on pork instead of beef, which was increasing in price? Yes--gov't spending in a sector can provide a brief shot of energy to the prices for those goods. Unfortunately for your cause, Skippy didn't do that to "fix" Bush's mistakes. He proposed $800 B of shovel-ready projects that weren't "shovel ready".
I really hate this argument because we need to eliminate it altogether, why should the taxpayers in her district not receive the benefits of their tax dollars while another reaps the benefits.
As long as it exists it's not hypocritical to take those funds.
I'd be willing to bet you that the tax payers of her district received a lot of other government benefits that far exceed what they pay in taxes. Remember, even in her district, there are welfare recipients, medicaid/medicare patients, federally subsidized roads, buildings, USDA inspectors, and everything that exists in almost every other district.
She is a hypocrite, she said that she wants no government spending, no socialist programs, she is a TEA party favorite, and turns around and begs for more government handouts.
They had to buy food for gov't employees anyway, right? Why not spend it on pork instead of beef, which was increasing in price? Yes--gov't spending in a sector can provide a brief shot of energy to the prices for those goods. Unfortunately for your cause, Skippy didn't do that to "fix" Bush's mistakes. He proposed $800 B of shovel-ready projects that weren't "shovel ready".
No, they can let federal employees buy their own food, with their own money.
Memphis I hear this same agument about business, lets put it in that context.
We have company A and company B. The owner of company A is strongly against governement subsidies while the owner of company B is strongly for them. Should the owner of company A put his business at a disadvantage by not taking the subsidies. Is he a hypocrite for expecting a level playing field? Why should company B benefit from his tax dollars?
Do you see the issue here? The funds exist and will be distributed, if the owner of company A doesn't take them they will go to his competitors and as a kick in the ass he's partly funding these subsidies.
Memphis I hear this same agument about business, lets put it in that context.
We have company A and company B. The owner of company A is strongly against governement subsidies while the owner of company B is strongly for them. Should the owner of company A put his business at a disadvantage by not taking the subsidies. Is he a hypocrite for expecting a level playing field? Why should company B benefit from his tax dollars?
Do you see the issue here? The funds exist and will be distributed, if the owner of company A doesn't take them they will go to his competitors and as a kick in the ass he's partly funding these subsidies.
Its not a company, it is political.
Michelle Bachmann has said she wants less taxes, and less government spending. Its the kind of thing where you start taking care of your own house before you start taking care of others.
And I"m not against all government spending, but this is the worst possible kind. Just like oil subsidies and ethanol subsidies, it puts money directly into the market by buying the product to artificially inflate the price.
She is a hypocrite, no excuses for her actions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
