ET'rs Budget Committee

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

http://www.salon.com/2011/08/09/perry_benefited_from_federal_farm_subsidies/


Rick Perry opposes federal payments he once received

The Texas governor decries the sort of government programs that gave him $80,000 as a farmer

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, in stressing his opposition to “out of control Washington spending,” disagrees with federal subsidies to the agriculture industry. But this wasn’t always so. In fact, as a farmer himself, he embraced federal agriculture programs and personally benefited from farm subsidies to the tune of $80,000.

As the Austin American Statesman reports, when Perry was running for the state’s agriculture commissioner position in 1990, he had strong words about the farm subsidies that had helped his 40-acre farm:

“I’ve participated in the program as a producer. My neighbors participate. I know what would happen to rural areas of Texas if these programs were discontinued. I do not support such an action,” Perry then said.









latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bachmann-20110626,0,1896024.story


Bachmann's had her share of government aid

The fiscal conservative from Minnesota and 2012 presidential contender has benefited personally from federal funds and federal farm subsidies.

By Melanie Mason and Matea Gold, Washington Bureau

June 26, 2011

Reporting from Washington

Rep. Michele Bachmann has been propelled into the 2012 presidential contest in part by her insistent calls to reduce federal spending, a pitch in tune with the big-government antipathy gripping many conservatives.

But the Minnesota Republican and her family have benefited personally from government aid, an examination of her record and finances shows. A counseling clinic run by her husband has received nearly $30,000 from the state ofMinnesota in the last five years, money that in part came from the federal government. A family farm in Wisconsin, in which the congresswoman is a partner, received nearly $260,000 in federal farm subsidies.
More...

This is the worst sort of slimy guilt by association. Bachmann's husband treated people with state insurance. What was he supposed to do, refuse to treat them? That would have been another scandal. Are you seriously saying that no doctor can oppose wasteful government spending because soem of his patients pay with medicare? Seriously.

As for the farm, it was her husband's family farm, which he inherited with some siblings. She was a "partner" in it only in the sense he was her husband. What would you suggest they do, punish his siblings because she was in congress? Of course, this kind of micro-scrutiny is reserved only for republicans. No one in the media is at all interested in the hundreds of millions going to Pelosi's husband or Feinstein's family. No conflict there, after all they are liberals.
 
I would have thought that after i educated your buddies on where spending originates, that you might have been able to figure it out, but here is a chart to keep you updated on who the big spenders are.
US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_Color_Coded_Congress_Control_and_Presidents_Highlighted.jpg


Quote from CaptainObvious:

We should do what republicans do when they're in charge, BORROW!

As Cheney said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter
More...
 
nothing is going to be cut. Democrats definition of a cut is a decrease in the rate of increase [think I'm kidding??]. Republicans idea of a cut is an increase with some flag waving...

What really will happen is inflation... then things will go back to the increases scenario we now have...
 
Read it and weep:

"Political dysfunction is often blamed for Congress’s inability to curb the U.S. budget deficit. An even bigger obstacle may be the American public.

A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And 63 percent of all federal spending this year will consist of checks written to individuals for which the government receives currently no services, the White House budget office estimates. That’s up from 46 percent in 1975 and 18 percent in 1940."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...government-as-record-number-get-benefits.html

We're fucked.

Seneca
 
Depends how you define benefit. SSN is not a benefit as we are taxed to pay for it, and our employers pay into it which is lost wages for the employee. Same with unemployment. Employers are taxed to pay for it and that money is lost wages for the employee. So-called "Veterans benefits" are definitively not benefits. Those of us that are veterans paid in spades for any education or health-care services provided to veterans. Anything that is taxed cannot be considered a benefit.
A benefit would go to someone like Trump. A guy pretending to be a corporation who continually runs his business into the ground, and then get's to "reorganize" to do it all over again. Now that's a benefit!

Quote from seneca_roman:

Read it and weep:

"Political dysfunction is often blamed for Congress’s inability to curb the U.S. budget deficit. An even bigger obstacle may be the American public.

A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And 63 percent of all federal spending this year will consist of checks written to individuals for which the government receives currently no services, the White House budget office estimates. That’s up from 46 percent in 1975 and 18 percent in 1940."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...government-as-record-number-get-benefits.html

We're fucked.

Seneca
More...
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

This is the worst sort of slimy guilt by association.
More...

No shit? Like the, "there's a pedophile among the OWS people" threads.

Anyway, back on topic, enter the "Republican Keynesians":

" It took months of fighting — the threat of a government shutdown, the graver threat of a default on the national debt, and now a new threat of major, automatic cuts to Medicare and defense programs — but Congress’ deficit obsession has finally exposed the rarest of all species: Republican Keynesians.

With just a under a month until the deficit Super Committee must recommend policies that cut the 10 year deficit by $1.2 trillion, members of the Republican party — the same party that’s been on the war path for deep spending cuts, and that decries President Obama’s “failed stimulus” — are making uncharacteristic arguments against slashing spending. Trim too much, too quickly, they warn, and people will lose their jobs!
…

“What’s more, cutting our military—either by eliminating programs or laying off soldiers—brings grave economic costs,” wrote Chairman Buck McKeon (R-CA) in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. “f the super committee fails to reach an agreement, its automatic cuts would kill upwards of 800,000 active-duty, civilian and industrial American jobs. This would inflate our unemployment rate by a full percentage point, close shipyards and assembly lines, and damage the industrial base that our warfighters need to stay fully supplied and equipped.”
 
Quote from seneca_roman:

A record 49 percent of Americans live in a household where someone receives at least one type of government benefit...

We're fucked.
More...
I'm afraid so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top