single moms with children getting food stamps and federal agriculture subsidies is that those subsidies are going to WORKING farmers to aid in the production of goods to the U.S. and world populations ... as opposed to women that choose to have children out of wedlock with no means of support ... other than of course that monthly check. The more kids, the more money every month for sitting at home watching TV.
Newly elected Iowa Senator Ernst failed to mention her own family’s reliance on government assistance in her speech touting the virtues of self-reliance. Senator Ersnt called for the new, Republican congress to “cut wasteful spending.”
An investigation of public records by the Washington D.C.-based District Sentinel online news site showed that between 1995 and 2009, Ernst’s family received nearly a half-million dollars in government handouts, payments targeted toward subsidizing farms with taxpayer funds.
“I had only one good pair of shoes. So on rainy school days, my mom would slip plastic bread bags over them to keep them dry,” Ernst described in her State of the Union rebuttal Tuesday.
Ernst’s own father, Richard Culver, received $38,395 in taxpayer handouts, almost all of which went to corn subsidies. The Iowa senator’s uncle, Dallas Culver, made out even better, soaking up almost $370,000 in federal agriculture subsidies.
The total subsidies enjoyed by members of Joni Ersnt’s family came in upwards of $460,000.
You make it sound like she was hiding something. It was all public record, perfectly legal and above board.
Do you have any real controversies for us today or just this faux one?
JD, No insult or judgement, but I believe your focus is on the syntax of Honda's post, instead of the context.
I think I understand the point Honda is attempting to drive home (pun intended of course)
The idea of someone bemoaning government assistance to the poor while having been the "legal and above board" recipient of its largesse is nothing controversial, but I do see it as inappropriate and hypocritical. The issue is not whether these funds were acquired legally or not, the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" argument has always been odious and tainted by a hidden agenda. And Ms. Ernst is certainly bemoaning the exact same concept of government subsidy that has allowed her family to benefit.
However, the Tea Party and GOP have no monopoly on hypocrisy. The Democrats are just as phony and just as corrupt. The only real difference is in the manner of the agenda presented to their constituents.
If Honda had said "Senator Ernst: Yet another Tea Party hypocrite" and then continued with his comments... would that have altered your response?
Do you have any real controversies for us today or just this faux one?
The very foundation of politics is built on hypocrisy. To argue that a certain policy may be hypocritical, is to argue that politics is political.
I think I understand the point Honda is attempting to drive home (pun intended of course)
The idea of someone bemoaning government assistance to the poor while having been the "legal and above board" recipient of its largesse is nothing controversial, but I do see it as inappropriate and hypocritical. The issue is not whether these funds were acquired legally or not, the "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" argument has always been odious and tainted by a hidden agenda. And Ms. Ernst is certainly bemoaning the exact same concept of government subsidy that has allowed her family to benefit.
However, the Tea Party and GOP have no monopoly on hypocrisy. The Democrats are just as phony and just as corrupt. The only real difference is in the manner of the agenda presented to their constituents.
If Honda had said "Senator Ernst: Yet another Tea Party hypocrite" and then continued with his comments... would that have altered your response?
Do you have any real controversies for us today or just this faux one?
So let me ask this.
Is she really responsible for something that her family did? If she was the farm owner at the same time she was decrying it, wouldn't THAT make it hypocritical?
Her family not taking it, while their competitors did, would put their farm at an incredible disadvantage to the point of possible bankruptcy.
To further the point, I don't see any R's knocking people for taking the Obamacare subsidy, they knock the admin and Pro-Obama forces for putting it in the their to begin with.
She has stated she opposes all forms of corporate welfare but that you cant pick and choose the favored industry. I agree with that. Get rid of ALL of it.
And politicians, by their very nature, are hypocritical. We all agree on that to. But to compare what her family did, or had to do, to how she envisions how welfare should be reformed, are two separate and distinct issues.
Again, I just don't see how she was "exposed", as Honda put it, as that implies she was hiding something.
This case just seems like a nothing burger.
-- Modified on 1/22/2015 2:53:54 PM
Would it be hypocritical if I denounced same sex marriage, while simultaneously saying I do not reject people's right to marry their same sex partner? I think that would be hypocritical, howevevr I'm just announcing my view with out imposing my view on anyone.
If you are gay and married then denounce gay marriage would be considered hypocritical. No wonder you always exhibit comprehension problem.
if I spoke out against something, while giving it a pass that would be hypocritical.
Ask Laffy
I do not disagree with you JD, far from it, we're pretty much on the same page, just different paragraphs. But I wanted to make sure we had proper context as to where you were coming from.
Yes, in context, it does seem to be something of a kerfuffle. Certainly not worth getting all bent out of shape over.
On the other hand, I come from the school that says the idea of paying farmers NOT to farm, is ludicrous and absurd. A few years back, I drove through Kansas and Nebraska. It was astonishing to me to see how much land lay fallow. I understand the concept of soil revitalization via crop rotation, but to see so many farms simply NOT operating... and not the small 162 acre fifth generation farmer families, but the big CON-AGRA farms that use tractors costing more than a house. With food shortages in much of the third world AS WELL AS the poorest regions in the United States it simply makes no sense to me to have the government pay corporations to do nothing but soak up taxpayer dollars while these same corporations engage in the simplest of economic manipulation by controlling the supply in order to control prices. Nobody on this planet needs to go hungry. Paying farmers not to farm is just plain wrong. Not when there is so much hunger and such awful garbage being fed to our own children (yes, that's a direct dig at the Michele Obama lunch program, a well intentioned but ill suited idea that was obviously not well thought out).
I know it does not really answer your question, but it gave me a chance to rant about farming subsidies... it doesn't really help anyone but con-agra's bottom line, and it gives a sense of laziness and entitlement to the smaller farmers who take advantage of it.
If we did away with corporate welfare entirely, it would not hurt the corporate structure, and it would cause hardship to the smaller farmer unable to keep their prices competitive with big bizniz.
It's a completely dysfunctional situation with no simple solution until you eliminate the entire issue of concern with the bottom line. If we do the math, it wouldn't take all that much to feed the world.
But to stop corporate welfare, you have to have bold politicians willing to take risks. Tough to do when every politician in Washington is sucking on lobbyist tit. Especially (in this case) those lobbyists bought and paid for by Con-Agra and others with a vested interest in keeping food prices high.
BTW - no, I don't think Ernst should be punished for the misdeeds of her family, but it did appear specious and a gratuitous nod to the Tea Party's general ouevre of being TITBE (too ignorant to be elected).
single moms with children getting food stamps and federal agriculture subsidies is that those subsidies are going to WORKING farmers to aid in the production of goods to the U.S. and world populations ... as opposed to women that choose to have children out of wedlock with no means of support ... other than of course that monthly check. The more kids, the more money every month for sitting at home watching TV.
Corporate Welfare = Welfare
Obama administration has implemented a policy where all able body adults will have to work in order to maintain their welfare benefits.
I will give Bill Clinton credit for "welfare reform", but I would love to see where Obama has done anything at all to encourage welfare recipients to get off their asses and get a job.
link please.
Can't you look it up?
O, signs it O, supports I'm surprised a lefty didn't jump on the opportunity to prove you wrong. lol
http://www1.realclearpolitics.com/congressional_bill_tracker/bill/113/s2015
It sounds exactly like the type of bill that Reid would never allow to come to a vote, or that Obama would veto if it were to pass.
Lets see a link where Obama either signs or supports this bill, or I will call Bullshit.
This bill has GOP written all over it. Sponsored by a Repulican Mike Lee R Utah, and cosponsored by Ted Cruz and David Vitter, both Republicans.
I can't find a thing about Obama either signing this or supporting it, or it ever becoming law.
No wonder no lefties jumped on this opportunity to prove me wrong. Are you back to being a SPOTY candidate?
Lets see a link where Obama either signs or supports this bill, or I will call Bullshit.
This bill has GOP written all over it. Sponsored by a Repulican Mike Lee R Utah, and cosponsored by Ted Cruz and David Vitter, both Republicans.
I can't find a thing about Obama either signing this or supporting it, or it ever becoming law.
No wonder no lefties jumped on this opportunity to prove me wrong. Are you back to being a SPOTY candidate?
and did you see the anti abortion language in the bill. No way in fucking hell will Obama sign this piece of legislation, much less actually support it.
Usually it's the lefties that I accuse of lying. Thanks for evening things out a bit, because your post was an outright lie. You gave Obama credit for a bill that not only is not even an actual law, but one that there is no way in hell that he will ever even sign if it ever gets to his desk.
All able body adults "will" have to work. Not all able body adults do have to work. You asked for a link. The bill Obama will sign has not been finalized. The welfare portion of this bill, will be signed into law with Obama's pen.
Usually it's the lefties that I accuse of lying. Thanks for evening things out a bit, because your post was an outright lie. You gave Obama credit for a bill that not only is not even an actual law, but one that there is no way in hell that he will ever even sign if it ever gets to his desk.
since he took office, Repubs gained more Gov's, controlled more State legislatures, lost more House and Senate seats since the '30;s. He talks a good game but literally has done nothing but increase 'freebies', his policies have resulted in an increase black unemployment rate,, an decrease in labor participation rate, a more unstable Mideast, an increase in racial tensions in the US....more? As said many times, an Amateur, un-experienced and a pathological liar....great legacy, huh?
(drum roll please) lower taxes!
Now, look who has changed their minds, and want to increase taxes! 
it's a good campaign platform, but in the face of never ending inflation. Mere lip service.
Prez jeopardize loosing his voter base?
One more reason that the Obama will pass the welfare to work portion of which ever bill is brought to a vote.
A government handout is a government handout regardless of who gets it or what is used for. We can always count on the right wing to rationalize and shade the truth when the are caught in lies and their hypocrisy revealed.