Michele Bachman caught flip flopping on every sunday show after ames IOWA

[geauxtohell]

Fresh from her victory in the Ames Straw Poll, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) had to defend her positions on government spending and economic policy on Sunday. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Bachmann insisted that her prior eagerness to accept funds from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill was not in conflict with her vocal criticism of the legislation.

HuffPost's Sam Stein reported last week that Bachmann not only repeatedly sought stimulus funds from federal agencies, but deployed traditional Keynesian economic rationales to justify her requests, claiming that the funds would create jobs and strengthen the economy. Publicly, by contrast, Bachmann has insisted that the stimulus was an act of "overspending" and "fantasy economics" that hurt jobs.

When asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace about this discrepancy, Bachmann claimed there was no conflict.


More : Michele Bachman caught flip flopping on every sunday show after ames IOWA

She's got bigger problems then that. She is going to have to explain her blank check support of the Bush Administration's massive government growth. The "9-11 changed everything" line probably isn't going to carry water anymore.

She essentially is a candidate with a new paint job. But that paint can be peeled away.

Perry is going to get her on this. It will be just like Obama nailing Hillary. It will be somewhat disingenuous as neither Perry or Obama were in office at the time to take a position to defend, but that's politics.

 

[eflatminor]

I want to hear an interviewer ask her one question (which of course she won't answer).

"If you had been president, we would not have raised the debt ceiling. That would mean we would not be paying for 40% of our current spending.

Tell us, specifically, item by item, what would comprise the 40% of our current spending you, as president, would want left unpaid?"

Actually, she did put forth legislation that would prioritize the most important payments. It should be up to Congress to decide what does and what doesn't get paid, not the President. Personally, I'd happily support cutting 40% of our spending. Gosh, that would take us all the way back to what we spent in the early 2000s. Remember all the dead people in the streets back then?

Here's question for you: If you were President, you would have raised the debt ceiling. Exactly how do you expect each taxpayer to pay back the $130,000 they owe, while we're adding another $8-10 trillion to the debt over the next decade. That should get us close to $200,000 owed for every taxpayer. How will you pay your share?

 

[California Girl]

Fresh from her victory in the Ames Straw Poll, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) had to defend her positions on government spending and economic policy on Sunday. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Bachmann insisted that her prior eagerness to accept funds from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill was not in conflict with her vocal criticism of the legislation.

HuffPost's Sam Stein reported last week that Bachmann not only repeatedly sought stimulus funds from federal agencies, but deployed traditional Keynesian economic rationales to justify her requests, claiming that the funds would create jobs and strengthen the economy. Publicly, by contrast, Bachmann has insisted that the stimulus was an act of "overspending" and "fantasy economics" that hurt jobs.

When asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace about this discrepancy, Bachmann claimed there was no conflict.


More : Michele Bachman caught flip flopping on every sunday show after ames IOWA

Did you actually watch that exchange? If you had, you would have heard her explain she has no problem accepting federal funds for those projects which are actually the responsibility of the federal government, you know, in the Constitution. She was referring to infrastructure grants, money for federally built roads and bridges. That's reasonable to a reasonable person.

Reason is above the intellectual paygrade of many.

 

[geauxtohell]

I want to hear an interviewer ask her one question (which of course she won't answer).

"If you had been president, we would not have raised the debt ceiling. That would mean we would not be paying for 40% of our current spending.

Tell us, specifically, item by item, what would comprise the 40% of our current spending you, as president, would want left unpaid?"

That, and articulate why it wouldn't have lead to a massive and disastrous downgrade (if the S&P report is to be believed).

It's obnoxious watching Bachmann blast the compromise because she had the luxury of voting against it.

If she would have gotten her way, two words; financial meltdown.

 

[Full-Auto]

I want to hear an interviewer ask her one question (which of course she won't answer).

"If you had been president, we would not have raised the debt ceiling. That would mean we would not be paying for 40% of our current spending.

Tell us, specifically, item by item, what would comprise the 40% of our current spending you, as president, would want left unpaid?"

That isnt true, for it to be true you would have to ASSume no other efforts were put forward.

 

[Sallow]

Fresh from her victory in the Ames Straw Poll, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) had to defend her positions on government spending and economic policy on Sunday. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Bachmann insisted that her prior eagerness to accept funds from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill was not in conflict with her vocal criticism of the legislation.

HuffPost's Sam Stein reported last week that Bachmann not only repeatedly sought stimulus funds from federal agencies, but deployed traditional Keynesian economic rationales to justify her requests, claiming that the funds would create jobs and strengthen the economy. Publicly, by contrast, Bachmann has insisted that the stimulus was an act of "overspending" and "fantasy economics" that hurt jobs.

When asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace about this discrepancy, Bachmann claimed there was no conflict.


More : Michele Bachman caught flip flopping on every sunday show after ames IOWA

Did you actually watch that exchange? If you had, you would have heard her explain she has no problem accepting federal funds for those projects which are actually the responsibility of the federal government, you know, in the Constitution. She was referring to infrastructure grants, money for federally built roads and bridges. That's reasonable to a reasonable person.

Really?

How is the government Constitutionally responsible for her and her family's businesses?

What bridge, road or infrastructure was her family's farm building? How about her husband's medical clinic?

Go on chief..explain that one.

I have a tough time with a representative lobbying for their personal interests while railing against pork.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Obama caught flip floping on propaganda issue of UBL's death.

Obama : "We dont want to incite our enemies or give them recruitment tools by releasing a photo of UBL dead"

Obama advisor : "Mr President your reelection is in question and looks difficult"

Obama : "Forget what I said earlier and call hollywood, Lets make a movie about killing UBL."

 

[geauxtohell]

Fresh from her victory in the Ames Straw Poll, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) had to defend her positions on government spending and economic policy on Sunday. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Bachmann insisted that her prior eagerness to accept funds from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill was not in conflict with her vocal criticism of the legislation.

HuffPost's Sam Stein reported last week that Bachmann not only repeatedly sought stimulus funds from federal agencies, but deployed traditional Keynesian economic rationales to justify her requests, claiming that the funds would create jobs and strengthen the economy. Publicly, by contrast, Bachmann has insisted that the stimulus was an act of "overspending" and "fantasy economics" that hurt jobs.

When asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace about this discrepancy, Bachmann claimed there was no conflict.


More : Michele Bachman caught flip flopping on every sunday show after ames IOWA

Did you actually watch that exchange? If you had, you would have heard her explain she has no problem accepting federal funds for those projects which are actually the responsibility of the federal government, you know, in the Constitution. She was referring to infrastructure grants, money for federally built roads and bridges. That's reasonable to a reasonable person.

Really?

How is the government Constitutionally responsible for her and her family's businesses?

What bridge, road or infrastructure was her family's farm building? How about her husband's medical clinic?

Go on chief..explain that one.

I have a tough time with a representative lobbying for their personal interests while railing against pork.

It's constitutional when the pork benefits my district, silly!

It's unconstitutional when it benefits anyone else!

 

[eflatminor]

Fresh from her victory in the Ames Straw Poll, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) had to defend her positions on government spending and economic policy on Sunday. Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Bachmann insisted that her prior eagerness to accept funds from President Barack Obama's economic stimulus bill was not in conflict with her vocal criticism of the legislation.

HuffPost's Sam Stein reported last week that Bachmann not only repeatedly sought stimulus funds from federal agencies, but deployed traditional Keynesian economic rationales to justify her requests, claiming that the funds would create jobs and strengthen the economy. Publicly, by contrast, Bachmann has insisted that the stimulus was an act of "overspending" and "fantasy economics" that hurt jobs.

When asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace about this discrepancy, Bachmann claimed there was no conflict.


More : Michele Bachman caught flip flopping on every sunday show after ames IOWA

Did you actually watch that exchange? If you had, you would have heard her explain she has no problem accepting federal funds for those projects which are actually the responsibility of the federal government, you know, in the Constitution. She was referring to infrastructure grants, money for federally built roads and bridges. That's reasonable to a reasonable person.

Really?

How is the government Constitutionally responsible for her and her family's businesses?

What bridge, road or infrastructure was her family's farm building? How about her husband's medical clinic?

Go on chief..explain that one.

I have a tough time with a representative lobbying for their personal interests while railing against pork.

I commented only on the exchange with Chris Wallace, the point of the OP. There they discussed funding for federal roads only.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Reagan doubled the debt, raised taxes multiple times and caused the biggest financial meltdown since the great Depression.

This myth making by the right is absurd.

Reaganomics myths

Unfortunately, liberals have so maligned Reaganomics that they are unable to separate facts from myths — to the detriment of their party and president. Among the worst myths is that Reagan's tax cuts created the deficit, even as the deficit increased under Reagan.

In fact, Reagan inherited chronic deficits. Since Franklin Roosevelt, the budget had been balanced a handful of times, mainly under President Eisenhower. From 1981-89, the deficit under Reagan increased from $79 billion to $153 billion. It peaked in 1983-86, hitting $221 billion. Yet, once the economy started booming, the deficit steadily dropped.

Tax cuts were not the problem. Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989.

The cause of the Reagan deficits was the 1982-83 recession and spending — as is always the case. And, yes, the culprit was not just social spending by congressional Democrats but Reagan defense spending designed to take down the Soviet Union. What a bargain that turned out to be: It helped kill an "evil empire" and win the Cold War, paving the way for a peacetime dividend in the 1990s.

Yet it is clear today that we have refused the proper lessons of history. For one, our problem remains excessive spending. Obama must bear this in mind if he's considering tax increases (which hamper growth) as part of his "balanced" approach to deficit reduction. More than that, the best "stimulus" relies on the tried-and-true American way: Let free individuals stimulate the economy through their earnings and activity.

Ignoring such realities explains the mess we face in August 2011 — a millennium removed from the wisdom of August 1981.

Column: The Reagan stimulus vs. the Obama one - USATODAY.com

Bargain..

Total bullshit.

Reagan's defense spending and backing of Terrorist Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets had very little to do with the decline of the Soviet Union.

What did have an effect was the wheat embargo, the people of Russia backing reform, the reform minded Gorbachev and the promise of economic support from the USA for an orderly break up.

Reagan was a horrible president. And it was George HW Bush that was largely responsible in fixing many of the messes left by Reagan's abysmal performance.

If Reagan was a dismal president, what does that make obamaturd? Obamaturd makes the worst president, carter, look good.

 

[Shogun]

Where are the corndog pics?

 

[geauxtohell]

Reaganomics myths

Unfortunately, liberals have so maligned Reaganomics that they are unable to separate facts from myths — to the detriment of their party and president. Among the worst myths is that Reagan's tax cuts created the deficit, even as the deficit increased under Reagan.

In fact, Reagan inherited chronic deficits. Since Franklin Roosevelt, the budget had been balanced a handful of times, mainly under President Eisenhower. From 1981-89, the deficit under Reagan increased from $79 billion to $153 billion. It peaked in 1983-86, hitting $221 billion. Yet, once the economy started booming, the deficit steadily dropped.

Tax cuts were not the problem. Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989.

The cause of the Reagan deficits was the 1982-83 recession and spending — as is always the case. And, yes, the culprit was not just social spending by congressional Democrats but Reagan defense spending designed to take down the Soviet Union. What a bargain that turned out to be: It helped kill an "evil empire" and win the Cold War, paving the way for a peacetime dividend in the 1990s.

Yet it is clear today that we have refused the proper lessons of history. For one, our problem remains excessive spending. Obama must bear this in mind if he's considering tax increases (which hamper growth) as part of his "balanced" approach to deficit reduction. More than that, the best "stimulus" relies on the tried-and-true American way: Let free individuals stimulate the economy through their earnings and activity.

Ignoring such realities explains the mess we face in August 2011 — a millennium removed from the wisdom of August 1981.

Column: The Reagan stimulus vs. the Obama one - USATODAY.com

Bargain..

Total bullshit.

Reagan's defense spending and backing of Terrorist Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets had very little to do with the decline of the Soviet Union.

What did have an effect was the wheat embargo, the people of Russia backing reform, the reform minded Gorbachev and the promise of economic support from the USA for an orderly break up.

Reagan was a horrible president. And it was George HW Bush that was largely responsible in fixing many of the messes left by Reagan's abysmal performance.

If Reagan was a dismal president, what does that make obamaturd? Obamaturd makes the worst president, carter, look good.

Carter worst president?

Open a history book.

Ever heard of Hoover? Harding? Nixon? Buchanan (who stumbled fucked his way into a inevitable Civil War)?

Carter was bad, but the worst? Get a grip.

 

[Sallow]

Reaganomics myths

Unfortunately, liberals have so maligned Reaganomics that they are unable to separate facts from myths — to the detriment of their party and president. Among the worst myths is that Reagan's tax cuts created the deficit, even as the deficit increased under Reagan.

In fact, Reagan inherited chronic deficits. Since Franklin Roosevelt, the budget had been balanced a handful of times, mainly under President Eisenhower. From 1981-89, the deficit under Reagan increased from $79 billion to $153 billion. It peaked in 1983-86, hitting $221 billion. Yet, once the economy started booming, the deficit steadily dropped.

Tax cuts were not the problem. Tax revenues under Reagan rose from $599 billion in 1981 to nearly $1 trillion in 1989. The problem was that outlays all along outpaced revenue, soaring from $678 billion in 1981 to $1.14 trillion in 1989.

The cause of the Reagan deficits was the 1982-83 recession and spending — as is always the case. And, yes, the culprit was not just social spending by congressional Democrats but Reagan defense spending designed to take down the Soviet Union. What a bargain that turned out to be: It helped kill an "evil empire" and win the Cold War, paving the way for a peacetime dividend in the 1990s.

Yet it is clear today that we have refused the proper lessons of history. For one, our problem remains excessive spending. Obama must bear this in mind if he's considering tax increases (which hamper growth) as part of his "balanced" approach to deficit reduction. More than that, the best "stimulus" relies on the tried-and-true American way: Let free individuals stimulate the economy through their earnings and activity.

Ignoring such realities explains the mess we face in August 2011 — a millennium removed from the wisdom of August 1981.

Column: The Reagan stimulus vs. the Obama one - USATODAY.com

Bargain..

Total bullshit.

Reagan's defense spending and backing of Terrorist Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets had very little to do with the decline of the Soviet Union.

What did have an effect was the wheat embargo, the people of Russia backing reform, the reform minded Gorbachev and the promise of economic support from the USA for an orderly break up.

Reagan was a horrible president. And it was George HW Bush that was largely responsible in fixing many of the messes left by Reagan's abysmal performance.

If Reagan was a dismal president, what does that make obamaturd? Obamaturd makes the worst president, carter, look good.

Reagan committed treason, violated the Constitution and broke the law.

Those things alone should put him in the worst President spot without the other crap.

 

[Warrior102]

On cue, the usual Liberal women-hating bigots show up in these threads.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Bargain..

Total bullshit.

Reagan's defense spending and backing of Terrorist Osama Bin Laden against the Soviets had very little to do with the decline of the Soviet Union.

What did have an effect was the wheat embargo, the people of Russia backing reform, the reform minded Gorbachev and the promise of economic support from the USA for an orderly break up.

Reagan was a horrible president. And it was George HW Bush that was largely responsible in fixing many of the messes left by Reagan's abysmal performance.

If Reagan was a dismal president, what does that make obamaturd? Obamaturd makes the worst president, carter, look good.

Reagan committed treason, violated the Constitution and broke the law.

Those things alone should put him in the worst President spot without the other crap.

 

[MikeFrank]

Bachmann did exactly what Republicans all over the county have been doing...slamming the stimulus while cashing the checks.

This is just the latest of her hypocrisies...like wanting to cut Medicare, but taking the money at her phoney baloney clinic. Like wanting to eliminate mortgage lending programs AFTER receiving the maximum loan possible from one.

Probably best to just shut the programs down completely. Thanks for pointing out the problem with the Stimulus.

Some things need to be shut down, that's how I run my business.

 

[Intense]

I want to hear an interviewer ask her one question (which of course she won't answer).

"If you had been president, we would not have raised the debt ceiling. That would mean we would not be paying for 40% of our current spending.

Tell us, specifically, item by item, what would comprise the 40% of our current spending you, as president, would want left unpaid?"

Actually, she did put forth legislation that would prioritize the most important payments. It should be up to Congress to decide what does and what doesn't get paid, not the President. Personally, I'd happily support cutting 40% of our spending. Gosh, that would take us all the way back to what we spent in the early 2000s. Remember all the dead people in the streets back then?

Here's question for you: If you were President, you would have raised the debt ceiling. Exactly how do you expect each taxpayer to pay back the $130,000 they owe, while we're adding another $8-10 trillion to the debt over the next decade. That should get us close to $200,000 owed for every taxpayer. How will you pay your share?

Agreed. Prioritize, across the board cuts on the rest. Eliminate what redundancy you can. Whole Agencies need to go or merge. We need to live within our means each day. There is no excuse for not doing that.

The Three Little Pigs

 

[eflatminor]

Reagan committed treason, violated the Constitution and broke the law.

Kind of like going to war without Congressional approval?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I want to hear an interviewer ask her one question (which of course she won't answer).

"If you had been president, we would not have raised the debt ceiling. That would mean we would not be paying for 40% of our current spending.

Tell us, specifically, item by item, what would comprise the 40% of our current spending you, as president, would want left unpaid?"

Actually, she did put forth legislation that would prioritize the most important payments. It should be up to Congress to decide what does and what doesn't get paid, not the President. Personally, I'd happily support cutting 40% of our spending. Gosh, that would take us all the way back to what we spent in the early 2000s. Remember all the dead people in the streets back then?

Here's question for you: If you were President, you would have raised the debt ceiling. Exactly how do you expect each taxpayer to pay back the $130,000 they owe, while we're adding another $8-10 trillion to the debt over the next decade. That should get us close to $200,000 owed for every taxpayer. How will you pay your share?

I'd like to see that legislation. I'd like to see where she got 40% in non payments as of August 3rd or whenever it was. I'd like to see who wouldn't have gotten paid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I want to hear an interviewer ask her one question (which of course she won't answer).

"If you had been president, we would not have raised the debt ceiling. That would mean we would not be paying for 40% of our current spending.

Tell us, specifically, item by item, what would comprise the 40% of our current spending you, as president, would want left unpaid?"

That, and articulate why it wouldn't have lead to a massive and disastrous downgrade (if the S&P report is to be believed).

It's obnoxious watching Bachmann blast the compromise because she had the luxury of voting against it.

If she would have gotten her way, two words; financial meltdown.

Problem is, her primary opponents can't even call her on this because the GOP base is mostly as crazy as she is.