According to a survey from the American Research Group, 21 percent of people questioned say they are backing the congresswoman from neighboring Minnesota for the GOP presidential nomination in their state's caucuses. Bachmann was at nine percent in ARG's April poll."
Iowa.... "where the corn is as high as the elephant's eye, An' it looks like it's climbin' clear up to the sky." Oh wait, that's Oklahoma. Never mind.
Maybe it's because she knows how get government subsidies for her family farm, while maintaining her status as the darlinng of the Tea Party?
Maybe it's a protest against gay marriage? Iowa got gay married by judiciary, and Bachmann's clinic supposedly "cures" homosexuality by prayer. And get gov't money for that too?
No to mention, ok to mention, gov't subsidies for her many foster children.
Wikipedia has an extensive bio (link above). Someone needs to catch her tweetiing naked photos of herself to soldiers in Iraq. Not gonna happen.
Increasing debt is a way for politcians to have their cake and eat it too. It's gutless. As a nation we need to either decide that we will pay for infrastructure and services, or do without them. We need to make a choice about which ones we want.
If we don't need roads and bridges and dams and levees and airports, fine - we can sell them off and quite building/maintaining them. If we are not interested in health care for all, fine - we should tell the hospitals to turn away people who can't pay, and let them die. If we don't want defense (mostly offense anyway) - fine, pull the troops back and quit buying expensive weapens systems.
If we do want those things, then the politicians need to get a pair and raise takes.
Same for the voters. If they don't want health care, then they need to stop demanding it. If they don't want highways and bridges, then live closer to work.
Back to Bachmann, if she is against govt support, then she should pay back the money that she's received in govt support. She should also state clearly what programs she would stop - enough to pay down the debt - and let the voters decide if they agree with that, rather than vauge soundbites about lowering taxes and cutting programs.
And people are bound to disagree on the role of government. They always have! The libertarians seem to think the smaller the government, the better. The conservatives don't like government regulation in any way, shape, or form. The liberals want the government to provide safety nets (entitlements) to protect people at the margins of society that have no means to support themselves: young, old, disabled, etc. It all defines a range of how much intervention people want government to have. Unrestrained individualism on the far end with little government intervention to the other extreme of 'the nanny state'...which I take to mean 'over-involvement' on the part of government...communism.
Personally, I think the public sectors and private sectors can work together in partnership in some areas. It would be helpful to figure out who is best at what! The government is successful at some things that the private sector struggles with and vice versa.
What concerns me with the notion of cutting back social services is what would fill the vacuum for our most vulnerable citizens? Will non-profits step in? Will religious organizations be the 'charitable' ones? If everybody could pay their fair share of taxes (with nobody being 'over burdened'), this conversation might take a different tone. The fact that some people can afford to get tax lawyers to discover tax shelters, tax loopholes, and tax writeoffs shows that the system is unfair and needs to be reformed. The wealthy concentrate their wealth...it's what they do.
But who will have the political stomach for tax reform? I heard that Congress was fussing over the lightbulb...talk about having their priorities screwed up. Our 2 parties cannot even decide about efficient lightbulbs.
The American Public is willing to pay what is fair because most people can see how directly related tax revenues are to social and municipal services. Lowering taxes even more and cutting government spending to the bone will have the unintended consequence of cutting public sector employment and education funds in a time when Americans are struggling to find employment.
Unfortunately, too many people are making a killing off the government and I'm not talking about elderly people, disabled persons or anyone receiving a so called "entitlement". I'm talking about government contractors. If you have ever been in the military or worked around the government, you'll have noticed how long it takes a contractor to do anything, Nine times out of ten, the work takes several days longer than projected, is slip shod and will have to be redone in a few years at best, and almost always comes in way over budget. A lot more attention needs to be paid to fraud, waste and abuse in government spending on contracted services.
I am not sure if these are everywhere, but some states have contracted prison services. IE the prison is actually run by a private contractor, the guards on down work for a contractor not the government. I believe some judges get kick backs. Some judicial review wouldn't hurt anything, because some judges sentence people to jail for really piddly things. I have seen some poor soul write one bad check in his life which was for $500. He got 1 to 10 years in prison over that. If we changed some of the offenses that lead to jail time, we could save a lot of money. Like bad checks under $1,000 should not accrue jail time.
If we made marijuana legal and sent all offenders convicted of possession (not intent to sell) of all other drugs to rehab instead of jail, we'd probably save billions. A lot of people in jail are not murders or rapists, but people who have done drugs or maybe hooked. Who are we protecting here? The war on drugs has been going on about 40 years and no fewer people are using drugs. When do we say this is not working and try something else?
There's a lot of areas with a little regulation and oversight, we could save tons of money without cutting services to those who most need them.
Also, as my uncle says, we could stand to raise tariffs making American made goods more competitive. I think one of our biggest problems is our manufacturing jobs have all gone to third world countries where companies can employ children and pay pennies on the hour, and there are no labor or environmental laws. Our planet really needs everyone everywhere to clean up their act. We've had clean air and water laws in the US since the 60s. Everyone on the planet needs clean air and water - not just first world countries where these laws actually exist. Allowing companies to skirt around these laws by moving to places without them doesn't help anyone but the company. Plus when they move a job from the US to a third world country, they don't drop the price, they drop the quality and dramatically increase the profits.
Some of us oldsters remember when shoes were American made and they lasted for years. My dad bought a pair of boots in the early 60s which he wore until after I graduated high school in the 80s. Man, I am lucky if a pair of shoes lasts me an entire year now. But the prices haven't gone down. Oh no, that would affect the huge profit margin many companies expect.
Companies care more about their stockholders than they do about producing a quality product they can be proud of. Pride in work just seems to be gone nowadays. I think the majority of Americans still have it, but they can't find a dang job because all the jobs have moved overseas.
Sorry to rant. I just get so tired of hearing how disabled persons and elderly people are ruining America. We are not ruining America. Major corporations who make billions or even trillions, then ship jobs elsewhere, corrode our environmental law, never pay a dime of tax and even get subsidies to do this, cheat the government on work that is inadequately done or perhaps not done at all - this is what is ruining America. And not some disabled vet or 9 year old with Down's.
I am so sick and tired of blame the disabled, the elderly or even illegals who pay taxes even though the benefits they receive are doubtful and many want to become citizens - instead of opening our eyes and saying it's wrong for grandma on a fixed income to pay more taxes than Exxon.
This is the unfortunate truth about government contractors:
Bachmann is as nutty as the former Alaskan governor. I honestly don't think that either of them have a chance of getting elected (at least I hope not). Gingrinch has too many skeletons in the closet.
As for Romney, all we have to do is publicly ask him if he believes that Lucifer is Jesus' brother (which Mormons believe) or if he believes in the Trinity.
Once fundamentalist Christians find out what Mormons believe about Jesus, it is doubtful they'll continue to endorse Romney for the Republican nomination.
Edit: Apparently, Mormons don't believe Jesus and Lucifer are brothers.
Any ex-Mormons here that can clarify?