LA TIMES: "Sen. Joni Ernst learned to 'live within her means' -- on the taxpayer's dime"

[kpete]

"Sen. Joni Ernst learned to 'live within her means' -- on the taxpayer's dime"


It has almost become a cliche that the politicians who bray the loudest about cutting government waste and slashing "entitlements" turn out to have learned what they know about the government trough from the inside.

...........

Now we're at a point where the government will give away everything.
- Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, calling for more self-reliance

The public spotlight might not prove to be Ernst's best friend. The District Sentinel, a Washington, D.C., news co-op, reports that despite her campaign pitch that her parents "taught us to live within our means," her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.

The figures come from the Environmental Working Group's authoritative database of farm supports. Most of the money, more than $367,000 in mostly corn subsidies, went to Ernst's uncle, Dallas Culver, and his farm in her home town of Red Oak, Iowa. An additional $38,665 went to her father, Richard Culver, and $57,479 went to her grandfather, Harold Culver, who died in 2003.

.........

This nostalgia for a misty golden past is an essential part of the story. What Ernst fails to acknowledge is that this past never existed. Even in rural communities, the churches were commonly overwhelmed by real need. In urbanized America, the image of family, church and community banding together to lift up the poor, without the government's participation, is pure fantasy.




MORE HERE:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-sen-joni-ernst-learned-20150123-column.html

[merrily]

1. She learned to live within the taxpayers' means.

As do so many of the grifters who presume to lecture Americans on personal responsibility.

Remind me why laws enable them?

[olegramps]

19. White Christian, Republican folks deserve a hand up.

Blacks and Browns are just mooching low-life lazy parasites that are being enabled by misguided liberals. All that stuff in the Bible about Jesus carrying about the welfare of the poor is just exaggeration by godless homosexual lovers who are intent on converting children to their ranks with all that nasty sex education stuff. Thank God that we have FOX that can keep us informed. This is not an exaggeration. I have relatives in the South that spew this crap as if its the Gospel truth.

[merrily]

24. My question: Why do Democrats and Republicans both pass laws that indulge them?

Why has the 60 vote cloture rule worked against the 99% in recent decades far more than it has worked against the plutocrats?

And what can we really do to change that? (emphasis on "really&quot

[ND-Dem]

44. i doubt you'll get an answer.

[merrily]

45. As to my second question, I am not entirely sure there is an answer,

violent or non-violent. But, I usually don't get that dour this early in the day.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

51. System is broken, and now with CU, completely broken

[merrily]

52. Somehow, the system doesn't seem quite as broken for job creators or Republicans as for

others.

[bluesbassman]

59. Intentional design flaw. The system is broken because it's been rigged.

It can be fixed, but it will take leaders with vision and principles, and a populace that demands the same.

[merrily]

63. Intentional design flaw AND a bit of DC kabuki.

It can be fixed, but it will take leaders with vision and principles, and a populace that demands the same.

Yeah, some days, I include the populace in the blame. Less and less as time goes by, though. The populace can make demands all day long. Unless our elected so-called representatives CHOOSE to respond to those calls, there is not much the populace can do about it. As you say, the game is rigged.

[Munificence]

69. Oh

we as the populace can do something about it but we are not ready for that yet.

I give it 3-5 more years.

I mean how many of us (in the U.S) actually seek out knowledge or even have a 1st grade level of understanding in politics, monetary policy, economics or warmongering? Yeah not many, maybe 1%? Yeah we are the "other 1%".

We are playing a real strange game right now both within our borders and beyond (and have been for awhile)...and it's all some weird balancing act that we are losing control over.

Something wicked this way comes.

[erronis]

99. Agreed. But maybe the policy is not US vs. them

But rather corporate and vested interests versus us (worldwide).

I believe most of critical decisions that have/will be made are ones that don't care about national boundaries. They are also not decided in open forums (like the U.S. Congress - haha) but are decided by multinationals and the lobbyists that serve them.

And I do think that most of the U.S. Congress is now a lobbying firm serving vested interests.

And yes, "Something wicked this way comes." It may not be what the Poobahs have planned for.

[merrily]

146. I am not at all sure for a few reasons.

Post 911, we have the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, the military, the state militia, the militarized state, county and local police, etc., all ready to drop us in a second if we act out and maybe even if we don't.

We do not have the extreme poverty of nations where concerted action occurs.

We do not have the geography or small size of nations where concerted action occurs, seemingly almost spontaneously.

We do not have the union presence of nations where concerted action occurs.

And so on.

And, we do have the illusion that we control our elected officials because "democracy."

For hours, I watched the police hunt Tsarnaev, then a 19 year old who had just seen his brother kid and who was himself wounded and possibly unarmed.

I think it was a Friday, though I could be mistaken. Precious few, if any, in 7 cities and towns, including Boston, resisted the order to "shelter in place" all day, until further notice. Black armored looking vehicles crawled the streets, looking ominous. It was scary as anything to me, and not because of Tsarnaev. At the end of the day, people lined the streets to applaud the police.

[Munificence]

153. Interesting

Post 911, we have the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security, the military, the state militia, the militarized state, county and local police, etc., all ready to drop us in a second if we act out and maybe even if we don't.

And all of this to keep the "terrorist" from harming us? I think it's a bit more cynical than that. "Terrorist threats" = the boogie man used to get us to give up our rights and liberties.

We do not have the extreme poverty of nations where concerted action occurs.

We have the ability to print money and distribute. This goes a long way in "hiding the problem". Look at our debt do you think that countries who could do what we do (reserve currency) can do what we do? We provide "just enough" to keep "the least fortunate" from revolting.

We do not have the geography or small size of nations where concerted action occurs, seemingly almost spontaneously.

The populace is still "comfortable" and cannot see past the next episode of their favorite "reality" show or football. Bread and circuses - Roman Empire.

We do not have the union presence of nations where concerted action occurs.

Please elaborate as I think I know what you are saying but do not want to speculate/ will pass on responding

And so on.

And, we do have the illusion that we control our elected officials because "democracy."

We let them "play dumb" and never hold them accountable for their actions

For hours, I watched the police hunt Tsarnaev, then a 19 year old who had just seen his brother kid and who was himself wounded and possibly unarmed.

I think it was a Friday, though I could be mistaken. Precious few, if any, in 7 cities and towns, including Boston, resisted the order to "shelter in place" all day, until further notice. Black armored looking vehicles crawled the streets, looking ominous. It was scary as anything to me, and not because of Tsarnaev. At the end of the day, people lined the streets to applaud the police.

Disgusting isn't it - Judge Jury and executioner and we aided in it as citizens

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

These are just some of my views and are meant to continue the conversation, not to act as things I truly believe in but instead simply being posed "possibilities" that could happen. When I try and understand something I come at it from a neutral perspective and try to understand it. In this type of conversation I'll admit that I do not understand a lot and may have developed some prejudices due to ignorance and am open minded enough to change my opinion once facts are noted.

I don't post a lot on DU, been a member for years (early 2000's I think) and tend to just read a lot. With this said I don't see a lot of these types of discussions - Are we gonna get riduculed for being "conspiracy theory nuts" by simply by asking these questions or noting observations? If so then I have no problem in letting the subject fade.

[merrily]

154. I think we are either on the same page or close to it.

I don't think anything that I posted to you was especially foolish. If it were, though, it would be easy to refute. If all someone has is ridicule, "that don't impress me much."



For the reasons, I stated, though, I do think that we are more than 3 to 5 years away from any kind of people's revolt. And, if they think we're getting close, they'll throw us some crumbs, most of them temporary, ala New Deal and Great Society. Should we revolt, I think that, as I said, they are more than prepared to put us down.

We do not have the union presence of nations where concerted action occurs.

In some other nations, unions are a focal point for getting out the word and rallying workers. Our private sector unions don't have the strength that private sector unions have in other nations. And, that is no accident, either.

[AngryAmish]

122. Iowa caucus is first.

Corn is king in Iowa. Subsidies will NEVER go away.

[olegramps]

114. I can only hope that it can be changed. I doubt I will be around however to see it.

Just one example is the overwhelming majority of the citizens, Republican, Democrats and Independents, wanted back-ground checks on all gun purchases. It is a prime example how lobbyists could block the will of the people.

The representatives who are elected no longer represent those who elected them, but only the powerful corporations ands special interest groups.

[merrily]

145. It's also a prime example of how legislators of both parties will sell us out.

And that is, to me, the more relevant framing.

Am I mad at lobbyists and corporate officers? Yes, but their job is to increase profits for stockholders, even if so doing screws us. Besides, I can do zero about them. Neither can anyone else who doesn't own control of any corporation. However, at least in theory, I can do something about elected officials whose job it is to act in my best interests and who sell me out, often for a relatively small amount.

[olegramps]

151. It was the Republican controlled Supreme Court that sold us out.

The influence of corporations could be controlled if campaign financing was limited or campaigns totally financed by government programs. Of course adequate legislation could also be pasted, but that would require the cooperation of Republicans, along with a number of Democrats, who would oppose this since they believe that it provides them with an advantage.

[merrily]

152. We were sold out long before Citizens' United. CU did make it worse but it was, by far, not the

beginning.

[maddiemom]

74. LOL X 1,000!

[closeupready]

95. lol so funny - many a truth said in jeste, as Shakespeare wrote.

[TheBlackAdder]

66. She also loved that 'SOCIALIST' Military Pay, just like Alan West did.

It was an easy job to get and hold.

She sure likes her pension, her benefits, and the guaranteed government job she had.


===


I wonder how many times she hits those TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED and TAX FREE Commissaries?

I wonder how many times she enjoys those TAX FREE Exchanges?

[JDPriestly]

141. Has she received socialized medicine at the VA or in a health insurance program for vets

or active service members?

How dare she criticize the ACA if she has ever received that special healthcare.

I think some vets even get their burial costs paid. Not sure if that applies to all of them. That's big government at work. You don't get that perk from other jobs, especially not lifetime or death-time benefits after working in a place for just a few years. I do not know whether Ernst qualifies for assistance with burial costs.

[TheBlackAdder]

149. Not sure. I'm sure that she (possibly husdand) love their 50% pension, GI Bill, Housing, etc...

I'm sure she's tapped into Tri-Care more than once.

[marym625]

2. K&R!

Don't forget all the government contracts her father's construction company was awarded after she took office as county auditor.

Still trying to verify the student loans and grants. I have read that she received financial aid but I haven't seen any official figures.

I don't have an issue with the subsidies or student loans. I have a big problem with her hypocrisy.

[NewJeffCT]

4. right

the issue isn't that she received these things - it's that she is now denouncing these things that have helped so many people, including her own family.

[marym625]

5. The construction contracts are pretty bad though

They didn't receive these contracts prior to her taking office but after she did, he suddenly won bids for quite a few. They may have followed the letter of the law, though that still remains to be seen, but the whole thing screams impropriety and immorality.

[Botany]

13. $420,000 worth of work for her family after she was county auditor.

She is a grifter.

Sen. Ernst’s family’s financial interest notably came up once during her campaign.
In October, Salon reported that Richard’s construction company was awarded
$215,665 in contracts from the Montgomery County government in 2009 and 2010,
while Ernst was the body’s auditor. The bids won by Culver included Federal Emergency
Management Agency projects worth $204,794.>

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/01/21/late-night-gop-bad-ideas-lies-open-thread/

[BlueCaliDem]

18. Braley should've brought it up again and again and again.

But he failed to do so and she was able to keep the lie of being anti-spending alive all throughout her campaign. And then won Tom Harkin's seat, making it go from very left to ultra right.

[marym625]

21. "She's a grifter"

Absolutely no doubt.

Thanks for the details

[ladyVet]

17. Exactly! nt

[NewJeffCT]

3. But, her family really really really needed the help

everybody else is a bunch of brown and black skinned freeloaders looking for a handout.

(aka, "I got mine - fuck everybody else!&quot

[zeemike]

6. That sums it up nicely.

But that is how it works when you accept the principles of the virtues of selfishness and greed.

[marym625]

8. Bingo!

[tblue]

10. This was "different."

"We didn't WANT the help. We just needed it till we didn't need it."

Hypocrite. Like the rest of 'em. Like my BIL who has gotten every kind of govt assistance he can get but is a staunch Dittohead Republican.

[Octafish]

39. Precisely.

Multiplied many millions of times since 1969.

[deurbano]

104. The less REAL need, the more they think you deserve...

[uponit7771]

132. +1

[kairos12]

7. Senator Earnest Grifter

[Frustratedlady]

9. She and her husband will probably receive a military pension (which they earned)

and she should get a federal pension as senator. Is there a time limit or can they serve one term and still get the pension? I don't know if senators from Iowa get IPERS or not. If so, they probably would have boosted the payments for them and the rest of us.

[jmowreader]

115. For senators one term, representatives three

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

Members of Congress are vested after five years of service. Since a Senate term is six years and a House term two, that's where I got the numbers in this post's title.

The system they're under is Federal Employees Retirement System, and it's not quite as lush as its detractors claim it to be. No one ever went to Congress just for the pension.

[tabasco]

11. Another lying, hateful, republican hypocrite

Surprise, surprise.

[lancer78]

26. 20B/300M

is $66.67 per person.

[Munificence]

121. I think

your math is wrong also as all 300 million +/- won't, don't, or can't pay.

Now on a population base your math is correct.

On a lighter note:

Isn't it funny how we get confused sometimes on the amount of zeros needed when we start talking about billions. I catch myself having to check myself from time to time. "Billions" is so "1960's".

Now go look at our debt - $18+ trillion. I lose track of the zeros in a billion and a trillion when I try to count them all as they make my eyes cross and I have to try to count them over and over and over and I finally say "damn that's a lot I don't need math to tell me that".

I think the numbers show that if $18 trillion $1 bills were stacked that they would reach around 1.2 million miles into space.....now that's a lot of jack......I am talking to the planet Saturn!

Hell, why even have people pay taxes? Just print the shit and let's have a party...problem is that this party has been going on for 40 years and I damn sure didn't get an invite to the party. Did you?

Hell I still pick up pennies.

[Iliyah]

14. Farms, corporations, oil companies

getting millions in subsidies but OH NO to regular folks who need subsidies in order to have health insurance.

GOPers are just evil and their so called "Christian Values" suck.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. The question is, why didn't her Democratic opponent bring this up? It's not a secret

and he would've been able to crush her "anti-spending Big Gubmint" b.s. right then and there and make the anti-big-gubmint people who would still openly and proudly support her as a bunch of hypocrites, too.

So why didn't Bruce Braley bring Joni's hypocritical past up? I mean, she ran on "castrating Washington spending", or something like that. That would've made it easier for him to point out her hypocrisy. But he didn't, and he lost Tom Harkin's seat.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Because this data says nothing about her, personally

It says that starting in the year she turned 25, after she was out of the house and on her own, her father took a small amount of money ($2785 a year), and other more distant relatives took more.

The data doesn't establish she is a hypocrite - or contradict a position against government spending. It went to others, during a time she wasn't even living with the closest of the relatives who received the money.

Bringing it up using this data, claiming it made her hypocritical, would have just make him look stupid.

[BlueCaliDem]

23. She campaigned on castrating hogs as a girl. That happened FAR earlier. And those contracts,

at least the lion's share, came after she was county auditor.

In October, Salon reported that Richard’s construction company was awarded
$215,665 in contracts from the Montgomery County government in 2009 and 2010,
while Ernst was the body’s auditor. The bids won by Culver included Federal Emergency
Management Agency projects worth $204,794.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2015/01/21/late-night-gop-bad-ideas-lies-open-thread/

I believe she was a little older than 25 in 2009 and 2010. That wouldn't be hypocritical on Braley's part. To make this known to Iowans was his duty as her opponent.

[Ms. Toad]

28. You're talking about completely different stuff.

I'm talking about what you asked - why didn't her opponent bring "this" up - "this" referring to the stuff in the article.

Because the data in the article proves nothing about her past, and pretending it does would have made her opponent look just as stupid as it makes the LA Times look.

I'm not suggesting real data related to her should not have been brought up - my complaint is bandying about information which has NOTHING to do with her past and pretending very loudly that it proves she is a hypocrite.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. It goes to credibility as an anti-Big-gubmint Republican. It was Braley's due diligence to make it

known to the voters who very possibly have NO CLUE that her family benefited greatly from the very gov't she was seeking to de-ball. They most likely have no clue that she was county auditor when the lion's share of total government money her family had received was channeled through to her father between 2009 and 2010: a whopping $215,665 which included Big Gubmint Emergency Funds of $204,794. They had a right to know.

As an attorney, Braley knows that credibility is everything and he failed to bring this up - or the DSCC or any progressive group failed to bring it up on his behalf.

You can bet your last bread bag that had the tables been turned and Joni Ernst's handlers had found that out about Braley, they would've crucified him with it, day in, day out.

[ND-Dem]

77. +100. and you can pretty well bet braley's team DID know about it. which makes you wonder

why they didn't use it.

[BlueCaliDem]

79. The picture being painted for me is one that shows that the Democratic Party nor Braley

really wanted to win that seat. The question is...why?

[ND-Dem]

82. indeed.

[George II]

103. Do we know that they didn't bring it up?

[ND-Dem]

107. good question. i haven't see any evidence they did, though i haven't looked too hard. mainly

because most of what I see seems to be about one ad braley ran: the chicken ad.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/10/27/talking-chickens-ad-puts-bruce-braley-on-the-defensive-in-pivotal-iowa-senate-race/

it seems like team joni put braley on the defensive early on, with things much less egregious than joni's siphoning of graft to dad and lies about her background.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/bruce-braley-and-the-year-everything-went-wrong-for-democrats/381929/

He's no novice to politics, but he ran a campaign where he didn't even notify people what his campaign stops were? and you say he wanted to win?

For some reason, Braley’s campaign stop here—he walked down Main Street, ducking into a couple of shops before stopping for a cup of coffee and a chat with the mayor here at Grounds & Goodies—was not advertised, and rather than come out to greet him, the whole town seems to have retreated indoors. Main Street is empty; there are six people in the coffeeshop. On this campaign stop, Braley will come into contact with no more than a dozen voters.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/bruce-braley-and-the-year-everything-went-wrong-for-democrats/381929/

[PotatoChip]

78. I fail to see why you keep naming and blaming her democratic opponent.

It serves no good purpose to harp on what he could or should have done. At least not at this point--several months later, and in this way.

I don't know the guy, but I think it's safe to assume that he holds no other government position. Having lost, he also is no longer a candidate. As a private citizen, he doesn't deserve to be called out, and repeatedly denigrated, this long after the lost election.

If you think you could have run a better campaign, perhaps you should have joined his team.

[BlueCaliDem]

80. Well, maybe you should reread my posts on this thread. It'll bring things in context for you.

By the way? Bruce Braley was U.S. Representative from Iowa since 2007. He was a practicing attorney AND a seasoned politician long before 2014. He had the expertise to run roughshod over Ernst especially since she grabbed the public's attention with her ad in which she highlighted her background castrating hogs and her promise to cut pork spending in Washington, D.C. without disclosing that her own father benefited from pork to the tune of $215,665 when she was county auditor.

He, or the DSCC or progressive groups should've run with this against her, but no one did and he lost Tom Harkin's seat to a Koch-Republican.

[PotatoChip]

83. He is now a private citizen,

deserving of no further condemnation regarding how he ran the 2014 campaign. At least not here on DU where private citizens are supposed to be protected from call-outs.

If you think he should have run his campaign differently, again I say that you should have joined his team, offering up your expertise to these folks who obviously had no idea of what they were doing.

(just in case)

[BlueCaliDem]

86. I don't care. I broke NO ToS rules. That said, his lackluster desire for Harkin's seat will hurt ALL

Americans in this nation now with yet another Koch-bought lackey in what was once a liberal's seat. Had he run for a local seat or as a State Senator, you might have a point in that I shouldn't kvetch, but he ran (from?) for a U.S. Senate seat that influences domestic policy and what can hurt ME and mine all the way in SoCal. And he failed.

I don't blame Joni Ernst for that. I blame the DSCC and Bruce Bralely for it.

As for your snide remark that I should've joined his team, get real. I'm not an Iowan. I'm a Californian - a SOLID Blue State thanks to Democrats who actually want to win their elections when they run for them. Stop trying to redirect the blame for Braley's unnecessary loss on me when it should be directed on HIM.

[PotatoChip]

91. Yeah, I'm sure Braley really wanted to lose.

Because, because... well I don't know exactly. But he really, REALLY wanted to lose, I tells ya!!!

[BlueCaliDem]

93. That what it looks like, yes. This should've been an easy win for him had he pointed out the

hypocrisy of Ms. de-Baller who was for pork when her father wanted it before she was against it as other unimportant American need it.

[ND-Dem]

84. +100. "We just need to move on and forget the past" is the battle-cry of Third Way apologists

everywhere.

"Don't bring up things that might make us look bad or put the official party line in question."

[PotatoChip]

85. Are you implying that I am a Third Way apologist?

Seriously?

[BlueCaliDem]

88. To paraphrase, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

We should find out why a solid liberal seat - Tom Harkin's, for chrissakes - has gone to a far-right Koch-lackey, and hold the DSCC and the Democratic Party liable for doing such a piss-poor job. If we don't accept that critical mistakes were made, how are we going to learn from them in order to avoid repeating them? To hush others who question why we lost is counterproductive.

[ND-Dem]

92. Don't tell me; I agree. Tell the folks who seem to think it's not fair to talk about it or

something. I'm actually not sure what their objections are except that any criticism of the Third Way D's is out of bounds.

[PotatoChip]

94. Does this guy sound like a Third Way D to you?

The non-partisan, non-profit website OnTheIssues.org labels Braley a "Populist-Leaning Liberal."[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Braley

I have yet to read more; having only skimmed BlueCaliDem's link thus far. But based on what I've read, he sounds pretty decent to me.

[ND-Dem]

96. I judge politicians by their actions. Not ratings from think tanks that can be skewed to get

whatever results are demanded.

His desultory campaign suggests he didn't want to win, or his party leadership didn't want him to win.

[PotatoChip]

100. What actions of his make you think that he is a Third Way Dem?

I'd like to hear what they are since I'm not overly familiar with the guy, having just Wiki to go on at the moment...

You apparently know more, to be calling him a Third Way Dem, so maybe you could source your reasoning.

TIA

[Frustratedlady]

120. I'll jump in here and say that Braley did not put in much effort...

In fact, I didn't even know who the Democratic opponent was to the castrator until after her ad came out. His speeches were lackluster and he simply did not give voters the feeling that he was fighting tooth and nail for the job. If he came to my city, I don't remember it. I'm sure he was here somewhere along the way, but I wouldn't bet a dime to a donut on it.

I got the feeling that he was the last person the party tried to "get" to run and his heart wasn't in it. When I first saw a video clip on him, I couldn't believe he was Harkin's potential replacement. I've seen cornmeal mush with more get up and go.

[PotatoChip]

148. Thank you for an informed analysis.

I was hoping that Iowan would weigh in here. I appreciate hearing from someone who actually saw what happened. It's a shame that he didn't run a better campaign.

Still, I doubt that he wanted to lose as some others here have claimed. Such a claim strikes me as bizarre.

[merrily]

147. Seems to me like a guy who votes with his caucus.

[BlueCaliDem]

105. I've read your other posts. I know you agree. :-)

There shouldn't be any objections. They should be as tired as I that Democrats seem to want to lose certain election cycles when they can so easily win them IF they put half the effort in Republicans do. That's what irks me so. And it confuses me that more people don't seem to see that.

[marym625]

25. How does her family benefiting from this

Not make her a hypocrite? Unless she denounces her family for receiving the funds, her rhetoric is hypocritical.

She may have been out of the house when her father's construction company received government contracts, but she was the county auditor. He never received government contracts prior to her taking office.

[Ms. Toad]

54. Because she didn't benefit from it

(based on the data being cited). I don't know about you, but I have lots of relatives I believe are behaving badly that I don't feel a need to call out publicly. Becoming a politician doesn't change that. They have their lives. I have mine. We choose to live them differently and I am not responsible for their decisions.

This article isn't talking about the government contracts - it is talking solely about farm subsidies - and I am talking solely about using the farm subsidy data from a period of time when she had no connection to it (no decision making authority; no benefit) to prove her hypocrisy or that she is a liar.

As I said, she may well by a hypocrite and a liar - but prove it with data that is applicable to her. Don't pretend data belong to her father at a time she no longer benefited from it, to or her uncle or grandfather proves it.

[marym625]

58. Yeah, I'm done

If we were saying "Joni Ernst directly benefited from farm subsidies her family received" then I would agree with you.

To ignore the hypocrisy in her speech and politics while making her family look like the salt of the earth that never received help except from neighbors, is ridiculous.

[Ms. Toad]

110. Read the article - or even just the title

and check the data.

It claims, as do two other articles, that "Sen. Joni Ernst learned to 'live within her means' -- on the taxpayer's dime." That claim is not even remotely supported by the data in the article. The data in the article do not show her hypocrisy - because the data has nothing to do with the time frame she was talking about. Period.

I'm not saying she is not a hypocrite or a liar. All I'm saying is that pretending 1995-2009 data proves she was lying about her family's status from 1970 - 1988 makes the author of the article (and anyone who adopts that position) look stupid.

[marym625]

150. I don't like coming back after I say I'm done

But this has irked me since you replied.

Did you read the article? No where in it does it say she received, or her family received, the government aid while she was at home. It even states, like you and another agreed would be the right question, "We called Ernst's Senate office to ask how this record comports with her ostensible distaste for individual reliance on the federal government, but there was no answer and the line wasn't taking messages."

The article does just what I stated we should do, call her out on her hypocrisy. The last sentence even states, quite clearly, she was not at home during the years in question, "The database of farm subsidies dates back only to 1995, when Ernst was already 25; but if that period is any indication, her family was probably doing quite nicely even before then, thanks to her fellow taxpayers. "

I agree that the headline is misleading. We don't know if it is true or not, so it shouldn't have been worded as it was. But the article is true, correct and important. She is a hypocrite, a liar and a cheat.

Now, I'm really done.

[ND-Dem]

81. she benefited from it. when close relatives who live near one get big money, one benefits from it.

joni's made a point of telling us how close-knit her family is.

when one's parents (one's children's grandparents) get big money, one benefits from it.


and just because the public database starts in 1995 doesn't mean subsidies started then.

Only 19% of farms in Iowa DON'T/DIDN'T get subsidies. Iowa is the #2 state for subsidies, and subsidies have been the order of business since Roosevelt. Particularly for corn.

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=19000

And the family's subsidies, even averaged, put them in the top 20% for subsidies. As you'd expect, since they're upper middle class and always were. Despite joanie phony's bullshit stories about her childhood.

[Ms. Toad]

108. Then go after the real data.

Don't claim that data from 1995 to 2009 proves that her family was living off the taxpayer's money. It doesn't.

Certainly use it to raise questions about how much her parents received when she was growing up - but don't point to money the family received after she left home to prove that while she was growing up she was living on the taxpayer's dime.

As for your claim that she benefited from it (assuming the trend started when she was living there- a claim which the data does not establish) and you reference the direct line of descent - they you better pay attention to the fact that the bulk of the money went to an uncle.

Again - I'm not saying she was telling the truth - just that we look stupid when we say that money her uncle got starting when she was 25 years old proves she was lying about living within her means.

[ND-Dem]

135. I don't think anyone claimed it proved her family was living off the taxpayer. I think the claim

was she was a hypocrite, and not poor.

And if her family got government money while she was in college (she went to graduate school as well as 4-year), there's a good chance she could have been out of the house and still benefited directly.

The bulk of the money went to an uncle -- who lived very close to her family -- I believe it was the next town over or something. She's already told us her family is very close, with those traditional family values & all. In fact, that closeness extends to getting her dad some lucrative government contracts as soon as she got into government. And one way or another, she's never left government.

The weight of the evidence tells me she's a lying hypocrite. You've expressed your opinion; I'll continue to express mine.

[Ms. Toad]

137. So if your uncle wins the lottery 5 years from now,

You would think it perfectly reasonable for someone to use that information to contradict whatever you might say about how you are living, on your own, today?

That's what the article does.

[ND-Dem]

47. her first job out of college was a government job, and coinicentally thats when her fathers

construction company started getting rather large government contracts

[Ms. Toad]

56. And what does that have do do

with using data beginning when she was 25 to prove that her claims that her family learned to live within her means when she was a child were false because her family was doing so on the taxpayer's dime?

Hint: Nothing

Anyone using this data set to prove that she was a liar or a hypocrite when she was talking about her childhood looks stupid.

[ND-Dem]

61. It proves that whatever happened in her childhood, it didn't stop her from working in

the government and steering graft to her family, all while trying to cut government benefits for others.

She's talking about her childhood NOW, and it's NOW that she and her family are 'sucking off the government teat'. And her father, uncle and grandfather sucked off it too.

[Ms. Toad]

16. Again - misleading headline

And the content is grasping at straws. Not helpful.

The public spotlight might not prove to be Ernst's best friend. The District Sentinel, a Washington, D.C., news co-op, reports that despite her campaign pitch that her parents "taught us to live within our means," her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009. The figures come from the Environmental Working Group's authoritative database of farm supports.

Ernst was born in 1970. 1995, the first year in subsidy years, was when she was 25. Long after she claims to have been "raised “simply” and taught to live within her means." So even at the 10,000 foot level, the report contradicts nothing she said about her formative years.

An additional $38,665 went to her father, Richard Culver

So the family in which she grew up received a whopping $2785 per year. Starting the year she was 25.

Most of the money, more than $367,000 in mostly corn subsidies, went to Ernst's uncle, Dallas Culver, and his farm in her home town of Red Oak, Iowa. . . ., and $57,479 went to her grandfather, Harold Culver, who died in 2003.

Did she live with her uncle? Not relevant. Did she live with her paternal grandfather? Not relevant.

This nostalgia for a misty golden past is an essential part of the story. What Ernst fails to acknowledge is that this past never existed.

That may well be true, but this data doesn't prove it. If you're (LA Times) going to attack her for lying about her past, do it with real numbers - connected to her family - during the years she was talking about. Or at least expressly acknowledge you're not talking about the same past she was talking about, but don't have access to the data for that period of time. Otherwise you just look stupid.

[SHRED]

22. I get your points

I'm thinking a relevant question for her might be something like this,

"You have made it clear your position on government subsidies and the need instead for self reliance. How do you feel about your own family members receiving hundreds of thousands in funding from our government"?

[Ms. Toad]

29. That would be a more relevant question.

Although a more relevant question would be what subsidies did her family receive during the years she claimed to be poor and learning to live within their means.

My complaint is that this is the 3rd article now which uses the same data to pretend the data cited proves her claims are false. It doesn't.

[BumRushDaShow]

27. The bigger issue that she neglects to advocate for cutting government subsidies to farmers

or any other business entities. It's as if government money going to one population (businesses "in need" or often not even "in need" like the oil companies) is "okay", but government money for another population (individuals "in need&quot is "wasteful".

[Ms. Toad]

31. I'm not saying there aren't issues there -

But the headline isn't about those issues - it refers to her claim about the family learning to live within their means on the government dime, then uses data that happened long after the period of time she was talking about, and which was largely received by people other than her immediate family to prove she was living on the government dime.

[BumRushDaShow]

67. Yes, I saw the snopes on this

However it still pokes holes in her narrative to suggest she was somehow in poverty and that others who really are should just suck it up, because they are obviously "not living within their means".

It's like Romney claiming that he was poor because he had to sell stock to pay for college - his way of "living within his means".

[Ms. Toad]

109. I haven't looked at snopes -

just at the three articles I've seen posted with glee here the last few days - which are laughable on their face.

I'm not at all defending her. She may well be lying through her teeth.

I just think that anyone being sucked down this particular rabbit hole ought to take a closer look at that piece the Vermont high school group did on Fox "news" and ask if we really want to join Fox as a legitimate targets for ridicule.

[BumRushDaShow]

125. I still think you miss the forest for the trees

and are arguing minutia when most are arguing perceptions and appearance.

And with respect to the video from the Bennington College High School students - as "satisfying" as it might be to regulars at DU, the students unfortunately run with a faulty premise critiquing what is an obvious opinion show, and one of its guest segments (i.e., this show is not a "nightly news" broadcast), and insists that it "fails" at journalism. Opinion shows are not "news shows", whether they run on PBS or Fox or Bloomberg, although the hosts may analyze and pontificate on current events, they need not be "journalists" to have an opinion.

[Ms. Toad]

128. My responses have been entirely to the claim in the OP's article

which is that the 1995-2009 data proves she was lying about living within her means in her childhood several years prior to that because she was living on the taxpayer's dime.

The data proves no such thing. Her statements could be absolutely true, and still not be inconsistent with the data in the article. It is embarrassing that those articles continue to be posted here when the data cited in the article is completely irrelevant to the question of whether her family lived within its means during the years discussed in her SOTU response.

There's plenty of stuff to attack her about. Attacks on her statements about early years may be even be dead on. But not based on this irrelevant data. I don't think DU should be cheering news articles which imitate Fox news' penchant for playing fast and loose with the truth.

[BumRushDaShow]

131. You need to re-read the column

The entire thing makes the argument of her hypocrisy and does not just focus on the subsidy data. I.e., it establishes that despite her claims through her apparent rose-colored glasses "life" and "family", the reality was quite different. It also goes on to quote some of her utterances during her campaign. And the data is not irrelevant because her whole "schtick" is to attack government. She is not unlike Clarence Thomas, who almost 25 years ago spun a fictional tale about his "welfare queen" sister.

[Ms. Toad]

133. I've read it (and the other similar articles) multiple times.

The anchor of the article - the only reason there is an article - is the "discovery" that her family was supposedly living off of taxpayer money, in contradiction to her claim that her family was living within their means.

But the data in the article doesn't contradict her story because it didn't come to her immediate family (for the most part), and didn't cover the time she was talking about. Pretending it does makes us look stupid.

If you are primarily making a broader point, you don't focus the headline and the bulk of the article on irrelevant data.

[BumRushDaShow]

134. We are going to have to agree to disagree

The "anchor" of the article is an evaluation of a SOTU response given by her and comparing her words and purported philosophies, with her "reality", and the fact that it cannot be reconciled. Again, I don't focus on the trees or "gotcha headline", which is superficial, particularly since the column includes a number of other utterances and suppositions outside of the data set, that support the primary thesis of "hypocrisy".

And as a sidenote, unless she attended private schools or was home-schooled (which as far as we know, she did not or was not based on her released bio), then she was "living off the taxpayer dime" in public schools. And she certainly got many more taxpayer dimes by joining ROTC.

[marym625]

30. Actually, it's a little more than that

In one year alone it was over $7000. That's about half of what someone making minimum wage would earn. Many of the years in that span, they didn't qualify for subsidies. Why isn't she calling her family out?

What about student loans and grants? She directly benefited. I am unable to find how much, but considering her stance on education and welfare, a dime makes her a hypocrite.

[Ms. Toad]

32. $2785 is the average over the period of time cited.

Typically it is not the same amount of money received every year - so some years would be more, and some less.

My point isn't that she is not a hypocrite. My point is that it makes you look stupid when you claim that money her father, uncle, and grandfather received after she was an adult proves that she was lying about learning to live within her means as a child, or that she is a hypocrite because she benefited from government subsidies (that others received long after she left the home) but now claims they were bad.

She may well be both a hypocrite and a liar. But that data doesn't prove it.

[marym625]

38. Obviously, we disagree.

First, I understand how it works and I know exactly what the figures are. To take an average per year over a period of time that includes many years they didn't qualify is dishonest.

I never said she didn't learn to live within her means as a child. It is the hypocrisy of her calling out others while not acknowledging what her family has done, with her home or not, that makes her dishonest.

You want to call me stupid for calling her out on her hypocrisy, that's your prerogative. I find the rhetoric that "she was out of the house so it makes no difference" stupid.

[Ms. Toad]

46. I'm not calling you stupid for calling out her hypocrisy.

I am saying that relying on 1995-2009 data about money that was primarily given to people wasn't living with at the time - and mostly never lived with to prove she is a hypocrite makes the person doing it look stupid. The fact that her father, uncle, and grandfather accepted subsidies doesn't make her hypocritical, unless she benefited from them (which, at 25, is unlikely), or participated in the decision to accept them.

It is likely that her father received earlier subsidies - but this data doesn't prove it. Find the data that her father accepted subsidies during the years she was living at home - and then telling the story that they were living within their means without acknowledging that they were doing so on the taxpayer's dime is hypocritical.

Or find other data that establishes her dishonesty and hypocrisy - I'm sure it is out there. It is just that using this data to try to prove that she is either a liar or hypocritical that is worthy of Fox "news," not the LA Times or DU.

[marym625]

53. The fact she calls out people for needing and accepting welfare

While not calling out her own family, makes her a hypocrite. It doesn't matter if she benefited or not.

She talks about how wonderful her parents and extended are, and perhaps they are, but she does it in a speech that disses people receiving government help while touting the greatness of her family and not mentioning what they received from the government.

Just look at my parents and grandparents. “They had very little to call their own except the sweat on their brow and the dirt on their hands. But they worked, they sacrificed, and they dreamed big dreams for their children and grandchildren. “And because they did, an ordinary Iowan like me has had some truly extraordinary opportunities because they showed me that you don’t need to come from wealth or privilege to make a difference. You just need the freedom to dream big, and a whole lot of hard work.

Hypocrite.

Her father's construction company received government contracts only after she was county auditor. Impropriety and hypocrite.

She had student loans and grants. Hypocrite.

She lied to get on the ballot as county auditor. Cheater.

There is nothing dishonest, stupid or wrong for calling her out on touting her family's greatness, frugality and humbleness while she ignores their acceptance of welfare from the government. Especially while she demonized government handout.

[og1]

36. Farm programs are misleading

There have been farm programs in the early 30's they were mostly price support or programs that were designed to take land out production to support prices. All of this changed recently with the government mandating so much corn ethanol to mix with gasoline. The important thing to remember that as tax payers we contribute 860 of our tax dollars to subsidies that contribute to environmental degradation of the the land!

[handmade34]

68. thank you for

bringing attention to this...

[Munificence]

97. As consumers

we are contributing a lot more than that to the environmental degradation - nearly every thing you eat has contributed to the degradation of the environment. We demand "cheap food" and there is a price that we all must pay for it.

If we could only get people to stop eating!

I hope that the majority of folks here on DU are refusing to buy the cheap nasty crap in stores and are seeking out and buying from the small farmers that believe in a balance between producing food and degradation of the land. Sure you may pay more (unless you buy in bulk), but you are not contributing as much to the degradation of the environment.

"Do as I say, not as I do" does not cut it (This statement is not directed at anyone in particular but instead is something for us all to think about).

I wonder how many have actually tasted what real beef, pork, chicken etc tastes like vs the taste of the mutant stuff they buy at the store? I know "real" meat, chicken, pork, etc that I eat looks different (color) and tastes a lot different than the stuff one buys in the store.

[hfojvt]

37. thanks, I was gonna say the same thing

subsidies to her uncle? Starting when she was 25?

Probably though, they cannot get data for the late 1970s.

[Ms. Toad]

40. The data starts in the database they are using in 1995.

So at least acknowledge the data is limited - and ask questions about what her parents might have received when she was growing up. It certainly suggests they received subsidies - so that data could be used as a legitimate starting point for questions since the world of subsidies didn't start in 1995.

But this pretense that the data recited proves she is a liar is worthy of Fox "news," and shouldn't be being repeated ad nauseum here as if it, alone, is meaningful.

[George II]

48. The point is that she publicly is against "big government" and people relying on government...

...but privately she apparently has no qualms about her family doing what she whines about.

AND, since she was born in 1970, they weren't using plastic to wrap bread in the supermarket. So she didn't go to school with "bread bags" on her shoes, nor did her whole busload of classmates.

[Ms. Toad]

55. But this data doesn't prove it.

Claiming that it does makes whoever is making the claim (the LA Times in this case) look stupid.

[George II]

72. Her family didn't get any farm subsidies? She's not against "big government" supporting people?

[Ms. Toad]

112. I suspect they did -

But the 1995 -2009 data does not prove that her family did, during the years she was talking about in the speech.

The question the LA Times needed to research to make their point, but didn't, was did she get subsidies during the years she claimed she was learning to live within her means. The data they presented is utterly unrelated to their headline, and to the gist of the article.

[Demit]

75. I understand what you're saying and I agree with it.

Every time I have seen these numbers since her speech (the LA Times isn't the first or the only), I shrug my shoulders. They just don't make me gasp the way they're supposed to.

The $467K figure looks large, but it's spread over 15 years, three relatives, and two generations. The uncle got the lion's share. And it all happened long after little Joni of the bread bags was growing up, anyway.

In other words, it's grasping at straws, and somebody has to do better if they want to run a shocking expose of her hypocrisy. I DO believe she is a hypocrite, as most of the current crop of Republicans are.

[Ms. Toad]

113. My point, exactly. n/t

[Munificence]

117. Seriously?

Here is ya a link to a "1970's" Wonder Bread commercial so that you can correct your post if you see fit.

Not attack on you or defending Ernst, just hate seeing folks posting stuff that they think are facts.

(could not get direct link, please copy and paste)

And for the record, I was born in 1970 and remember my parents only having bread that came in plastic bags (can't remember much about my 1st 4 years, but can there after so around the 1974-1975 time frame of which I was just starting to go to school myself.

You may want to "fact check" me on this, but I think bread in plastic "bags" and actual plastic garbage bags came into existence around 1967-1969? Again please fact check this before using as I am only going off what I think I think, kind of like you did.

[George II]

124. I checked a few sources - they did use bread bags with their shoes in that area...

...but it wasn't a regular practice, only on "special" days, but whatever.

The point of this discussion, bread bags notwithstanding, is that her father, uncle, and grandfather took advantage of Federal programs to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are the types of programs that she claims to be against.

The fact that the available information only goes back to 1995 doesn't necessarily mean that they didn't similar subsidies earlier. It would seem might coincidental that all three began receiving these subsidies in 1995 - that would be highly coincidental. No doubt this started years before that, but the available records only begin in 1995.

And chances are that if their subsidy receipts amounted in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, they didn't suddenly become farmers in 1995.

Another interesting tidbit about her hypocrisy, and this isn't from the LA Times:

( http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/sen-joni-ernsts-family-actually-received-more-than-460000-in-federal-subsidies/ )

Radio Iowa reported last May that Ernst said she “philosophically opposed” to federal farm subsidies during a GOP primary debate. However, she added, she would continue to support them if elected.

“Reality is that with the subsidies, unless we’re eliminating all of them across the board at the same time for every sector out there, then I’ll go ahead and support those subsidies,” she said at the time.

I can just imagine the family discussions around the kitchen table when the subject of these subsidies came up!!!

[Munificence]

129. Um

I do not understand your post?

I simply posted a link showing you that bread bags existed in the 70's when you thought they did not even exist.

...and the moon is made of cheese.

To add:

You actually struck my curiosity as I did not know. So I pondered it for a minute (since I was born in 1970) and I tried to think back to bread in bags as a young kid.

My first remembrance was that I can see my father sitting in the chair watching the news. I couldn't have been more than 4-5 years old. The old man would eat an entire loaf and consume a 1/2 gallon of milk. I can remember thinking "That is so disgusting" and I'd say something and his response was something to the tune of:

"Son there is a pork chop in every slice."

[GoneFishin]

34. Epitomizes typical twisted right wing thinking. They crow that they should not pay taxes because

they did everything on their own, all the while using every manner of government institution and infrastructure to run their business. Or in this case, taking government handouts.

[malaise]

35. HER FAMILY MEMBERS COLLECTED $463,000 IN FEDERAL FARM SUBSIDIES FROM 1995 THROUGH 2009.

her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.
her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.
her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.
her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.
her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.
her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.
her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.
her family members collected $463,000 in federal farm subsidies from 1995 through 2009.

This should have at least 500 Recs and should have a hashtag Joni Ernst's living high on the hog farm subsidies

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. The swine.

[malaise]

101. ROFL

[George II]

50. When this gets out I'm sure she's going to squeal!

[malaise]

102. DUzy

but can lipstick on a pig squeal - I guess Laby BlahBlah gave us the answer.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. These people are the ones with the "sense of entitlement".

[Coventina]

43. Proud to be rec #50!!!

These hypocrites need to be exposed for the phonies they are!!

[AlbertCat]

49. Now we're at a point where the government will give away everything.

Yeah.... but to whom?

I mean, they've given away Exxon's entire tax burden several times already.

Joe Q. Public's?..... not so much.


Remember... and say it often.... corporate welfare is always something-fold more than all personal welfare combined.

[Thinkingabout]

57. Damn, the price of bread bags must really be high, maybe i need to collect my bread bags

For extra income.

[Zambero]

62. Bread bags stuffed with gov't ca$h

Ah, the challenges of living within one's means down on the Ernst family farm. Ching-Ching!

[Zambero]

60. Who's squealing now?

The hog castrator had promised massive spending cuts and accompanying squeals from moochers. Apparently, there will be a waiver for those moochers somehow scrape by within "adjusted means" to the tune of +$460k. Pork perhaps? Oink youbetcha! There will be no squeals forthcoming from down on the Ernst farm, except perhaps for squeals of joy.

[Adrahil]

64. Well, her family is white. Obviously deserving! n/t

[Blue Owl]

65. Turns out she didn't know which side her bread was buttered on

n/t

[chrisa]

70. I understand the confusion here. It's okay for her to do it, and that's all.

You're not a true Libertarian until you look down on people with smug self-righteousness, all while doing the same thing that they are. Even the Libertarians' darling, Ayn Rand, was hypocritical a 'mooch' (a.k.a. a good Libertarian).

[Duval]

71. They really messed up when

they chose her. Thanks for pointing out the Republicans' ongoing distortions and hypocrisy.

[niyad]

73. I keep thinking of this song from "finian's rainbow"-- "when the idle poor become the idle rich"

When the Idle Poor Become the Idle Rich



When the idle poor become the idle rich,
You'll never know just who is who or who is which,
Won't it be rich when everyone's poor relative becomes a Rockefellertive,
And palms no longer itch, what a switch,
When we all have ermine and plastic teeth,
How will we determine who's who underneath?
And when all your neighbors are upper class,
You won't know your Joneses from your Astors,
Let's toast the day,
The day we drink that drinkie up,
But with the little pinkie up,
The day on which, the idle poor become the idle rich.

When a rich man doesn't want to work,
He's a bon vivant, yes, he's a bon vivant,
But when a poor man doesn't want to work,
He's a loafer, he's a lounger, he's a lazy good for nothing, he's a jerk.

When a rich man loses on a horse, isn't he the sport?
Oh isn't he the sport?
But when a poor man loses on a horse,
He's a gambler, he's a spender, he's a lowlife,
He's a reason for divorce.

When a rich man chases after dames,
He's a man about town, oh, he's a man about town,
But when a poor man chases after dames,
He's a bounder, he's a rounder, he's a rotter and a lotta dirty names.

When the idle poor become the idle rich,
You'll never know just who is who or who is which,
No one will see the Irish or the Slav in you,
For when you're on Park Avenue, Cornelius and Mike look alike.

When poor Tweedledum is rich Tweedledee,
This discrimination will no longer be,
When we're in the dough and off of the nut,
You won't know your banker from your butler.

Let's make a switch, with just a few annuities,
We'll hide those incongruities in clothes from Abercrombie Fitch.
When the idle poor become the idle rich,
When the idle poor become the idle rich.

[BeyondGeography]

76. They pulled their bootstraps, but they don't tell you how they got the boots

[Beartracks]

87. Image of family/church/community banding together to lift up poor, w/out govt help = Pure Fantasy

Nailed. It.

==========================

[moondust]

89. No wonder she wouldn't talk to the media during the campaign.

Iowa Republican U.S. Senate candidate Joni Ernst has canceled or declined to meet with editorial boards at several major Iowa newspapers, including the Des Moines Register, the largest circulation daily in the state.

~

"We never got anything on the schedule," said Elizabeth Schott, director of editorial relations for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. "We did request, we offered, we would have liked to interview her, but they chose to spend her time elsewhere. I cannot recall a time that that has happened before. We interviewed 27 other candidates this season, from county supervisor all the way up to U.S. Senate."

~more~

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/23/iowa-newspapers-speak-out-over-joni-ernst-snubb/201292

[elleng]

90. AND ben carson!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026131665

[closeupready]

98. And how much did she get from filing a mortgage interest deduction???

But of course, that's okay, ... because....

[pansypoo53219]

106. no publikkkklan is an island.

[DinahMoeHum]

111. Just because they're farmers doesn't mean they're not grifters.

Just sayin'.

[lark]

116. Typical lying Repuke.

Anything they get from the government was earned and deserved, but anyone else (other than the rich, of course) helped by the government are takers and slackers.

They are so sickening.

[Hestia]

118. One thing that is not pure fantasy is the Orphan & Widows Fund through Fraternal Organizations

It was the number one reason a person joined the Masons, Elks, Knights of Columbus, etc. There was no government help then with food, housing, etc. but each and every member had to give to the O&W Fund at their respective organizations. Members gave gladly, because they had no idea if and when their families might have a need. My mom remembers my grandfather being in charge of the Fund at his local lodge and as a result pretty much knew everything that was going on in town.

There is a direct correlation between the falling of memberships in these organizations and the rise of AFDC and Medicare.

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/from-mutual-aid-to-welfare-state

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Didn't we just read about the last Black Aide Society becoming bankrupt or dissolved, or something? I'll have to go look.

==
Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread...back to your regularly scheduled programming

[wolfie001]

119. The Dem machine in Iowa should have......

...... hammered this buck-toothed phony to the wall with this info. What a bunch of spineless wimps. I mean, we lost anyhow, why not go for broke? Call her out and win that freakin' seat?

[Cha]

123. Joni Bloney Phoney is just another sociopathic republiCon.. bleating lies and spewing bread sacks

sob stories in her case. what tripe.

[AngryAmish]

126. ITT

ITT: people who do not understand Iowa.

[Jim Beard]

127. She has probably gotten some herself

they have learned to hide their identity in their small corporation classification. The largest recipients in my area are family corporations hiding themselves.

You can always find out who they are by going to the local businesses and an employ usually tells you ho they are. When they by someone has to sign the charge ticket.

[LynneSin]

130. The whole breadbag story just sounded like bullshit to me

We people who listened to her needed breadbags on our feet to keep from stepping in all he bullshit she was spewing.

What she described sounded like she was raised during the depression when there was absolutely no money available to farmers. But it striked me as odd that this woman, who is around the same age as me raised on a family in Iowa was living a life that sounded something out of the great depression. And even if she had worn the bread bags to them make it sound like the entire state of Iowa was suffering the great depression during the Reagan years - sorry, that's something that is just a load of crock. Farm subsidies existed back then and most farmer kids left the good shoes at home when it was raining outside - I went to school with plenty of farmer kids here in Pennsylvania. Someone should have dialed her back a notch

There were other ways she could described herself as living 'within her means' without making shit up

[blkmusclmachine]

136. Feeding at the trough: for me, but not for thee!

[tooeyeten]

138. Why

When Republicans get subsidies they're allowed when a black woman working at Wal-Mart raising a child needs food stamps it isn't!?

[JDPriestly]

139. On the other hand, farm subsidies are a wonderful program that keep farmers on their farms

even in bad years, even if crops fail, even if there are floods or a drought. That's good because in the long run the farm subsidies make it possible to feed Americans, that is for us Americans to buy food at reasonable prices.

So the problem is not the subsidies but the hypocrisy of Republicans in our farming areas who pretend to be so independent, so opposed to "big" government but then take bail-outs when nature turns against them and their harvests.

It's two-faced to diss government while taking hand--outs and help from government.
But we all benefit from the farm subsidy programs.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

140. No offense - but this has already been posted and commented on. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

142. She's a classic Kochette!

Gag at a gnat and swallow whatever.

[Zorra]

143. "Hey, Joni! put them breadbags on yer feet again. That gubmint man is comin' today, and

we need to look as poor as we can so's he'll give us more o' that subsidy welfare money!"

[silvershadow]

144. I could easily learn to live within her means, too. nt