Jump to content


The Gruber Tapes

Comish

By Comish,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts

Comish Starter

Comish

Posted
Posted

I’ve been wondering if someone was going to broach this topic, but it hasn’t happened, so I guess I’ll do it.

In case you’ve missed it, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, widely regarded as the architect of Obamacare was caught on a utube video explaining how Obamacare was passed. Among his rather unfortunate comments, he told how the law was written in a “tortured” fashion to confuse and hid the actual tax consequences; that such a subterfuge was necessary because the American people were basically dumbsh*ts; and that a “lack of transparency” was a "powerful political tool” to obfuscate and hide the true impacts of the law.

Now, maybe one could explain his comments as being out of context, or off the cuff, etc. (as he tried to do), but when a second, third, and fourth video were found showing him saying the same thing to differing audiences over long time frames………well, his preening didn’t hold up.

Of course, Pelosi immediately went on record saying he wasn’t the architect and in fact, she didn’t even know him. Hmm. I suppose that might fly …..if not for the fact that a video immediately surfaced showing her praising him for his work on the ACA while crediting him for the model.

Now, even though this has been out there in various domains for almost a week, the mainstream media didn’t find it worthy enough to have a single story on it until finally CBS did a short piece yesterday morning. But ABC and NBC still remain silent.

It’s hard to imagine that a story involving the architect of the largest power/wealth transfer in the history of the US admitting he felt the American people were too stupid to get it; that the language was deliberately misleading; and that the tax consequences were so great that it couldn’t have passed on it’s own merits is NOT a story that should be aired.

So my question is this:

Who should be the most chastised or embarrassed? Gruber for his blatant deception? Or the mainstream media for it’s wall of silence on the story that may embarrass themselves since they were overt water-carriers pushing for passage on the side of the administration?

 

A few sources. Plenty more out there now.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/13/editorial-jonathan-grubers-payday/

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/13/besieged-by-stupid-americans-media-circles-the-wagons-around-gruber/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/13/pelosi-cited-obamacare-architect-in-push-for-law-now-claims-hasnt-heard-him/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/14/did-jonathan-gruber-earn-almost-400000-from-the-obama-administration/

 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

zoogs Head Coach

zoogs

Posted
Posted

This is an attempt to fan controversy.

 

First, you'd hope that MIT economics professors would be helping out with crafting legislation. Second, he spoke in a lecture to a public audience -- this wasn't some closed door secret that somehow got leaked out. The ACA, like his comments, has been out there for a very smart, very politically diverse audience to digest and evaluate for a long time.

 

The idea that this is some kind of secret revelation that accidentally got out of the bag all of a sudden, doesn't hold water.

 

Lastly, he's not wrong at all about any legislation written with political considerations. Nor is he wrong about the general level of public ignorance, which is the same ignorance that House Republicans are now hoping to capitalize on and score a political victory (let's not begrudge them this). Those who've paid specially close attention might be familiar with some of their previous efforts ;)

 

But that’s a key detail that’s been largely ignored this week: Gruber wasn’t saying ACA proponents hoped to exploit public ignorance; ACA proponents lived in constant fear of public ignorance derailing the entire effort.

Gruber was not talking about passing the law in a non-transparent fashion. Conservatives believe the law was passed non-transparently, but nobody who supported it considers this anything but a bizarre description of one of the most drawn-out public and legislative debates in the history of Congress. Gruber was surely referring to the non-transparent mechanism of regulating insurance companies, causing them to charge less to the sick and more to the healthy, without Congress having to carry out those transfers through direct taxes.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-mess-jonathan-gruber-created

 

Now, after all that, there's still PLENTY of room for you to disagree about the ACA, etc, nothing about which has changed.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

Comish Starter

Comish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

In case you’ve missed it, MIT professor Jonathan Gruber, widely regarded as the architect of Obamacare was caught on a utube video explaining how Obamacare was passed.

Did you vote for Romney?

 

I did and would again.........even though I vehemently disagree with him on this issue.

I'm pragmatic enough to understand that no single one candidate is going to be on the same side as my beliefs 100% of the time.

But, I value integrity and ACTUAL experience in the world over some nebulous "hope and change" blank slate fantasy.

Link to comment
Comish Starter

Comish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is an attempt to fan controversy.

 

First, you'd hope that MIT economics professors would be helping out with crafting legislation. Second, he spoke in a lecture to a public audience -- this wasn't some closed door secret that somehow got leaked out. The ACA, like his comments, has been out there for a very smart, very politically diverse audience to digest and evaluate for a long time.

 

The idea that this is some kind of secret revelation that accidentally got out of the bag all of a sudden, doesn't hold water.

 

Lastly, he's not wrong at all about any legislation written with political considerations. Nor is he wrong about the general level of public ignorance, which is the same ignorance that House Republicans are now hoping to capitalize on and score a political victory (let's not begrudge them this). Those who've paid specially close attention might be familiar with some of their previous efforts ;)

 

But that’s a key detail that’s been largely ignored this week: Gruber wasn’t saying ACA proponents hoped to exploit public ignorance; ACA proponents lived in constant fear of public ignorance derailing the entire effort.

Gruber was not talking about passing the law in a non-transparent fashion. Conservatives believe the law was passed non-transparently, but nobody who supported it considers this anything but a bizarre description of one of the most drawn-out public and legislative debates in the history of Congress. Gruber was surely referring to the non-transparent mechanism of regulating insurance companies, causing them to charge less to the sick and more to the healthy, without Congress having to carry out those transfers through direct taxes.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-mess-jonathan-gruber-created

 

Now, after all that, there's still PLENTY of room for you to disagree about the ACA, etc, nothing about which has changed.

 

Well, I won't bother re-creating the bias of various sources, but msnbc is about as kookie as you get.

However, even if we take their word as balanced, I wonder about your take on Pelosi's bald face lie..........?

Link to comment

carlfense Defensive Coordinator

carlfense

Posted
Posted

 

Boy. They're sure trying hard to make this a scandal aren't they?

 

Crazy how easily some fall for it.

No more than equally crazy how some refuse to admit that there are actual scandals....

 

There sure are. I posted one of them 4 minutes before you posted this comment.

 

This isn't a scandal. Benghazi isn't a scandal. Fast and Furious isn't a scandal. From the evidence that I've seen so far nothing at the IRS has been a scandal. Solyndra is not a scandal. These are hype, not substance.

 

 

There are scandals. You're right about that. The above? Not at all.

Link to comment
Comish Starter

Comish

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

Boy. They're sure trying hard to make this a scandal aren't they?

 

Crazy how easily some fall for it.

No more than equally crazy how some refuse to admit that there are actual scandals....

 

There sure are. I posted one of them 4 minutes before you posted this comment.

 

This isn't a scandal. Benghazi isn't a scandal. Fast and Furious isn't a scandal. From the evidence that I've seen so far nothing at the IRS has been a scandal. Solyndra is not a scandal. These are hype, not substance.

 

 

There are scandals. You're right about that. The above? Not at all.

 

You are completely wrong about Benghazi, Fast and Furious and the IRS.

Judicial Watch has filed enough FOI's that expose direct involvement via Holder, the Justice Dept, and probable links to the WH.

Just because you WISH it didn't fit the definition doesn't mean it doesn't.

If you like, I'd be glad to mail you some of those findings by JW

I also predict that (now that Elija Cummings and some other blockaders will no longer be in the majority obstructing these hearings), we will within the year have solid evidence and indictments

Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...