Gruber. Not much mentioned, but deceit seemed part of the plan.

[werepossum]

Actually, I'm not upset.

In fact, I'm amused at how Obama's fans rationalize his deceit.

If you like Obama's lies, you can keep his lies.

Uno

lol +1

This is a party whose dogma assumes that Americans are unable to provide their own health care, education, day care, birth control, not to mention being too stupid to properly feed their own children or even decide what to drink with lunch. Why on Earth would anyone find this surprising? Of course Democrats lie to the American people - we're the idiots they are trying to save the world from.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

It seems that there are more than a few Democrats who don't have any problem lying and intentionally deceiving the American public.

Lie.
Obama Promises ObamaCare Won't Add "One Dime To The Deficit"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCSrP44QgZ4

Reality

Now There Can Be No Doubt: Obamacare Will Increase The Deficit
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-the-deficit/

 

[fskimospy]

It seems that there are more than a few Democrats who don't have any problem lying and intentionally deceiving the American public.

Lie.
Obama Promises ObamaCare Won't Add "One Dime To The Deficit"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCSrP44QgZ4

Reality

Uhmm, what exactly do you think your chart says? I get a strong feeling that you don't understand what you're reading.

 

[K1052]

It seems that there are more than a few Democrats who don't have any problem lying and intentionally deceiving the American public.

Lie.
Obama Promises ObamaCare Won't Add "One Dime To The Deficit"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCSrP44QgZ4

Reality

Now There Can Be No Doubt: Obamacare Will Increase The Deficit
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...no-doubt-obamacare-will-increase-the-deficit/

From the CBO right under that graph:

Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation included many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. On balance, CBO and JCT have estimated that the legislation as a whole will reduce deficits over a 10-year period.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44008

And again from April of this year:

Those estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA; they do not constitute all of the act’s budgetary effects. Many other provisions, on net, are projected to reduce budget deficits. Considering all of the provisions—including the coverage provisions—CBO and JCT estimated in July 2012 (their most recent comprehensive estimates) that the ACA’s overall effect would be to reduce federal deficits.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231

 

[fskimospy]

From the CBO right under that graph:

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44008

And again from April of this year:

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45231

Oh, holy shit, he took an op-ed based on a press release from Congressional Republicans over the CBO. But yeah, why should we trust that nonpartisan entity when Congressional Republican staffers ran their own numbers and decided something else? The op-ed of course says in theory it would end up the same as the CBO calculated.

Let me be the first to laugh at that.

He is right though, some people are totally ok with being lied to.

What's even worse, is that even if you take their argument at face value and not as the obvious hackery that it is Obama was making a statement about how the CBO scored the bill at the time it was made. The idea that he was lying because future events led to different projections is an absolute absurdity.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Revenue estimates? Tax increase estimates? Let's lay it out in all it's glory. The cost to the American people is astronomical.

 

[fskimospy]

Revenue estimates? Tax increase estimates? Let's lay it out in all it's glory. The cost to the American people is astronomical.

That's already been done countless times. It's a matter of public record.

Since the cost to the American people is so astronomical, surely that means the percentage of our GDP going to health care must be skyrocketing!

Wait, it's been functionally flat since the ACA passed? Oops.

 

[Atreus21]

Basically every bill is written in a way that gives it the best messaging. This is true for both parties and has been for many, many years.

Best messaging?

He explicitly promotes lying to pass legislation that, were the truth to come out, the public would never support. How is that acceptable?

 

[fskimospy]

Best messaging?

He explicitly promotes lying to pass legislation that, were the truth to come out, the public would never support. How is that acceptable?

Opponents of the legislation explicitly lied to try and undermine public support for it. How is that acceptable?

The way these bills are crafted (ALL bills, by the way, not just this one) is to make for better messaging. It sounds like what you have a problem with is politics, but that's not going anywhere.

 

[boomerang]

I just wonder how many more seats would have flipped a few weeks ago had all this come to light before then. Probably not many because last time I looked, the majority of the major networks, you know, those media outlets that are so unbiased, hadn't even reported on this for nine days after its exposure by a layperson, not a media person.

There are six videos to date. In each one Gruber talks of various aspects of the crafting of the legislation. The deception built into it so that CBO could not score the actual costs, Obama's involvement in the deception regarding the Cadillac tax and how it could not be revealed that the consumer not the insurance companies would end up footing the bill, how Ted Kennedy devised a way to trick the feds into covering a lot of the cost of Romneycare and what is ever present in his spiels, how stupid Americans are and how much better off they are not knowing the deceptions built into the legislation.

Obama professes that Gruber is lying - that from a pathological liar. That's really rich. Pelosi said she has no idea who the guy is despite video in which she uses his name and praises him. If nothing else, you've got to give Gruber credit for telling it like it is. He's done the nation a huge favor. He has removed all doubt that Democrats will do and say anything to get their way.

 

[boomerang]

He explicitly promotes lying to pass legislation that, were the truth to come out, the public would never support. How is that acceptable?

The end justifies the means in their minds. It may also help to remember that the left judges success based on intentions. It doesn't matter that the bill was a stinking heap of dung based in lies and deception, the intent was noble and therefore it's good. Don't bother arguing that point with them because they will never waiver from it.

 

[K1052]

How is that acceptable?

Long tradition.

 

[row]

grub:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_e00NjQvFM#t=15

“The problem is it’s a political nightmare, and people say ‘no, you can’t tax my benefits’…so what we did a lot in that room was think a lot about well how could we make this work? … And [Obama] is really a realistic guy. He was like, ‘look, I can’t just do this.’ He said ‘it’s just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phase-ins and other things?’ And we talked about it. He was just very interested in that topic.”

wait. what? didn't preznit fuckface just say on tv the other day he never heard of the guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvK3ziuPtOw#t=11

President Barack Obama denied Sunday that his signature health care reform law was deceptively marketed, rejecting statements by a consultant on the plan who said aspects of Obamacare were designed to take advantage of the “stupidity” of voters. “The fact that an adviser who was never on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is not a reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama declared at a press conference here, speaking for the first time about the comments by MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. When the president was asked whether he had intentionally misled the public in order to get the law passed, he replied: “No. I did not.”

so let's see, berrie already won politifact's 2013's lie of the year. looks like preznit narcissist/pathological liar is gonna grab 2014's too. at least he's consistent. as are his (athletic) supporters.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Opponents of the legislation explicitly lied to try and undermine public support for it. How is that acceptable?

The way these bills are crafted (ALL bills, by the way, not just this one) is to make for better messaging. It sounds like what you have a problem with is politics, but that's not going anywhere.

All you are saying (for all intents and purposes) is that it's ok for your side to lie to get what it wants. You'd be all over this if it was the other side and you know it. You're pathologically incapable of holding your side accountable for anything.

 

[fskimospy]

All you are saying (for all intents and purposes) is that it's ok for your side to lie to get what it wants. You'd be all over this if it was the other side and you know it. You're pathologically incapable of holding your side accountable for anything.

It's very odd for you to say that when responding me when I explicitly said such things should be called out.

What you're doing is, by your own admission, ranting about a system that you have no plausible alternative to and issuing a targeted complaint against one piece of legislation when it is simply a fundamental aspect to our system. Not to mention the accusations of lying and all or hilariously overblown in this case.

Your position boils down to "I understand this is how things work and I cannot change them but anyone who dares to remind me of this is bad."

What Gruber said is seriously a 'water is wet' statement for anyone who understands our political system. Conservatives never cared about this sort of thing in the past because it didn't have to do with The Great Satan Of Legislation. They are just using it to keep their base whipped up into a frenzy. Seems to be working.

 

[Atreus21]

Opponents of the legislation explicitly lied to try and undermine public support for it. How is that acceptable?

First, if this is true, then no it's not acceptable.

Second, if you're referring to death panels, you might forgive Palin on the basis that, like everyone else, she had no idea what was in the bill. That's slander, like when Pelosi said Paul Ryan's budget was akin to throwing the elderly off a cliff. That's quite a bit different than calculating to pass a bill deliberately by deception.

Third, this is a deflection. Is it acceptable or not?

The way these bills are crafted (ALL bills, by the way, not just this one) is to make for better messaging. It sounds like what you have a problem with is politics, but that's not going anywhere.

What does better messaging mean?

 

[row]

Basically every bill is written in a way that gives it the best messaging. This is true for both parties and has been for many, many years.

all bills don't include straight up lying

dumbfuck

 

[K1052]

Second, if you're referring to death panels, you might forgive Palin on the basis that, like everyone else, she had no idea what was in the bill.

If one couldn't read the bill then how could Palin's spokesperson point to a section in the bill that supposedly contained such a provision (when it didn't).

No...nothing excuses Palin's gross stupidity. Nothing.

 

[Atreus21]

If one couldn't read the bill then how could Palin's spokesperson point to a section in the bill that supposedly contained such a provision (when it didn't).

No...nothing excuses Palin's gross stupidity. Nothing.

Fine, then she misunderstood it because she's stupid. That's not the same thing as lying when you know you're lying.

 

[jackstar7]

all bills don't include straight up lying

dumbfuck

I love you for signing your posts.

 

[K1052]

Fine, then she misunderstood it because she's stupid. That's not the same thing as lying when you know you're lying.

Yea, it's actually worse.

 

[TheVrolok]

Meh, a guy in politics got caught playing politics. What a surprise. Is it right? Of course not. Should government be completely transparent? Possibly, in an ideal world. Should all voters be well educated and informed. Of course. All these things sound great, but unfortunately it isn't reality.

A lefty gets caught, the right is outraged. A righty gets caught, the left is outraged. Each defends it's own. New day, same business, and it's a shitty business.

 

[Moonbeam]

So those of us that have decent employer provided healthcare will take it in the shorts come 2018, well ain't that just lovely.

It would seem like an easy problem to solve simply by not wearing shorts for that year.

 

[Moonbeam]

all bills don't include straight up lying

dumbfuck

Hey dumbfuck, when politicians write bills to their political advantage they don't see it as lying. It's the other side that does, dumbfuck, and it doesn't matter which side we happen to be on. In fact I would suggest we could call this process what politics is.

 

[fskimospy]

First, if this is true, then no it's not acceptable.

There's no argument as to whether or not it's true. It's a fact, plain as day. I mean you do remember the debate about the ACA, right?

Second, if you're referring to death panels, you might forgive Palin on the basis that, like everyone else, she had no idea what was in the bill. That's slander, like when Pelosi said Paul Ryan's budget was akin to throwing the elderly off a cliff. That's quite a bit different than calculating to pass a bill deliberately by deception.

Death panels is only one of the many, many lies that conservatives told during that debate. If she had no idea what was in the bill, that's a deliberate choice on her part as the text was available for a long time and open to all.

Face it, she lied and conservatives ate it up.

Third, this is a deflection. Is it acceptable or not?

What does better messaging mean?

What Gruber is talking about is not only perfectly acceptable, but an inescapable part of our system. Have you looked into exactly what he was saying?

Gruber says things like how whenever you're eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions what you're fundamentally doing is having the healthy subsidize the sick. This is simply a fact of how health insurance works. Now you could either levy a "help the sick person tax" or you could add in an individual mandate. Those are two ways of accomplishing an identical goal, but one is easier to sell than the other.

Is having an individual mandate instead of a tax a lie? I don't think so, they are just messaged differently. This is what I mean about constructing legislation to help messaging.