spanishinquisition commented on the blog post House Republicans Finally File Suit Against President Obama
At least half the suit is about something Obama did which Republicans wanted done anyway.
Don’t make me defend the Republicans! I thought we are a nation of laws, not it just being a matter of the ends justifying the means. Heck, why don’t we just abolish Congress if we don’t need them to pass laws? I hear this same sort of excuses with Michael Brown where it’s like the police just sped up the results at a lower cost. That someone may want certain ends, it doesn’t mean that it should be accomplished by any means. I for instance would be all for prosecuting Michael Brown, but it doesn’t mean I want Darren Wilson to be judge, jury and executioner instead of going through a court of law.
“It’s a lot easier and safer for the government to operate these reverse sting operations against small time, unsophisticated would-be thieves than sophisticated big time operators”
Don’t be a gansta, be a banka. I bet these guys also forgot to give to their favorite PAC.
spanishinquisition commented on the blog post You Can’t Support the Filibuster and Hate Executive Action
The alternative of course is winning elections, which if people aren’t happy with what is or isn’t getting done they can then vote to change or keep things the same. Elections have consequences. I’m surprised that FDL of all places endorses an imperial Presidency. The Senate can keep or get rid of the filibuster, but no one am I going to support an imperial Presidency.
It gives credence to every claim that the administration has been gaming all the numbers and implies the administration can’t be trusted when it talks about the program.
The administration can’t be trusted and it does game numbers both with Obamacare in particular as well as things in general. It also is in perpetual short-term reactive mode where they continually create their own headaches because they’re dishonest and short-sighted.
spanishinquisition commented on the blog post Uber Investigating Executive For Tracking Reporter Using Uber Data
Having Emil Michael as an ex Obama White House official is a feature, not a bug and shows why the likes of David Plouffe were brought in to Uber. Uber is also demonstrating why the likes of Clapper still have jobs and we have the domestic spying that we do.
Yes, I had already heard about this and was surprised it wasn’t on FDL. What Obamacare promises that haven’t already been shown to be lies, will be shown to be lies. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and Obama and the Democrats used that in spades.
Gruber despises the public so much he made an Obamacare comic book – and it’s a comic book that isn’t intended to mock Obamacare. In Gruber’s cynical comic book it even peddles the lie of the year – that if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.
“then I will take seriously their criticism of Gruber who is basically explaining the fact voters have bought into Reagan’s free lunch promises”
You mean Obama and the Democrats promises. Gruber wasn’t talking about Reagan’s promises, but Obama and the Democrats promises.
spanishinquisition commented on the blog post Uber Discloses Interest in Destroying Critics in Media
This shouldn’t be surprising as Emil Michael used to be an Obama White House Fellow. This just shows what Obama wants his business exec protégés to learn, so that they’ll follow the Obama Model in business.
“In that capacity, Gruber provided the White House and sometimes its congressional allies with data—predictably similar to what CBO official projections would ultimately show—that they could use to devise policies or to defend their positions in public.”
What Cohn fails to disclose is that the results were predictably similar because at the same time he was working for the White House Office of Health Care, he was also working for the CBO itself, which seems like a completely unethical conflict-of-interest if not an outright illegal conflict-of-interest. Did Cohn leave this out because his ‘high esteem’ friend failed to disclose this?
“On only one occasion, to my knowledge, did Gruber meet directly with President Obama in an advisory role. In that instance, he was part of a delegation of outside economists urging Obama to adopt reforms that would help restrain the cost of care.”
So is it on Cohn’s contention that Gruber wasn’t on the White House payroll at the time or that it’s legal/ethical to simultaneously work for the White House while lobbying the White House? If he wasn’t there as part of the White House, was he there as part of the CBO or who was he supposedly representing when he was lobbying the White House?
“The debate of what’s a tax and what isn’t a tax is largely a semantic one”
No, it isn’t as Obama campaigned against McCain when he proposed such a tax. Why is Cohn trying so hard to lie for Gruber? Very minimal diligence would tell you this was a big deal precisely because Obama himself made those taxes a reason to not vote for McCain, but to instead vote for Obama because he wouldn’t do that.
“The accusation that Obama and allies deliberately gamed the budget process to hide its cost is more frustrating and more clearly wrong.”
So was Gruber working for the CBO the same time he was working for the WH or not? If he was concurrently working for both, that’s quite obviously gaming the system.
“If Obama really wanted to convince the CBO that reform would pay for itself and contribute to lower spending, director Doug Elmendorf had made clear, the Democrats had to swallow tougher medicine—starting with the Cadillac tax”
Which of course Elmendorf got from Gruber. Pointing to the CBO is no excuse whatsoever when you’ve got Gruber there with the CBO using virtually his own model, just they call it something else…and that is why Gruber is able to quickly estimate CBO results because he built the CBO scoring.
spanishinquisition commented on the blog post The Ignorance of Ron Fournier and the Genius of Mitch McConnell
As was covered on FDL at the time, it wasn’t that Obama was adding ‘conservative’ ideas, but instead he cut secret corporate deals and then looked for Republicans as cover so that they’d be the scapegoats. Obama never had any intention of doing any deals of actual consequence with the Republicans because those deals were already made with the corporate lobbyists. As was covered on FDL these secret corporate deals not only precluded any deal-making with Republicans, but it even sunk deals with fellow Democrats. The corrupt corporate deals Obama did is what sunk the Dorgan Amendment against one the fellow Democrats who had the nerve to not play along with this corruption. There’s any number of problems with Republicans, but there not agree to Obama’s already pre-arranged deal in order to be his scapegoat isn’t one of them as Obamacare and the slime that went into is 100% on the Democrats.
Look at how much from the Progressive Party platform of 1912 became law:
“Obama as a (then) very popular Democratic president and leader of the party could have exercised his influence”
He did exercise his influence by lending him Gruber in order to nationalize Romneycare.
“It seesm to me that the only way you ever get a meaningful Left (e.g. European social democracy left) in this country would be through a major economic catastrophe on the level of 1929,or worse, where all of the previaling myths of so-called ‘American Exceptionalism’ are laid to waste.
This would also entail a seismic hit to the world economy.”
I’m expecting it, though I can’t say when ‘the big one’ is going to hit. Following world news and world economies it seems like there’s a slow motion worldwide political and economic crash happening. Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if Republicans intentionally threw the 2016 Presidential election because they can see it coming, so they’ll let Sméagol get the Precious right before falling into the fires of Mount Doom.
“The issue that gets lost in the shuffle is that state houses and legislatures are vastly devoid of Democratic presence.”
Thank Obama for firing Howard Dean, who had expressly worked to address that.
“why should Democrats simply take for granted that they will win elections once the demography shifts?”
So that it gives them a rationalization for being corporate sell-outs where it doesn’t matter who they sell out since they think they’ll get their vote anyway. The Democratic Party is the Black Knight…it’s invincible!
“Repeal lets insurers or state regulators set that ratio.”
Yes, so you can select a policy with a medical loss ratio you like. That’s hardly a reason to be sending billions of dollars to these companies with an individual mandate and covering their losses on top of that. What has to be done is getting politicians off the insurance lobbyist crack and perpetuating Obamacare is providing Charlie Sheen amounts of crack.
Growing up in California for instance I as a kid had a ‘pre-existing condition’ and the state had a program that covered me before Obamacare had ever been dreamed up and my pre-existing condition was covered without mandating everyone in California to buy health insurance. There’s various ways of covering things without doing Obamacare as it’s a false choice (as perpetuated by Obama and the Democrats) between Obamacare and nothing. There’s multiple ways of doing things and not by a long shot is Obamacare’s the best way. I have first-hand experience on how much of a lie there’s a necessity to have the individual mandate, though it’s great corporate profits.
And Gruber is working on that, so whatever comes out of Vermont will probably be some con meant to deceive people. Gruber is the last person I’d trust in helping to create single-payer, yet he’s getting paid a fortune to do just that.
“Exactly how does returning the individual health insurance policy part of the system (that’s the only thing that Obamacare touches) to total for-profit healthcare at rates of $2000 a month (which was why people were uninsured) move us to single-payer health care?”
The New York Times indirectly explains why in this article:
Obamacare makes things worse as to use the NYT word the insurance lobbyists and the politicians become more ‘intertwined.’ Obamacare is kryptonite to single-payer precisely because it subsidizes financially as well as creating political dependency on the insurance companies. The NYT calls the relationship ‘mutually beneficial.’ At least how things were our own tax dollars weren’t being used to perpetuate the system and the political dependency wasn’t so great. It’s not that the system worked before, but it’s not like now where two crack dealers are hooked on one another, which is hardly where one of them is going to go cold turkey off crack.
To paraphrase Obama recently: “I did not have policy relations with that economist, Mr Gruber.”
To paraphrase Gruber: “I plotted with Obama to scam the public and then I drew a comic about it because people are so stupid.”
I think the Gruber issue quite huge and much as the attempt is being made to say this is business as usual, I really don’t. From what I’m gathering now this also seems to implicate Elmendorf at the CBO too. It is extreme sketchy that Gruber was simultaneously working for the White House Office Of Health Care, the Senate Budget Committee (on loan from the WH) and the CBO (he was a CBO Academic Advisor). Working simultaneously for the Executive Branch (and indirectly for Congress) and the CBO seems like a huge conflict of interest. Per Gruber, he, Obma, Elmendorf and others all met at the WH to discuss these things – did Elmendorf think Gruber was also there for the CBO? Did Elmendorf know Gruber was paid by the WH despite working for the CBO? Also while this was going on Gruber himself was acting to the media like he was just some bystander MIT economist. I don’t know which is worse with him acting like an objective bystander in the media or the CBO having someone paid by the Executive Branch (and/or Congress) advising them as I have no faith in anything the CBO says about Obamacare given the shading dealings on that have been revealed.
- Load More