Gruber: Biggest Ass in America?

[ogibillm]

Thanks, but I was wondering why they have a hearing about it. What is the desired, or productive, outcome of it all?

Their is an obamacare case at the Supreme Court right now.....his confessing to what they did might make some changes in how they rule next time...considering they committed fraud in front of the Court...

The SCOTUS won't consider that.

They're deciding if federal exchanges can provide ACA plans with subsidies in states that do not have thier own exchanges.

Calling Americans idiots, which I agree is true, has nothing to do with that

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

so then why is he getting grilled on whether or not he thinks people are stupid?

 

[daws101]

He's the poster boy of what the Democrat party has become

Hopefully for more people this will be their WAKE UP

ironic, the brain dead telling other to wake up!

 

[ogibillm]

saying what? Americans are stupid that's a statement of fact no lie there.

Do you understand what a fact is?

Yes.

Fact: Right-Wing Benghazi Fever was fake.
Fact: IRS 'scandal' was fake.
Fact: Fast & Furious was Bush program.
Fact: Eboloa has not become an epidemic in America (thank you President Obama (praise be unto Him!) )
Fact: ISIL is not a threat to America.

The IRS scandal is a scandal.
Employees were told to do things outside of regulations. Someone should be spending a long time in a little box.

were they?

I doubt they did it on their own. Regardless, it's human behavior that has gone, thus far, unpunished.

no, i mean even their criteria for giving certain groups extra scrutiny that was changed - was it against the rules?

 

[toxicmedia]

I think you need to go here and check how many points you used/abused in your reply.
Honest and Dishonest Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Rabbi=Complete Tool

Tu Quoque fallacy.
You lose.

Wow...you're taking it from all sides

And beating all of them without really trying too hard.
Are you ready to substantiate your statement or have you punted on that?

Okay, you have me there...I have no desire to prove every piece of legislation created in Washington over the last 230 years included politicans lieing.

You cant even be honest when giving up. LOL!

What the world?......

 

[daws101]

The Federal govt paid him a substantial amount of money. So there is a reason there.
It also shows how the Dems schemed to get this crap passed. Gruber isnt sorry he said that shit. He's only sorry he got caught saying it.

Thanks, but I was wondering why they have a hearing about it. What is the desired, or productive, outcome of it all?

Well, millions of dollars were spent on the two year circus of the Benghazi Hearings, which led to nothing. Therefore, the Congressional Republicans have a lot of spare time on their hands, so they thought "let's go after Obamacare again" and have another dog & pony show. So what if it costs taxpayers, it's great showmanship for political posturing!"
I for one can't wait until the GOP introduces their health care plan. Let's see, it will be healthcare savings account oriented (which particularly benefits the wealthy) and then they'll pass tort reform where the health care industry isn't liable for anything.
Not that I don't want Obamacare to die, I do. I'd rather see either Public Option or letting those who can't afford health care insurance go straight to Medicare. But then Medicare won't be the same either as the GOP will want to privatize Medicare and then offer a subsidy based on the CPI even though health care insurance annually rises by 3-4 times the rate of inflation. That'll really help the seniors who are on fixed incomes (not!), which makes up the majority of seniors, but what the ****, they can always go out and get a job at McDonalds or Walmart and make up the difference.

Thanks, but I was wondering why they have a hearing about it. What is the desired, or productive, outcome of it all?

Well, millions of dollars were spent on the two year circus of the Benghazi Hearings, which led to nothing. Therefore, the Congressional Republicans have a lot of spare time on their hands, so they thought "let's go after Obamacare again" and have another dog & pony show. So what if it costs taxpayers, it's great showmanship for political posturing!"
I for one can't wait until the GOP introduces their health care plan. Let's see, it will be healthcare savings account oriented (which particularly benefits the wealthy) and then they'll pass tort reform where the health care industry isn't liable for anything.
Not that I don't want Obamacare to die, I do. I'd rather see either Public Option or letting those who can't afford health care insurance go straight to Medicare. But then Medicare won't be the same either as the GOP will want to privatize Medicare and then offer a subsidy based on the CPI even though health care insurance annually rises by 3-4 times the rate of inflation. That'll really help the seniors who are on fixed incomes (not!), which makes up the majority of seniors, but what the ****, they can always go out and get a job at McDonalds or Walmart and make up the difference.

What a fucktard you are.
YOu start with an irrelevance. There were and are many questions about Benghazi. Just like about Fast N Furious and the IRS, Bowe Bergdahl and other matters. The Obama Administration's strategy seems to be roll out one scandal after another until people just get tired of them.
Then you engage in more crap. The GOP has put out several health care plans, all of them better than the crap they voted for.
Then you get another irrelevance about what you want. Why you think the people who fucked up passing a bill and implementing it will do better next time is beyond me.

I think you need to go here and check how many points you used/abused in your reply.
Honest and Dishonest Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Rabbi=Complete Tool

Tu Quoque fallacy.
You lose.

Wow...you're taking it from all sides

lets hope he lubed up!

 

[toxicmedia]

Well, millions of dollars were spent on the two year circus of the Benghazi Hearings, which led to nothing.

The select committee is actually investigating Bhengazi....Trey Gowdy....and they will actually talk to the people on the ground during the attack...besides....we know obama lied, hilary lied...and they did so for weeks.....and no one cares....that is the problem....

If Bush had been in charge during Bhengazi....24/7 coverage....

I keep hearing that from people.

I have seen that email from that one guy to Susan Rice...but I haven't seen anything that shows Hillary or Obama saw that email.

Sump'n I haven't seen out there yet?

Take it from someone who knows.

Bureaucrats do NOT do anything that sensitive and politically explosive WITHOUT clearing it up the chain.

Obama must be a very busy man if anything thats sensitive and politically explosive has to be cleared through him

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Their is an obamacare case at the Supreme Court right now.....his confessing to what they did might make some changes in how they rule next time...considering they committed fraud in front of the Court...

The SCOTUS won't consider that.

They're deciding if federal exchanges can provide ACA plans with subsidies in states that do not have thier own exchanges.

Calling Americans idiots, which I agree is true, has nothing to do with that

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

The SCOTUS doesn't care about that.

They'll examine the law, and decide if subsidies from the federal government can be offered in states through the federal exchange.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they lied to get the law passed.

No, actually they do care about that.

The SC is not there to create law. That is the purpose of Congress.

They are there to INTERPRET the laws currently on the books and if the administration of those laws is within the intent of the legislation.

And it is not that lies were told to get the legislation passed. In the case of the subsidies, lies were not told. The language in the law is pretty damn clear.

What the problem is that, when faced with the fact that the carrot was not enough to entice states to join, the Administration decided that the term "state" meant "state or Federal government."

Gruber has said that the original intent was "state" as State. Not Feds.

So, yes, they will be interested.

 

[daws101]

Well, millions of dollars were spent on the two year circus of the Benghazi Hearings, which led to nothing.

The select committee is actually investigating Bhengazi....Trey Gowdy....and they will actually talk to the people on the ground during the attack...besides....we know obama lied, hilary lied...and they did so for weeks.....and no one cares....that is the problem....

If Bush had been in charge during Bhengazi....24/7 coverage....

I keep hearing that from people.

I have seen that email from that one guy to Susan Rice...but I haven't seen anything that shows Hillary or Obama saw that email.

Sump'n I haven't seen out there yet?

Take it from someone who knows.

Bureaucrats do NOT do anything that sensitive and politically explosive WITHOUT clearing it up the chain.

speaking from no experience are we?

 

[toxicmedia]

The SCOTUS won't consider that.

They're deciding if federal exchanges can provide ACA plans with subsidies in states that do not have thier own exchanges.

Calling Americans idiots, which I agree is true, has nothing to do with that

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

The SCOTUS doesn't care about that.

They'll examine the law, and decide if subsidies from the federal government can be offered in states through the federal exchange.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they lied to get the law passed.

No, actually they do care about that.

The SC is not there to create law. That is the purpose of Congress.

They are there to INTERPRET the laws currently on the books and if the administration of those laws is within the intent of the legislation.

And it is not that lies were told to get the legislation passed. In the case of the subsidies, lies were not told. The language in the law is pretty damn clear.

What the problem is that, when faced with the fact that the carrot was not enough to entice states to join, the Administration decided that the term "state" meant "state or Federal government."

Gruber has said that the original intent was "state" as State. Not Feds.

So, yes, they will be interested.

You may be right....ummm...I guess.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Well, millions of dollars were spent on the two year circus of the Benghazi Hearings, which led to nothing.

The select committee is actually investigating Bhengazi....Trey Gowdy....and they will actually talk to the people on the ground during the attack...besides....we know obama lied, hilary lied...and they did so for weeks.....and no one cares....that is the problem....

If Bush had been in charge during Bhengazi....24/7 coverage....

I keep hearing that from people.

I have seen that email from that one guy to Susan Rice...but I haven't seen anything that shows Hillary or Obama saw that email.

Sump'n I haven't seen out there yet?

Take it from someone who knows.

Bureaucrats do NOT do anything that sensitive and politically explosive WITHOUT clearing it up the chain.

Obama must be a very busy man if anything thats sensitive and politically explosive has to be cleared through him

That's why they have Cabinet Secretaries (Hillary was mentioned in the post) and Chiefs of Staff and Counselors to the President (Valerie Jarrett) to clear various things.

It went up the chain. Some senior but not too senior people didn't decide all on their own what to say.

They cleared it.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Well, millions of dollars were spent on the two year circus of the Benghazi Hearings, which led to nothing.

The select committee is actually investigating Bhengazi....Trey Gowdy....and they will actually talk to the people on the ground during the attack...besides....we know obama lied, hilary lied...and they did so for weeks.....and no one cares....that is the problem....

If Bush had been in charge during Bhengazi....24/7 coverage....

I keep hearing that from people.

I have seen that email from that one guy to Susan Rice...but I haven't seen anything that shows Hillary or Obama saw that email.

Sump'n I haven't seen out there yet?

Take it from someone who knows.

Bureaucrats do NOT do anything that sensitive and politically explosive WITHOUT clearing it up the chain.

speaking from no experience are we?

LOL.

Retired Federal employee at the GS-15 level. 38 years of service.

Husband also retired GS-15. 40 years of service.

 

[toxicmedia]

Well, millions of dollars were spent on the two year circus of the Benghazi Hearings, which led to nothing.

The select committee is actually investigating Bhengazi....Trey Gowdy....and they will actually talk to the people on the ground during the attack...besides....we know obama lied, hilary lied...and they did so for weeks.....and no one cares....that is the problem....

If Bush had been in charge during Bhengazi....24/7 coverage....

I keep hearing that from people.

I have seen that email from that one guy to Susan Rice...but I haven't seen anything that shows Hillary or Obama saw that email.

Sump'n I haven't seen out there yet?

Take it from someone who knows.

Bureaucrats do NOT do anything that sensitive and politically explosive WITHOUT clearing it up the chain.

Obama must be a very busy man if anything thats sensitive and politically explosive has to be cleared through him

That's why they have Cabinet Secretaries (Hillary was mentioned in the post) and Chiefs of Staff and Counselors to the President (Valerie Jarrett) to clear various things.

It went up the chain. Some senior but not too senior people didn't decide all on their own what to say.

They cleared it.

Has anyone proved that? or have Hillary or Obama, or anyone in that chain of command, admitted that?

 

[ogibillm]

The SCOTUS won't consider that.

They're deciding if federal exchanges can provide ACA plans with subsidies in states that do not have thier own exchanges.

Calling Americans idiots, which I agree is true, has nothing to do with that

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

The SCOTUS doesn't care about that.

They'll examine the law, and decide if subsidies from the federal government can be offered in states through the federal exchange.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they lied to get the law passed.

No, actually they do care about that.

The SC is not there to create law. That is the purpose of Congress.

They are there to INTERPRET the laws currently on the books and if the administration of those laws is within the intent of the legislation.

And it is not that lies were told to get the legislation passed. In the case of the subsidies, lies were not told. The language in the law is pretty damn clear.

What the problem is that, when faced with the fact that the carrot was not enough to entice states to join, the Administration decided that the term "state" meant "state or Federal government."

Gruber has said that the original intent was "state" as State. Not Feds.

So, yes, they will be interested.

he didn't vote on the bill. it's not his name on it, either.

 

[Borillar]

I opened this, thinking I'd see some pics of Rosie O'Donnell in a thong.

Punked.

I was thinking Kim Kardassian.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

Their is an obamacare case at the Supreme Court right now.....his confessing to what they did might make some changes in how they rule next time...considering they committed fraud in front of the Court...

The SCOTUS won't consider that.

They're deciding if federal exchanges can provide ACA plans with subsidies in states that do not have thier own exchanges.

Calling Americans idiots, which I agree is true, has nothing to do with that

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

so then why is he getting grilled on whether or not he thinks people are stupid?

The Congress is not the Supreme Court.

Their concern is the other party's reliance on consultants who obviously don't respect the American people.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

The SCOTUS doesn't care about that.

They'll examine the law, and decide if subsidies from the federal government can be offered in states through the federal exchange.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they lied to get the law passed.

No, actually they do care about that.

The SC is not there to create law. That is the purpose of Congress.

They are there to INTERPRET the laws currently on the books and if the administration of those laws is within the intent of the legislation.

And it is not that lies were told to get the legislation passed. In the case of the subsidies, lies were not told. The language in the law is pretty damn clear.

What the problem is that, when faced with the fact that the carrot was not enough to entice states to join, the Administration decided that the term "state" meant "state or Federal government."

Gruber has said that the original intent was "state" as State. Not Feds.

So, yes, they will be interested.

he didn't vote on the bill. it's not his name on it, either.

He was paid by the Federal government to consult on the drafting and implementation of the legislation.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

The select committee is actually investigating Bhengazi....Trey Gowdy....and they will actually talk to the people on the ground during the attack...besides....we know obama lied, hilary lied...and they did so for weeks.....and no one cares....that is the problem....

If Bush had been in charge during Bhengazi....24/7 coverage....

I keep hearing that from people.

I have seen that email from that one guy to Susan Rice...but I haven't seen anything that shows Hillary or Obama saw that email.

Sump'n I haven't seen out there yet?

Take it from someone who knows.

Bureaucrats do NOT do anything that sensitive and politically explosive WITHOUT clearing it up the chain.

Obama must be a very busy man if anything thats sensitive and politically explosive has to be cleared through him

That's why they have Cabinet Secretaries (Hillary was mentioned in the post) and Chiefs of Staff and Counselors to the President (Valerie Jarrett) to clear various things.

It went up the chain. Some senior but not too senior people didn't decide all on their own what to say.

They cleared it.

Has anyone proved that? or have Hillary or Obama, or anyone in that chain of command, admitted that?

Are you crazy?

You really don't understand bureaucracy. Really not.

 

[toxicmedia]

The SCOTUS won't consider that.

They're deciding if federal exchanges can provide ACA plans with subsidies in states that do not have thier own exchanges.

Calling Americans idiots, which I agree is true, has nothing to do with that

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

so then why is he getting grilled on whether or not he thinks people are stupid?

The Congress is not the Supreme Court.

Their concern is the other party's reliance on consultants who obviously don't respect the American people.

Politicians in Washington respecting the American people?

Does that really happen?

 

[boedicca]

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

The SCOTUS doesn't care about that.

They'll examine the law, and decide if subsidies from the federal government can be offered in states through the federal exchange.

That has nothing to do with whether or not they lied to get the law passed.

No, actually they do care about that.

The SC is not there to create law. That is the purpose of Congress.

They are there to INTERPRET the laws currently on the books and if the administration of those laws is within the intent of the legislation.

And it is not that lies were told to get the legislation passed. In the case of the subsidies, lies were not told. The language in the law is pretty damn clear.

What the problem is that, when faced with the fact that the carrot was not enough to entice states to join, the Administration decided that the term "state" meant "state or Federal government."

Gruber has said that the original intent was "state" as State. Not Feds.

So, yes, they will be interested.

he didn't vote on the bill. it's not his name on it, either.

He was paid by the Federal government to consult on the drafting and implementation of the legislation.

And then he capitalized on that effort by selling his services to states to help them game the system the way he did in MA.

Funny how he now can't even remember what he was paid. As if.

 

[AmericanGirl05]

The tape where Gruber admits that the subsidies were meant as a carrot might be evidence in legislative history they will consider.

Ya think?....I guess it might have to be considered, or at least they will decide to consider it, if the lawyers offer it.

If it's compelling, the GOP lawyer might do t, but if it isn't, they won't risk it.

The guy was a paid consultant or contractor on the development of the legislation. Seems to me that the issue is the intent behind the words of the law, which presumably one of the key architects would know.

so then why is he getting grilled on whether or not he thinks people are stupid?

The Congress is not the Supreme Court.

Their concern is the other party's reliance on consultants who obviously don't respect the American people.

Politicians in Washington respecting the American people?

Does that really happen?

Apparently not Democrats.