How stupid are you?

If you want to know what the Obama folks think of you, follow this link. Lots of our liberal establishment thinks like this, but it is rarely phrased so clearly or publicly.

Let's put joking aside for a minute. There is a legitimate split between conservatives and progressives on the issue of experts. Progressives tend to believe in credentialed expertise. Conservatives tend to believe more in the value of experience. This shows in how we approach problems. Progressive get together to talk about it and make some kind of comprehensive plan. Conservative get to work trying to figure it out.

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Conservatives can sometimes take the wrong path, although they are protected by the iterative nature of their decisions, i.e. they can correct when they go wrong because they do it in smaller chunks. Conservatives do not believe in global solutions. Progressive decisions are better in theory, but they tend never to get going or are stuck in second gear complaining that things would work if only all those conservative idiot would do the real work.

Posted by Christine & John at November 13, 2014 8:52 AM
Comments
Comment #385355


C&J I just asked Weary this but now I’ll ask you-

Weary, here are the comments Gruber made can you show me where he or anyone said the dems thought the American people are stupid.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/gruber.asp
Posted by: j2t2 at November 12, 2014 8:08 PM

Posted by: j2t2 at November 13, 2014 9:23 AM
Comment #385356

Caught a FOX pundit last night pumping this story, and bemoaning the fact that no one outside FOX and the conservative echo chamber cares. Why is it no one considers this a legitimate story?

1. No one has ever heard of this guy.

2. Dozens, if not hundreds, of people put together the thousands of pages of the PPACA, based upon the original Romneycare (which this guy also worked on).

3. The PPACA works. Virtually everything the conservatives have said about it turned out not to be true.

Posted by: phx8 at November 13, 2014 9:41 AM
Comment #385357

Gruber did not work for the white house and did not have anything to do with the law passing. He was actually more responsible for Romneycare then he was for the PPACA. He is making comments that cannot be attributed to either the white house (which has denied his allegations) or any legislators. This is just another Republican ploy to point a finger and say “look we told you this” but in a not very articulate manner. But it is a ploy.

Check this article from a conservative news source regarding the faux outrage:

The”>http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120251/jonathan-gruber-obamacare-comments-get-aca-history-wrong>The Obamacare Debate Was One of the Most Transparent in Recent Memory

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2014 9:46 AM
Comment #385358

Sorry, didn’t get the link right. Let’s try this one:

The Obamacare Debate Was One of the Most Transparent in Recent Memory

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2014 9:49 AM
Comment #385360

For those not interested in reading the complete article, this excerpted paragraph from the article cuts to the meat of this faux outrage being generated for unscrupulous reasons:

“In contrast, nearly everyone who’s attacking Gruber as if he were a White House political employee or a Democratic senator is simultaneously trying to require the Congressional Budget Office to say that tax cuts pay for themselves. The people who brought you the phony arithmetic of the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D and the self-financing Iraq war are upset about the ACA, which is genuinely fiscally sound.”

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2014 11:27 AM
Comment #385361

Reminds me of a pair of lessons my Dad taught be when I was young:

Firstly:
Most people we encounter are stupid. People do dumb things like crowding the toilets at the end of flights instead of taking care of business sooner. People waste lots of time and money on things that don’t really matter like keeping up with the latest fashions. Because most people are stupid, one shouldn’t follow the crowd without thinking critically first.

Secondly:
You and I are just as stupid as everyone else. We can pick apart other people’s errors very easily, but the ability to self-criticize effectively is a very difficult skill. We all do stupid things and need to be patient with others when they act stupidly, that way others will be patient when one day I inevitably do or say something stupid.

An additional corollary that I have developed since then is to evaluate my place in society. I’ve accomplished very much at least on the academic side. By the end of the decade, I hope to have finished a PhD in atmospheric and oceanic sciences. Even though I have learned a lot as a student in my discipline, it does not make me an expert in everything and it is important to maintain humility.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 13, 2014 11:57 AM
Comment #385362

Well said Warren. The successful person knows his own limitations. Good luck in obtaining your advanced degree.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 13, 2014 12:11 PM
Comment #385373

Re who is Gruber

This is the guy.

“The academic joined the Obama transition team in 2008, with the New York Times referring to him as “Mr. Mandate.” Gruber was reportedly the central figure in convincing the president that a viable health care reform plan would have to include an individual mandate to buy insurance, eventually helping to shepherd the law from its theoretical early stages to its enactment.”

Here is Nancy Pelosi referring to Gruber. She seemed to know him well, at least to the extent that Nancy can understand anything.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2014 4:39 PM
Comment #385375

Warren

As I have said on several occasions, you are too smart to stay a liberal.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2014 4:42 PM
Comment #385379

Re who is Gruber

This is the guy from the same news source but a different take on him

Yes Warren is smart enough to be liberal and yet humble enough not try to make someone feel less than what they are because of their political beliefs. Unlike yourself.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 13, 2014 5:18 PM
Comment #385380

Way to go Warren.

Posted by: George in SC at November 13, 2014 6:40 PM
Comment #385381

One thing you can always count on; a liberal will always tell everything. It is because liberals are arrogant and when they lie or deceive, they must brag about what they did.

It’s interesting that this post has brought all the lefties out in outrage. Gruber, Gruber…who is Gruber??? Pelosi is so arrogant as to believe there is no video of her praising Gruber in 2009, but now she has no idea who he is.

I will say this again, Manchin of WV will bail on the Democratic Party and there may be others. Reid is a vengeful and evil man; just how will it be for Manchin and the other three Democrat Senators who voted against Reid. When the Republicans conduct hearings on Obamacare next year and Gruber is called to testify, how will it go? It will be interesting.

The main stream media has treated the Gruber incident as a virus. The WH is running as fast as they can from Gruber, and the liberals on Watchblog are repeating the liberal talking points.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 13, 2014 6:52 PM
Comment #385390

Speaks

Warren knows my humor and my respect for his intellect.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2014 7:47 PM
Comment #385391

Sam

I take Pelosi at her word. I am sure that as far as she knows she knows nothing about Gruber. That would be on par with her general level of knowledge on most things she talks about.

Posted by: C&J at November 13, 2014 7:50 PM
Comment #385395

You guys should really be thanking my Dad. I’ve never met a smarter man in my life.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 13, 2014 8:59 PM
Comment #385400

Wow. First, let’s remember why the insurance mandate, and not some more up-front measure is in there: to please conservatives.

Second, let’s remember how this program first shows up, how Gruber himself first shows up: as an architect to a Republican’s plan, on conservatives were just fine with, up until the point that a Democratic President took it up.

Third, can I point out something? If we’re talking stupid voters here, how about the Republican voters here who aren’t registering either that this is a Conservative, market-based solution to begin with (That is, you require that everybody enters the market, and having all the people in the market paying rather than being free riders), or that it is in the nature of the PRIVATE good we’re talking about that healthy people pay in more money than they get out in services.

Which brings me to my fourth point: why healthcare reform of any kind was necessary: put simply, because insurance companies were basically trying to concentrate the people who were paying in, while kicking out and denying services to those who would need payment for their treatments, prescriptions, and other costs.

Given the way that hospitals and other healthcare companies have taken the naturally obligatory nature of healthcare (that is, you can die, or suffer tremendous loss of quality of life and productivity if you don’t get it.) in order to gouge people on costs, there isn’t right now a private alternative to this dynamic.

Of course, the public alternative, the public options, or the extension of single payer Medicare service to all would have similar problems. Any sane, humane system would have similar problems. The healthy are always going to have to pay for the sick, so long as healthcare is so expensive, and the system is largely private, without controls on the kinds of obscene costs charged.

You can call it Obamacare, but what it really is, is the Republicans last hope for a system based largely on premium-funded, privately insured healthcare to work. And you know what? They’re going to throw away even the possibility of having this work, of avoiding the public turning to more entitlement-oriented funding, in order to win a brief eight year political fight with Barack Obama.

Even if Republicans win this fight, they lose. They lose because their primary, practically worked out solution goes down in flames, and they lose because if they repeal Obamacare, then people find out just how much they had to lose by losing all the protections and the healthcare funds written into it. The insurance companies will surely take a hit, now that people are no longer required to buy their product, and when the abuses start up again, you know whose fault that’s going to be? Yours. We’ll say, you know, we had a system set up that prevented this sort of thing, and Republicans destroyed it.

You guys are great at tearing things down, at making government unpopular in general principle. You are absolute crap at running things, though, when you get active control. Why? Because you guys tend to charge everything with political fanaticism that even precludes you having a clear, transparent position with consistent principles over time. This guy helped your last PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, Mr. 47%, set up the healthcare system in Massachusetts, which carries his name.

So, I’m thinking that the reality is, you won’t have a decent replacement for Obamacare if you repeal it, and if you do find one, let me make a prediction: it will have to be so much like Obamacare in many ways, that it will be difficult to actually distinguish it. However, Republicans will do what they always do, and they will rationalize the hell out of their inconsistent, dishonest position, their lack of transparency with their voters with the help of their propaganda arm.

Republicans are like the Soviet Communist Party right now. They are spectacularly rigid in how they take positions, and when they find themselves in need of a shift, they can’t be too transparent about it because they’ve set things up, Animal Farm style, with these Four Legs good, Two Legs Bad sort of rigid ideological rules, which they’ve staked their prestige on. So, they have to jump through rhetorical hoops, and eventually engage in complete revisionism in order to take the natural adaptations that life demands of them.

The Republican Party these days can’t even acknowledge its own humanity, it’s own capability about making mistakes, or taking the wrong positions, or having members that aren’t perfect human beings, because the moment they do, they feel, Democrats and Liberals (or if they’re paranoid enough to hallucinate them, socialists and communists) will take advantage and civilization will fall.

Trouble is, ultimately, Republicans will be forced with any situation that calls for a quick and decisive response to make that response with one, or even both hands tied behind their back. This gets even worse as the inevitable mutations of what is and is not politically correct within the party changes in response to what Democrats and Liberals like Obama and myself do.

America needs choices, needs more than just propaganda and people who are fanatically convinced that theirs is the only way, and that their party’s domination is the only thing that can save the country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2014 8:08 AM
Comment #385402

http://www.fashionfast.net/
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
http://www.fashionfast.net/
Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel Women sandal is $30
DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $35
Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
Jeans price is $34
Jewelry $15
Door to Door services!

Posted by: gfsrter at November 14, 2014 8:34 AM
Comment #385403

Stephen

“America needs choices, needs more than just propaganda and people who are fanatically convinced that theirs is the only way, and that their party’s domination is the only thing that can save the country.”

You said it. I agree with this. Now I ask you to apply it in a non-partisan analysis. The American people elected Barack Obama as president and they elected Republicans to control congress. Perhaps the goal is to create a greater variety of choices than was available when one party controlled too much.

Posted by: C&J at November 14, 2014 8:35 AM
Comment #385406

The healthcare system in MA was a state run system, that was supported by Fed Tax dollars. Gruber said the same system would not work nationally unless it was supported by taxes. Obama’s people know this, even when they were arguing before the SCOTUS that it was not a tax. It was Roberts who basically rewrote the law for the Democrats and called it a tax. A tax meant it was nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. This thing is dragging down the country and it’s not even been implemented yet. Every single thing that Daugherty brings up, that is a problem with our HC system, could have been dealt with, without disrupting the who HC system. But it’s not about fixing problems, it’s about redistribution of wealth. The rich are not effected and the poor are not effected, it is the middle class who will pay the price. Thus Obama’s and the left’s goal is accomplished, to do away with the middle class.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 14, 2014 9:20 AM
Comment #385410

Warren, your father seems not only smart but very adept in counseling you to exceed. I’d say good luck with your advanced degree but you don’t seem to be the type of person that counts on luck to advance.

Sam Jones, you’ll need to come up with some examples (please not daily caller, breitbart, limbaugh, hannity, levin, coulter, malkin, etc. etc. examples though) theirs are specious to say the least. I mean real stuff that can substantiate your claims that the PPACA is “dragging down the country” or “redistributing wealth”. I would like you to keep in mind that you are not the first person to come to this blog and denigrate liberals immediately, even though none of these liberals have done that to you in return. So let me be the first, always the victim with you conservative types. Conservatives never seem to understand much but just want to postulate the latest right wing memes, over and over and over again. It would be nice to see one of you come here with a different attitude but so far none have been able to exhibit that. Welcome to WB.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 14, 2014 10:30 AM
Comment #385412
Gruber said the same system would not work nationally unless it was supported by taxes. Obama’s people know this, even when they were arguing before the SCOTUS that it was not a tax. It was Roberts who basically rewrote the law for the Democrats and called it a tax. A tax meant it was nothing more than a redistribution of wealth.

Wrong on several merits:

Firstly, although the individual mandate is a tax, it does not “support” the system in the traditional sense where a tax is levied to raise revenue that is then spent to administer a program. Rather than that, the mandate only exists to disincentivize free riders who may try to game the system by exploiting the protection against discrimination based upon one’s preexisting conditions. The revenue collected from violators of the individual mandate is trivial and is unnecessary to support the law.

Secondly, Congress & Obama have always justified the individual mandate under Congress’ taxation power granted by the Constitution. Feel free to read that long and storied history in the Congressional Record.

Solicitor General Verilli even stated the following during oral arguments

But if there is any doubt about that under the Commerce Clause, then I urge this Court to uphold the minimum coverage provision as an exercise of the taxing power.

That doesn’t sound like “even when they were arguing before the SCOTUS that it was not a tax”.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 11:19 AM
Comment #385413

C&J-
First, let’s nuance things a little. This past election featured only a third of eligible voters, one of the lowest turnout elections in some time. The tendency in recent times has been for Democrats to win more when more voters participate, and Republicans to win more when fewer do so.

I think Republicans have succeeded in making elections where the parties aren’t represented by one big figure that people can focus on ones that people stay home from. I think they’ve also succeeded in making the tone of modern politics excessively toxic.

Here’s the thing: when Democrats had the chance to push a healthcare law, they had a number of options. If they had taken things as partisan as the Republicans did, they could have dumped the filibuster in the trash, and push policies that were more left-wing and dared the Republicans to filibuster them.

We didn’t. Democrats were more willing to work with Republican and include their ideas.

Republicans, on the other hand, were so committed to winning the next few elections that they made a point of aiming false and inflammatory attacks AT THEIR OWN POLICY IDEAS, falsely alleging that these were examples of a predatory, threatening kind of socialism. Pravda took over the party, so to speak.

Once this starts happening, it becomes very difficult to stop, because stopping means owning up to the degree that psychological, emotional, and factula manipulating have been employed to bolster the Party’s fortunes.

There is one sort of thing that tends to stop this kind of operation: life’s little reality checks. Problem for Republicans and for the country at large as the Republicans take on more power is that each reality check is doing more and more damage as Republicans escalate their rationalization and stray ever further from reality.

I think eventually, people will either realize, or be made to realize through events and the Republican’s choices in response to events, that the GOP is a party that has so hemmed in it’s own ability to make choices, that it’s crippled as a party in terms of governance. Democrats, unfortunately, will be their own choice if they want a functioning government, at least for a time.

I could care a lot less about politics and keeping up with everything if I could trust Republicans to be able to buck their ideology to get things done, like I could trust Democrats to do. Unfortunately, I can’t trust them to do that, and the evidence for why I shouldn’t trust them to do it is shoved in my face every day.

Sam Jones-
1) The system was largely private, insurance companies set up in a market. Same is true for Obamacare. It’s mostly just a requirement that you get insurance, with subsidies for those who are at the edge of affording it and an increase in medicaid for those too poor even for that.

2) The tax you are referring to is largely waived. The Obamacare system is primarily meant to be private-funded private insurance. As for redistributions of wealth? For all the noise you make, the system requires people who are gravely ill or injured to be cared for. Unless and until that is stricken from the law books, There will be a redistirbution. The Conservative’s theory, the theory behind RomneyCare and most other GOP ideas, even their tort reform, is that by reducing the free rider costs, by forcing people to be more responsible for their own care, and using government to make up the difference on the rest, we prevent the costs from being passed on to the consumers.

In other words, the point of Obamacare is to strategically use a rather mild redistribution in order to curtail a much more drastic redistribution that was ongoing at the time it was being passed.

Every single thing that Daugherty brings up, that is a problem with our HC system, could have been dealt with, without disrupting the who HC system.

Bullcrap. Nobody’s ox getting gored? The major Republican alternative, tort reform, means preventing people from getting certain levels of damages over malpractice. The system as it was set up, by the way, was knocking people off of insurance in droves in order to raise the money devoted to paying the executives.

This was never going to be a problem that was going to be solved without hurting somebody. Thing is, though, you’re quite willing to ignore the gross, unjustified redistribution that the healthcare industry was imposing on people, the costs and debts piled on people, especially those without coverage. You only see redistribution and bash it when it’s from Rich to poor, not poor to rich.

Thus Obama’s and the left’s goal is accomplished, to do away with the middle class.

Tell me: who is suppressing wage growth? Who is opposing raises in the minimum wage? Who is opposing unionization whereever it shows up, when the decline in Unions and the decline in wages have lined up?

Who goes around axing attempts to stop rewarding, much less punish those who ship jobs overseas? Who cuts job training and opposes infrastructure projects?

It’s not that most Republicans despise the middle class, or want to see it go away. No, it’s that they listen to people who want permanent and lasting advantages in terms of controlling labor and staffing costs for their own benefit, who don’t particularly care if the people who aren’t at their level suffer. It’s not Bond-Villain malice we have here, but good old fashion, historically precedented greed and blindness to the public good.

Democrats have very little interests in prolonged decline in the Middle Class. We’re interested in a system where people, through intelligence and hard work, can realistically expect some kind of real upwards mobility. What Republicans encourage is more like what lottery’s encourage: an unrealistic belief that if toss yourself at the mercy of a system full of random factors, unaided, that you’ll strike it rich. Luck and Pluck.

America didn’t begin to seriously develop a strong middle class until the modern New Deal Democrats and other progressives came along and gave the system some more law and order as far as finance and business operations went. Only when people can trust that the system won’t be constantly letting somebody knock them down for somebody else’s profit can we have a strong middle class.

Your allegation is just hypocritical propaganda. The Republican policies boil down to doing nothing, at best, to stem that decline, and at worst, actively encouraging that decline as a measure to balance what they perceive as government interference with the proper forces of competition.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 14, 2014 11:31 AM
Comment #385415
your father seems not only smart but very adept in counseling you to exceed.

He’s also a life-long liberal after more than 60 years of life, which makes me skeptical that I’ll ever become a conservative.

I’d say good luck with your advanced degree but you don’t seem to be the type of person that counts on luck to advance.

Au Contraire. Good fortune has always played an important part of my life. Our old pal Conservative Thinker would have described my father as “successful” and I am very lucky to have been raised in such an affluent household.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 11:36 AM
Comment #385417

Daugherty wrote; “Tell me: who is suppressing wage growth? Who is opposing raises in the minimum wage? Who is opposing unionization whereever it shows up, when the decline in Unions and the decline in wages have lined up?”

What an interesting statement. “Wage growth” by government decree? Why not price control by government decree as well? Unions acting as a mini-government determining who works and who doesn’t and for what wage is a socialists dream.

Unions have lost their original purpose now that government regulates nearly everything that happens with labor. They are no longer needed or even wanted by most who labor. Unions have been replaced by political action groups. Who needs a union to get what labor wants when politicians can be purchased and controlled for much less.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 12:04 PM
Comment #385418

Daugherty wrote; “We’re interested in a system where people, through intelligence and hard work, can realistically expect some kind of real upwards mobility.”

That is certainly not the fruits of union participation. Unions don’t reward excellence or hard work. I can provide many illustrations of this.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 12:10 PM
Comment #385420

The single biggest failure of the 19th and 20th centuries was the failure of the labor movement.

“Who needs a union”? Could it be that 12 year old in Southeast Asia working for a pittance a day so that we can get the best products for the cheapest price or maybe the coal miner in China that has to endure sub-human working conditions under duress?

That is the problem with people in this country that are anti-union. The labor movement started as a way to help working people throughout the world. But in typical conservative fashion the anti-union people think that the world is really all about them and no one else (it is always me, me, me).

The torch of the labor movement was passed from Dubois, Gompers, Chavez and the like to the corrupt and decadent Hoffa types. We all got to witness that torch being extinguished and understood why because of the abuses and corruption it entailed. What we didn’t understand is that the labor movement was supposed to help modern society and then promulgate to the less fortunate societies of the world with the help of the established unions that the movement brought about. Who profited from this destruction of the labor movement is the question that just seems so apparent that it is undeniable. At first modern societies did so, such as the USA but then the union busting and corruption began. Now there is very little left of the labor movement to help those workers in impoverished and dictatorial countries and economies. Big business (not Mom and Pops) have realized the greatest profit from the demise of the labor movement. Even in the USA the demise of the movement has eroded the middle class to the point that a lot of people believe that it will soon be gone. The destruction of the labor movement was orchestrated and carried out in the interests of big business and the very wealthy.

My hope would be that working people of the societies that suffer from a lack of representation of their labor will rise up to pick up the mantle of labor and re-instate the idea that it is good to support labor. It may even come about in the USA as more and more of the middle class erodes into the abyss of poverty, who knows? I can only hope.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 14, 2014 12:29 PM
Comment #385421

Are all three columns flagging comments as spam?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 14, 2014 12:32 PM
Comment #385422

I guess not! What’s up with that? Any help with my delema would be appreciated.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 14, 2014 12:34 PM
Comment #385428

KAP,

I’m glad to see that you are trying to format your links. Keep trying and you’ll get the hang of it. Properly formatted links should substitute the link’s URL for “http://domain.com/link” in the HTML Formatting Tips box located above the comments box. “link text” refers to the text that is actually displayed in your comment. Lastly, don’t forget to close your link with the “ tag. That way you won’t transform the entire comment box into a link.

Properly formatted, your links would look like this:

PPACA taxes, <a href=”http://www.forbes.com/sites/investopedia/2014/02/14/new-taxes-under-the-affordable-care-act/”>this site</a> and <a href=”http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/sticker-shock-2014-obamacare-taxes/”>also</a>.

PPACA taxes, this site and also.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 1:02 PM
Comment #385429

Speaks if you are so worried about the 12 year old or the workers in China, Korea I’m sure the governments there would welcome you with open arms. NOT!!!!! Do you really think those countries would welcome unions? As far as unions here in the U.S., They are not needed and their usefulness is outdated. I have worked for both Union and Non Union and by far would rather work in a NON UNION shop. I received the same benefits and pay in the non union shop and in some cases better.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 14, 2014 1:45 PM
Comment #385432

Speaks4all and Stephen Daugherty; perhaps you have not been in the liberal loop; everything the left does is geared toward redistribution of wealth. There is no sense getting in a tit for tat on that subject. But is you want some proof from some place other than a conservative site, here is an article from the NYT in November, 2013. Long before the Gruber videos were discovered; back when the Obama administration thought the sun rose and set on Gruber’s amazing views of national healthcare:

>“Americans want a fair and fixed insurance market,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advised Mr. Obama’s team as it designed the law. “You cannot have that without some redistribution away from a small number of people.”

The article is about Obama who was planning to pick Rebecca M. Blank to lead Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers; but when it turned up that she had talked about redistribution of wealth many times, and although Obama and the Democrats support redistribution of wealth, it is a toxic word and not to be used:

Rebecca M. Blank was a top candidate in 2011 to lead President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, but then the White House turned up something politically dangerous.

“A commitment to economic justice necessarily implies a commitment to the redistribution of economic resources, so that the poor and the dispossessed are more fully included in the economic system,” Ms. Blank, a noted poverty researcher, wrote in 1992. With advisers wary of airing those views in a nomination fight, Mr. Obama passed over Ms. Blank, then a top Commerce Department official and now the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. Instead he chose Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 14, 2014 2:15 PM
Comment #385433

Warren TY

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 14, 2014 2:25 PM
Comment #385438

Back to the original topic. Jonathan Gruber is absolutely correct to talk about the stupidity of the American voter and its relevance on politics/policy. Most people just simply don’t have the brains, patience or motivation to actually learn what they need to know before they decide to support or oppose something so they rely on signaling instead. One of the unfortunate consequences of Reaganism has been the development of anti-taxation attitudes. This is best exemplified by Grover Norquist’s organization that enforces obedience to the doctrine by which taxes can never be raised.

The PPACA’s individual mandate is not designed to raise revenue (the revenues collected are intended to be trivial). This means it does not behave like other taxes and does not follow the conservative trope of tax & spend liberalism. However, there is no way that the American public would absorb that nuance with the right wing claptrap echoing all around. Gruber’s point is that the PPACA would never have passed if Democrats advertised the fact that the individual mandate uses Congress’ taxation power (albeit not to raise significant revenue).

What is really ironic is that Gruber’s fears are now manifesting themselves with the current controversy. Conservative commentators are now using Gruber’s comments to stoke fear in ordinary Americans. Voters are being told to believe the individual mandate is a revenue-raising mechanism for a tax & spend liberal program when that isn’t true at all. Liberals may have lied on schematics, but the conservative narrative lies on a much more fundamental level.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 2:53 PM
Comment #385439

Warren Porter, who do you think know less about government and how it is structured and works? Is it the supporters of the Democratic Party or those supporting the Republican Party? We have all seen the clips of someone on the street or on a college campus asking questions.

Gruber’s point is that the PPACA would never have passed if Democrats advertised the fact that the individual mandate uses Congress’ taxation power (albeit not to raise significant revenue).

So is this a true statement or not?

What is really ironic is that Gruber’s fears are now manifesting themselves with the current controversy. Conservative commentators are now using Gruber’s comments to stoke fear in ordinary Americans.

While I agree there is a lot being said about Gruber’s involvement in Obamacare. Fear doesn’t have to be stoked among Americans; Americans, as a majority, really do not like Obamacare.

But aside from that, why are the Democrats denying the existence of Gruber. It appears there is absolute panic among the Democrats over the release of the Gruber videos.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 14, 2014 3:14 PM
Comment #385440

KAP, thanks for proving my contention that it is all always about me, me, me from a conservative perspective. Had the labor movement maintained its success there would be no need for me or you to be concerned with the 12 year old. As I stated above the unions built and strengthened in the USA and Europe were intended to help jump start unions and a labor movement themselves in other countries. Although your cavalier attitude regarding the plight of people is nothing I admire or ever want to have, you do give much credence to that me, me, me thing I mentioned. Way to go. I know it’s not your problem, how noble of you.

It is my contention that unions were co-opted sometime during the 1950’s to stay out of South America (this was the next natural progression for the labor movement to succeed). I believe big business was doing swell in the banana republics and convinced unions to not push to hard on organizing in those countries whether they did that using coercion or bribery we will never know. This was the beginning of the death knell for organized labor. Once big business found out that a 40 hour work week, paid sick and vacation leave and a safe clean work environment would satisfy the labor market in the USA they could start to dismantle the unions without any objections. Of course the greed and avarice of union leaders also contributed to the general public’s mistrust and dislike of them.

I am sure that a lot of people like to believe that unions had nothing to do with the 40 hour work week, sick and vacation leave paid and a clean safe work environment but they are wrong. But hey who cares we got that now. Tell those poor slobs in underdeveloped countries to just suck it up and keep sending us cheap stuff that we can sell for inflated prices. Or like KAP says, who cares about them. I got mine.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 14, 2014 3:18 PM
Comment #385441

Ah yes WP, we have no problem with the democrats lying to the american people in order to pass obamacare, but we do have a problem with conservatives exposing the lie… Now that sounds logical…

Posted by: George at November 14, 2014 3:19 PM
Comment #385443

As I said Speaks (and not the BULLS**T you are spewing) unions were once useful but now they are not. As far as the 12 year old in Asia there is no way you will get a union set up their governments WILL NOT ALLOW IT.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 14, 2014 3:34 PM
Comment #385444

Speaks, if we have problems in the US with corruption in the union leadership (“Of course the greed and avarice of union leaders also contributed to the general public’s mistrust and dislike of them.”), what do you think it would be like in “banana republics”, where the government is more corrupt than union bosses?

I don’t remember people from other countries trying to help set up unions in the US; why should we help them. Every man has to fight his own battle.

Whatever has befallen the unions, was of their own devise. The Wisconsin people elected Walker as governor 3 different times, after the unions spent millions of their dues paying members dollars to oust him. Even after he passed right to work laws. I think here is a message for the unions there someplace. That was millions of dollars that could have been spent to help their own membership. Yes, there was a day when unions were needed, but remember the old saying, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Unions are too big to be controlled by the rank and file. The unions have adapted the liberal theology of bigger government. Union bosses inherit positions and cannot be removed.

Posted by: George at November 14, 2014 3:34 PM
Comment #385445

Sorry about swaying off topic and into the labor movement but I have strong feelings regarding that subject and there is way to much misinformation and downright crazy beliefs about unions and organized labor.

SJ, look it’s Friday and I won’t be able to communicate much more with you today however there is no liberal loop. That is a figment of your imagination. How’s that conservative loop doing? No one is denying the existence of this Gruber guy, what we are denying is the importance of what he said and how the right wing pants wetting over it seems a bit much. You would think that this is the first time that any one associated with government stepped on their personal parts in public. Faux outrage at its finest.

I am so happy that you have communicated with all of us Americans and can make such a ridiculous statement that a majority of Americans do not like the PPACA. However you did not mention that a significant number of those that do not like it do so because they did not think it went far enough and would rather see a single payer process used. Medicare for all would be a good start.

The only panic I am seeing on this thread and elsewhere about this Gruber character is coming from the right wing. Please try to remain calm.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 14, 2014 3:41 PM
Comment #385446
who do you think know less about government and how it is structured and works? Is it the supporters of the Democratic Party or those supporting the Republican Party? We have all seen the clips of someone on the street or on a college campus asking questions.

Both flocks contain plenty of stupid sheep.

“Gruber’s point is that the PPACA would never have passed if Democrats advertised the fact that the individual mandate uses Congress’ taxation power (albeit not to raise significant revenue).”

So is this a true statement or not?

If the individual mandate had been widely advertised as a tax, the PPACA would not have been tenable in the recent political climate. The nuance that distinguishes the individual mandate from other taxes would have gone over the heads of most Americans.

Fear doesn’t have to be stoked among Americans; Americans, as a majority, really do not like Obamacare.
But this is mostly a function of the conservative propaganda that has been shoveled into voter’s minds. Death panels, ridiculous tax increases and the like were all predicted by conservatives, yet none have come to pass. Even the very term Obamacare is the product of conservative propaganda. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 3:48 PM
Comment #385447

George, again another person yelling IGMGFY. Look it up in an urban dictionary if you don’t understand the acronym. Look I know to you and your cohorts Unions are to big, government is to big, liberals are to big. In fact according to you and yours the only thing not to big is your self-aggrandizement.

Amazing that since you told us you are in your 60’s that you were there in the mid 19th century to observe the beginnings of the labor movement and who helped who. Time travel maybe?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 14, 2014 3:53 PM
Comment #385449

Warren writes; “The PPACA’s individual mandate is not designed to raise revenue (the revenues collected are intended to be trivial). This means it does not behave like other taxes and does not follow the conservative trope of tax & spend liberalism.”

OK, I get it. Some taxes are not taxes if the revenue threshold set by some bureaucrat or politician in government is not met. Since these revenue enhancers are not really taxes…they must be something else. One can assume that these pseudo-taxes must be a punishment instrument instead for behavior not acceptable by some political power.

The huge tax on tobacco must be one of these “pseudo-taxes”. It only punishes the behavior of certain people who use tobacco and the trivial revenue is spent for a worthy cause.

I submit to Warren that we should have a pregnancy tax on those who become pregnant and abort the fetus. Our liberal friends tell us that abortion should be legal and rare. Why rare? Because abortion is not a behavior we should encourage; much like tobacco use.

Perhaps my example of an abortion tax (which I believe is silly) will provide Warren some insight into using taxes as punishment for behavior some find unacceptable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 4:29 PM
Comment #385450

Speak4all;

Medicare for all would be a good start.

Medicaid is part of the ACA. So there is no need of Medicare for all.

Warren Porter;

Both flocks contain plenty of stupid sheep.

A good non-committal answer; but a Pew Research Center poll of the intelligence and current knowledge of Republicans vs Democrats show consistently that Republicans have a greater knowledge of current political events. The reason I ask this question is because of your statement, “Most people just simply don’t have the brains, patience or motivation to actually learn what they need to know before they decide to support or oppose something so they rely on signaling instead.”; and because the constant claim from the left is that conservatives brains are pumped full of falsities by Fox News and conservative commentators. So, based on this, Republicans consistently score higher than Democrats on current events and government, based on the fact they have a knowledgeable source.

If the individual mandate had been widely advertised as a tax, the PPACA would not have been tenable in the recent political climate. The nuance that distinguishes the individual mandate from other taxes would have gone over the heads of most Americans.

So the answer is, if Obama and the left had not lied to the American people, the law would not have passed.

Even the very term Obamacare is the product of conservative propaganda. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 3:48 PM

You mean, like the term “teabagger”?

You say none of the predictions have come to pass, but Obama has postponed one part of the law after the other. We have no idea the consequences of the law when it is fully implemented.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 14, 2014 4:33 PM
Comment #385451

Speaks, it’s called reading…try it, instead of being part of a few hundred people who watch MSNBC each day.

Posted by: George at November 14, 2014 4:36 PM
Comment #385452
One can assume that these pseudo-taxes must be a punishment instrument instead for behavior not acceptable by some political power.

Nothing necessarily implies punishment. The tax imposed by the individual mandate is not intended to be punitive. Rather, it is designed to maintain individual responsibility for one’s own health.

The huge tax on tobacco must be one of these “pseudo-taxes”. It only punishes the behavior of certain people who use tobacco and the trivial revenue is spent for a worthy cause.
The Pigovian tax on tobacco is similar. Instead of raising revenue, it is intended to maintain responsibility for the negative external costs of tobacco use.
Because abortion is not a behavior we should encourage; much like tobacco use.
Association fallacy. Tobacco use poses external costs upon nonusers. Abortion poses no costs on anyone apart from the parents and the doctor. Unlike abortion, refusing to purchase insurance does pose costs on others when one inevitably utilizes EMTALA to receive medical treatment (or decides to take advantage of the PPACA’s protections to purchase health insurance). Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 4:43 PM
Comment #385453

Stephen

Those who do not vote give their proxies to those who do. Also, recall that President Clinton was elected the first time with a plurality of only 43% and never was elected by more than half the voter who actually voted. Does that make him illegitimate?

I find it interesting that Democrats so strongly embrace the idea that the lazier and less responsible voters are mostly Democrats. If I said that, you all would accuse me of being a hater, although we prefer the term haberdasher.

Posted by: C&J at November 14, 2014 4:44 PM
Comment #385454

Sam is absolutely correct regarding the full effect of obamacare not yet being felt. Hundreds, if not thousands, of exemptions and deferments were granted by the administration.

It reminds me of MMGW. Unreliable human produced data produces unreliable projections. The CBO couldn’t properly score obamacare as it was fed faulty information. If Scored by CBO with accurate information obamacare would be deeply in red ink.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 4:47 PM
Comment #385455

SJ, good then we can agree that the PPACA is good to go. Boy hope those mean old Republicans in the HOR and Senate have your same sentiments.

George, it’s called comprehension, try it. Instead of being some Pavlovian lap dog of Fox News.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 14, 2014 5:02 PM
Comment #385456

Warren wrote; “Nothing necessarily implies punishment. The tax imposed by the individual mandate is not intended to be punitive. Rather, it is designed to maintain individual responsibility for one’s own health.”

OH, Warren…you are becoming just like some of the other libs on WB. When faced with a reality you don’t like you resort to spin and flummery. Do you really not see the absurdity of your comment? No trained mind could possibly score your comment as logical.

Warren wrote; “Abortion poses no costs on anyone apart from the parents and the doctor.”

Of course you are incorrect. Abortion denies life to another American citizen and deprives the nation of that persons contributions to the benefit of all.

Some time ago I had a discussion on WB about the reason for the favorable tax treatment of heterosexual married couples. It was designed expressly by government and approved by the people to promote childbearing.

Today’s liberals seem to prefer aborting our own citizens and rely upon illegals to do the work of America instead.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 5:06 PM
Comment #385457

Warren wrote; “The tax imposed by the individual mandate is not intended to be punitive. Rather, it is designed to maintain individual responsibility for one’s own health.”

That sentence makes no sense Warren. A tax is designed to “maintain” responsibility? By what means other than punishment or reward?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 5:22 PM
Comment #385461

By the way, for anyone actually interested in how satisfied enrollees are with Obamacare, there is a new Gallup poll showing comparable satisfaction with quality as compared with those enrolled in other insurance and better satisfaction with the cost. http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/obamacare-health-exchanges-coverage-112892.html

Posted by: Rich at November 14, 2014 6:21 PM
Comment #385463

Royal Flush, WP probably believes “Welfare” is also designed to “maintain” responsibility. Oh, wait a minute…Welfare is designed to abolish responsibility.

Posted by: George at November 14, 2014 6:24 PM
Comment #385465

Oh, wait a minute…Welfare is designed to abolish responsibility.
Posted by: George at November 14, 2014 6:24 PM

For the most part yes. Abolish responsibility and promote dependency.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 6:30 PM
Comment #385467

RF,

Abortion denies life to another American citizen and deprives the nation of that persons contributions to the benefit of all.
Now there’s a pretzel. If the embryo has a right to “life”, then why do the rest of us have a right to benefit from the contributions of that “person”. The truth is that the rest of us cannot be deprived of something that never came to be in the first place. The same can be said for the countless sperm and ova that never became anything else. We need to draw a line somewhere, but conception is the most foolish place to put it.
Today’s liberals seem to prefer aborting our own citizens and rely upon illegals to do the work of America instead.
A very telling sentence. Embryo’s are “our own” and therefore are worth your advocacy whereas immigrants are a dangerous “other” that needs to be feared.
Warren wrote; “The tax imposed by the individual mandate is not intended to be punitive. Rather, it is designed to maintain individual responsibility for one’s own health.”

That sentence makes no sense Warren. A tax is designed to “maintain” responsibility? By what means other than punishment or reward?

I don’t know why I wrote that. I think it may have been because the fine is not enforceable (you cannot face jail time for refusing to pay it).

SJ,

A good non-committal answer; but a Pew Research Center poll of the intelligence and current knowledge of Republicans vs Democrats show consistently that Republicans have a greater knowledge of current political events.
The difference in the Pew study is modest. There are dozens of such studies; many report Fox News consumers among the least informed and NPR listeners among the highest informed. However, I wouldn’t put much weight on these studies; tje only conclusive result is that the stupidest flock is the one that claims to have no ideology.

The reason I ask this question is because of your statement, “Most people just simply don’t have the brains, patience or motivation to actually learn what they need to know before they decide to support or oppose something so they rely on signaling instead.”
What I said applies equally to the left as well. Any bill that even suggests lowering benefits for retirees gets the same treatment as ones that suggest raising taxes.
if Obama and the left had not lied to the American people, the law would not have passed
Just because Obama and other Democrats didn’t shout this fact from every pulpit every minute of the day doesn’t mean they committed a lie. Astute observers (myself included) recognized that the mandate was being implemented with Congress’ taxation authority even when the bill was in its infancy.
You mean, like the term “teabagger”?
Yes, exactly like the term “teabagger”. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 6:54 PM
Comment #385469

“Astute observers (myself included) recognized that the mandate was being implemented with Congress’ taxation authority even when the bill was in its infancy.”

Warren,

I don’t think that you had to be all that “astute” to recognize the nature of the enforcement mechanism. You just had to read the proposal.

I don’t understand why this is such a big deal. The tax code was suggested by the Heritage Foundation as a means of enforcing what it called “a soft mandate” for obligatory purchase of health insurance in the early 2000s.

Posted by: Rich at November 14, 2014 7:08 PM
Comment #385470

The information presented to the CBO was a lie; which in turn caused the CBO to give false facts to the American people. The problem with telling a lie, is it requires more lies to continue the lie. This can be embellished and spun to protect Obama and the Democrats who voted for the law; but a lie is a lie is a lie. The American people were deceived and lied to, for the purpose of allowing a Democratic law to be rammed down their throats. Now, the left can claim that conservative news and web site are promoting hatred toward the law, it doesn’t matter. This law sticks in the craw of half of America and the more that comes out, the more they dig in. I believe this law, if not repealed, will split this country in half. And it all came from a president who ran on being the most transparent president ever.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 14, 2014 7:08 PM
Comment #385471

Warren wrote; “The truth is that the rest of us cannot be deprived of something that never came to be in the first place.”

LOL…Warren, you need a college course in logic. We are “deprived” of another citizen because we aborted it and thus it never was born. Some argue this same twisted logic about illegals. Stopping them will “deprive” us of their labor.

Simple question. Does abortion promote more or fewer new citizens? You claimed there was no “cost” from abortion to any but the mother and doctor. Are we not denied the benefit of more citizens with abortion?

I wrote: “Today’s liberals seem to prefer aborting our own citizens and rely upon illegals to do the work of America instead.”

Warren wrote; “A very telling sentence. Embryo’s are “our own” and therefore are worth your advocacy whereas immigrants are a dangerous “other” that needs to be feared.”

How in the world did you get from my “A” to your “Z”? There is simply no correlation. Warren, you are not ready for an advanced degree until you can digest the written word and make logical connections.

Show your comment above to your father and tell us if he thinks I wrote or implied that “immigrants are a dangerous “other” that needs to be feared.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 14, 2014 7:42 PM
Comment #385473
LOL…Warren, you need a college course in logic. We are “deprived” of another citizen because we aborted it and thus it never was born. Some argue this same twisted logic about illegals. Stopping them will “deprive” us of their labor.

Nobody has the right to another’s labor. I don’t understand where there is any deprivation here.

Simple question. Does abortion promote more or fewer new citizens? You claimed there was no “cost” from abortion to any but the mother and doctor. Are we not denied the benefit of more citizens with abortion?
Abortion and sexual abstinence have the same impact on the number of citizens.
I wrote: “Today’s liberals seem to prefer aborting our own citizens and rely upon illegals to do the work of America instead.”

Warren wrote; “A very telling sentence. Embryo’s are “our own” and therefore are worth your advocacy whereas immigrants are a dangerous “other” that needs to be feared.”

How in the world did you get from my “A” to your “Z”? There is simply no correlation. Warren, you are not ready for an advanced degree until you can digest the written word and make logical connections.

Show your comment above to your father and tell us if he thinks I wrote or implied that “immigrants are a dangerous “other” that needs to be feared.”

Cut the crap. Condescension isn’t going to get you anywhere. Feel free to replace “feared” with “spurned” which is probably more accurate given what you wrote.

Writing that liberals “seem to prefer aborting our own citizens and rely upon illegals to do the work of America instead” is rife with false assumptions. Given the context, I assume that you aren’t talking about yourself here, but rather that you cast your opinion opposite to those who seem to prefer aborting our own citizens and rely upon illegals to do the work of America instead”. Therefore, you prefer that the work of America is done by imaginary people rather than actual people. You emphasize that the imaginary people are “our own”, a description that you fail to use with our own immigrants. The omission is telling; you don’t think our own immigrants are our own. If they aren’t our own, they must be someone else’s (an other). You have passed judgement on these two things based upon their origins.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 14, 2014 8:27 PM
Comment #385476

“The information presented to the CBO was a lie;”

It was not a lie. It was crafted in a manner to avoid being scored by the CBO as a direct tax and spend provision. The CBO criteria were well known by both sides of the debate.

But, what was the issue that Gruber was concerned about? Well, it isn’t all that obvious. Employer based insurance already does it. Medicare does it. It has to do with pooling of risk between healthy and sick participants. In order to make Obamacare affordable to sicker persons, proponents had two choices: either directly subsidize their higher insurance premiums with tax dollars or by regulation require insurance companies to offer those with preexisting conditions insurance at the same price as healthy participants. The former would result in the CBO evaluating the proposal as a large tax and expenditure of the government. The latter would avoid that scoring even though it would achieve the same outcome of healthy subsidizing the sick with preexisting conditions. The insurance companies would do what Gruber thought would be political suicide to do directly.

This hidden approach is not unusual. Like I said above, it is the corner stone of employer based insurance. It what occurs with Medicare.

Republican approaches to health insurance always promise to avoid this subsidy “tax” on healthy and younger workers. However, they also recognize the need to provide “high risk pools” subsidized by the government.

So, pick your poison.

Posted by: Rich at November 14, 2014 9:15 PM
Comment #385485

Warren

“Unlike abortion, refusing to purchase insurance does pose costs on others when one inevitably utilizes EMTALA to receive medical treatment (or decides to take advantage of the PPACA’s protections to purchase health insurance)”


The old saying that freedom isn’t free applies to more than the Idea that “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”. It also means that living in a truly free society we run the risk of suffering the consequences of the poor decisions of others. The argument that the gov’t has the right to compel us to do something based on this premise can be used to justify the curtailing of any freedom at any time. It ultimately comes down to” do you wish to be free, or to be protected” I personally will take my chances with freedom.

Posted by: dbs at November 15, 2014 7:34 AM
Comment #385490
It also means that living in a truly free society we run the risk of suffering the consequences of the poor decisions of others.

If I have to suffer adverse consequences from your poor decisions, then I am not free. It is as if I am your slave. Freedom is living with the consequences of my decisions. Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2014 9:46 AM
Comment #385499

Warren writes; “Therefore, you prefer that the work of America is done by imaginary (aborted) people rather than actual people. You emphasize that the imaginary people are “our own”, a description that you fail to use with our own immigrants. The omission is telling; you don’t think our own immigrants are our own.”

What a pretzel twist. Please recognize the significant difference between those immigrants here legally, those who have become citizens, and those here illegally.

How in the world can you believe that any person here illegally is “our own”? Do you no longer recognize borders, their significance, and why they are controlled?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 15, 2014 12:27 PM
Comment #385505

Warren

“If I have to suffer adverse consequences from your poor decisions, then I am not free.”


I guess that depends on what you consider freedom to be.

“It is as if I am your slave.”

If I have to suffer the consequences of the majorities’ poor judgment at the polls, and my freedom to make my own decisions about my life is taken over by gov’t bureaucrats, I am not free either. I am a slave to the electorate. Something the founders never intended. In fact the constitution was written so the majority could not infringe on what the founders believed were inalienable rights of all people.


“Freedom is living with the consequences of my decisions.”

Yes it is, but those decisions can also affect others. These effects no matter how big or small could be used as a reason for big gov’t to take more and more of your liberty in the name of the greater good. We end up back where we started, how much liberty are you prepared to surrender to the masses, and big gov’t in order to feel safe ?


“Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.”

Not if you are using the strings of gov’t to take away my ability to run my own life as I see fit. At that point my right to swing my arm ends when the blows I’ve landed stop you from advancing anymore attempts to control my life.

Posted by: dbs at November 15, 2014 2:49 PM
Comment #385508
Please recognize the significant difference between those immigrants here legally, those who have become citizens, and those here illegally.

After legalization, there would be no difference.

How in the world can you believe that any person here illegally is “our own”

These people live and function as Americans. All they lack are documents. The solution is to issue documents to the ones that contribute to our society.

Do you no longer recognize borders, their significance, and why they are controlled?
Legal immigration is too tightly controlled.
If I have to suffer the consequences of the majorities’ poor judgment at the polls, and my freedom to make my own decisions about my life is taken over by gov’t bureaucrats, I am not free either. I am a slave to the electorate. Something the founders never intended. In fact the constitution was written so the majority could not infringe on what the founders believed were inalienable rights of all people.
Absolutely true. Which is why are government is limited in what it can and cannot do by the Constitution.
how much liberty are you prepared to surrender to the masses, and big gov’t in order to feel safe
That’s the name of the game, my friend.
Not if you are using the strings of gov’t to take away my ability to run my own life as I see fit
Not when “run my own life as I see fit” violates another’s rights. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2014 3:27 PM
Comment #385510

Warren

“Legal immigration is too tightly controlled”

If it was we wouldn’t have 11 million illegal aliens here. We cannot tightly control immigration until we place the emphasis on securing our southern border.

We also need to force employers to verify immigration status before hiring. Jobs are the magnet. The “we can’t deport 11 million people is a red herring, take away the magnet and most will leave on their own.

Giving these people legal status without first having a means to stop more from coming in illegally, will only act to attract even more. We had an amnesty back in 86. I was a young adult so I remember it well. It didn’t work, and it won’t work this time either.

Posted by: dbs at November 15, 2014 4:02 PM
Comment #385514
“Legal immigration is too tightly controlled”

My bad! Here’s a less ambiguous phrasing: Legal immigration quotas are too low and the process of obtaining a visa is a bureaucratic mess.

We also need to force employers to verify immigration status before hiring. Jobs are the magnet. The “we can’t deport 11 million people is a red herring, take away the magnet and most will leave on their own.
This would lead to labor shortages and/or inflation.
Giving these people legal status without first having a means to stop more from coming in illegally, will only act to attract even more. We had an amnesty back in 86. I was a young adult so I remember it well. It didn’t work, and it won’t work this time either.
We need to stop fighting a losing battle. If people want come here and be productive citizens, then let them. I disagree with the premise that we need to “stop letting them in”. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 15, 2014 5:11 PM
Comment #385515

Warren, If people want to come here and be productive citizens then let them COME HERE LEGALY. Nobody would dispute it then. It’s the ILLEGAL part that’s the problem. We want to stop the ILLEGAL entry into the U.S. It wouldn’t be a losing battle if we ENFORCED existing laws.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 15, 2014 5:29 PM
Comment #385520

The Democrats have only one reason for amnesty…a larger voting base. They have been shitting on the blacks for decades and what do they get in return…a voting block. The left has forsaken and thrown the blue collar union worker under the bus, for the promise of a new voting base.

Posted by: George at November 15, 2014 6:06 PM
Comment #385534

Hello George, Voice Of Reason.

The Democratic party uses people, uses them up. Uses them up, craps them out, and then munches down on the next sad “group” that falls into their path.

Woe be the suckled and fat, for they will not have the strength to get out of the way.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 16, 2014 2:18 AM
Comment #385540
If people want to come here and be productive citizens then let them COME HERE LEGALY.

How can they come legally when conservatives won’t let them?

It’s the ILLEGAL part that’s the problem.

After legalization, the illegal part goes away. Problem solved.

People are going to immigrate to the US no matter what the law says. Our only choices here are whether we criminalize that immigration or permit it. Today, onerous restrictions prevent many from immigrating legally, so illegal immigration becomes the only option. Reform the law to let people become legal immigrants more easily and people won’t come here illegally anymore.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2014 12:27 PM
Comment #385542

Conservatives won’t let them come here legally??? Your full of crap Warren!!! We as conservatives want productive people to immigrate her, but we want them here LEGALLY. We can’t give a free ride to 5,000,000 illegals and screw the people who are waiting to get in here legally. Is that fair to give some illegal A**HOLE preference???

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2014 1:21 PM
Comment #385543

I wrote; “Please recognize the significant difference between those immigrants here legally, those who have become citizens, and those here illegally.”

Warren responded; “After legalization, there would be no difference.”

I had to rub my eyes a few times before I could believe what I read. What a juvenile response to an adult observation. Dealing with this kind of mentality is beyond my ability and patience. Perhaps others will waste time and effort with Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 16, 2014 1:25 PM
Comment #385544

The Obama administration controls the flow of legal immigrants into the country. There have always been illegals trying to cross the border from Mexico. They were caught and deported. It wasn’t until the Democrats decided to use these groups of illegals that could be given amnesty and create liberal voting blocks that the problems started. Between the Republicans wanting cheap labor and Democrats wanting dependent voting blocks, the country is screwed.

Posted by: George at November 16, 2014 1:27 PM
Comment #385545

I don’t really know what has happened to Warren, but evidently the mush that was injected into his head at socialist schools has taken root. He is beginning to sound as ridiculous as SD, phx8, j2t2, speaks, and a few others. All ability to think logically has disappeared. Another mush head falls by the wayside.

Posted by: George at November 16, 2014 1:32 PM
Comment #385546

Here is a little known event; the left has been bragging about liberal policies that were voted on and passed two weeks ago. There is no place any more Democrat than the west coast, and especially Oregon. But one of the measures on the Oregon ballot was to give drivers license to illegals:

The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy.

Even as Oregon voters were legalizing recreational marijuana and expanding Democratic majorities in state government, they decided by a margin of 66-34 to cancel a new state law that would have provided driver’s licenses to people who are in the United States illegally.

If Oregon residents, by a 2/3rds majority don’t want legal drivers license given to illegals; how will they feel about amnesty?

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 16, 2014 1:45 PM
Comment #385559
Conservatives won’t let them come here legally???

Time after time, conservatives have opposed efforts to lift restrictions on legal immigration.

We as conservatives want productive people to immigrate her, but we want them here LEGALLY.
If we legalize the people who are here illegally, then they will be here legally.
We can’t give a free ride to 5,000,000 illegals.
No free rides. Every proposal makes people work to earn their legal status.
screw the people who are waiting to get in here legally. Is that fair to give some illegal A**HOLE preference???
Why are we making people wait in the first place. If there wasn’t so much waiting involved with legal immigration, we wouldn’t have an illegal immigration problem in the first place.

Let me clarify: Amnesty in isolation is a bad plan. It would do nothing to address the underlying issues that led to these problems in the first place. It should not be acceptable to have millions of people living in this country without documentation or legal status. Amnesty a la 1986 would simply kick the can down the road until more people came here illegally. However, I’m not talking about such a plan. I’m talking about expanding legal immigration to make it less onerous so that people interested in living here don’t have to come here illegally.

No matter how much we increase enforcement, there will always be desperate people willing to risk their lives to enter our nation and we’ll never catch them all. Enforcement only plans will not rid us of illegal immigrants. The only solution is to expand legal immigration and grant status to the people already here.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2014 5:34 PM
Comment #385561

Warren, T.Y. for the clarification. The Church I attend, we have many Refugees from Thailand and Myanmar all here LEGALLY and all have applied for citizenship and are waiting. Both sides have kicked the can on immigration because both side had reasons for allowing the illegals to stay. Now WE THE PEOPLE want both sides to do something about the influx of illegals. One is securing the southern border because that is where the problem is. I don’t think even you would want some terrorist entering by our Southern border. Securing the Southern border is what the conservatives want before they even think about giving the 5,000,000 illegals back of the line status and that is where the gridlock is.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2014 6:00 PM
Comment #385562
The Church I attend, we have many Refugees from Thailand and Myanmar all here LEGALLY and all have applied for citizenship and are waiting.
There are too few visas available to people who wish to come here legally.
Both sides have kicked the can on immigration because both side had reasons for allowing the illegals to stay.
Only the Right has things to gain by keeping the status quo. Democrats wish to change the status quo by permitting these people to immigrate legally.
One is securing the southern border because that is where the problem is.
Lack of security along the Mexican border isn’t the source of the problem. It’s the highly restrictive legal immigration system that’s the problem.
I don’t think even you would want some terrorist entering by our Southern border.
Neither do the Mexicans. Believe me, there’s a reason the 9/11 hijackers entered the US via Canada and not via Mexico.
Securing the Southern border is what the conservatives want before they even think about giving the 5,000,000 illegals back of the line status and that is where the gridlock is.
Increased legal immigration would mean additional security at the southern border wouldn’t be necessary. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2014 6:23 PM
Comment #385564

Warren, druggies and felons will continue to use the border for egress.

Posted by: roy ellis at November 16, 2014 8:18 PM
Comment #385565

Increased legal immigration would mean additional security at the Southern border wouldn’t be necessary??????? Do you realize how stupid that sounds??? Warren. What would keep undesirables out? Where would the jobs come from? Who would house and feed them? We have to have limits somewhere.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2014 8:47 PM
Comment #385566

Warren, The 9/11 hijackers may have come through the Canadian border but one thing is different, they came in LEGALLY however ILLEGAL their intentions were.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2014 8:56 PM
Comment #385568
Warren, The 9/11 hijackers may have come through the Canadian border but one thing is different, they came in LEGALLY however ILLEGAL their intentions were.

Precisely my point. Terrorists are too smart to attempt to come here illegally. It’s too risky for them.

What would keep undesirables out?
The current border security apparatus would be more than adequate once they are no longer obligated to chase migrant workers.
Where would the jobs come from? Who would house and feed them? We have to have limits somewhere.
Presumably they come here because they know they can get a job that will enable them to house and feed themselves. Otherwise, they’d head back to their birth country.
Warren, druggies and felons will continue to use the border for egress.
Yes, but they wouldn’t be able to hide among the migrant workers anymore. They’d stick out like a sore thumb. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 16, 2014 9:10 PM
Comment #385571

Warren, Yes but they wouldn’t be able to hide among the migrant workers anymore, they’d stick out like a sore thumb. LOLOLOL!!!!!!!! We have druggies and felons in this country now and I’ll bet 99.99999% of them look just like you. That statement just shot your comments about immigration down the toilet. They’d stick out like a sore thumb. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 16, 2014 9:56 PM
Comment #385589

Warren writes; “The current border security apparatus would be more than adequate once they are no longer obligated to chase migrant workers.”

Well Warren, this really sums up your knowledge of the issue. “Migrant” workers return to their home countries when the job is finished.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2014 2:11 PM
Comment #385590

I’m saddened by the direction Warren Porter is going. He seems to be a nice kid, but is really going off base on some things.

Posted by: Sam Jones at November 17, 2014 2:18 PM
Comment #385593

Sam, it would appear from what Warren has told us that his life of privilege has stunted his ability for rational thinking.

I find it alarming that a man of his supposed intellect could make so many glaring errors in defending his political positions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 17, 2014 3:34 PM
Comment #385658
Well Warren, this really sums up your knowledge of the issue. “Migrant” workers return to their home countries when the job is finished.

You are right. “Migrant” workers would cease to be the correct term once these people settle in the US permanently.

Yes but they wouldn’t be able to hide among the migrant workers anymore, they’d stick out like a sore thumb. LOLOLOL!!!!!!!! We have druggies and felons in this country now and I’ll bet 99.99999% of them look just like you. That statement just shot your comments about immigration down the toilet. They’d stick out like a sore thumb. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I honestly don’t know to respond to this. My point is this: Today, there are hordes of people crossing the border illegally each day. The vast majority are not “druggies and felons”; they are just people interested in finding work. Apart from immigration law, these people are completely innocent. Law enforcement has a tough time these days focusing on the “druggies and felons” when there are so many illegal immigrants. However, if we reform the immigration system by expanding legal immigration to meet demand, then the hordes of illegal immigrants will go away. The only remaining people crossing the border illegally will be the “druggies and felons”, but now they won’t have anywhere to hide. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 18, 2014 12:08 PM
Comment #385663

Warren, What does a druggie or felon look like???? I see pictures of druggies and felons all the time and they look like any other ordinary person and the ones that cross over illegally will just hide among the ones here that are legal citizens. Your comment is still laughable.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 18, 2014 1:31 PM
Post a comment