Patterico's Pontifications

6/7/2013

Pelosi Doesn’t Remember Saying ObamaCare Would Lower Everyone’s Premiums

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:59 am



“I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium.”

Let The Weekly Standard jog your memory:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

“Everybody will have lower rates.”

113 Responses to “Pelosi Doesn’t Remember Saying ObamaCare Would Lower Everyone’s Premiums”

  1. If “lower” means double or treble, with higher copays and more limited access to phsycians, tests, and procedures.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  2. Greetings:

    It’s always nice hearing from the First Female ex-Speaker of our House of Representatives.

    11B40 (d64190)

  3. Female? Who claimed that?

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  4. What about the Title of the Bill?


    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  5. Now it is not lower prices, they are claiming it is a better value, better bang for your buck. Which is also a lie.

    JD (b63a52)

  6. I suspect there is a lot Pelosi does not remember.

    JD (b63a52)

  7. You could show Pelosi the video, and she’d still say she didn’t say it, and think she could get away with it, because no one in the big media will ever call her on it (in fact, they’ll likely be playing right along by the end of this year, trying to tell the public that nobody ever said your insurance rates would go down if ObamaCare® passed).

    John (cda7c4)

  8. Pelosi will just have to watch the archival videotape to find out what’s in it !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  9. Pelosi condensed: Well, people who had no insurance, yes they’ll pay more. She doesn’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a low premium. How could that be? Since some people didn’t have insurance how could it be lower for them?

    And there are all sorts of subsidies.

    And people will get more for the money. No more lifetime or annual caps. No discrimination because of pre-existing conditions. This will be a liberation – freedom to start a business etc (without having to do things to hang on to their health insurance) As for people who thought they could go without insuarnec “young invincibles” that’s a mistake they shouldn’t make.

    This is a very exciting enterprise and we should be optimistic. The other side has spent a lot of time mischaracterizing the bill and support for the bill is about what it was before.

    This bill is a solution. It lowers costs. The cost of insurance was unsustainable before. Unsustainable. And now you can see the bending of the cost curve: Medicare now will go bankrupt two years later than projected earlier.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  10. Pelosi said she didn’t say everyone’s costs would go down.

    She said she couldn’t have said it, because this law forces people to get insurance, and you can’t pay less than $0.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  11. Botox brain.

    mojo (8096f2)

  12. Pelosi, dear, we know perfectly well that you (in common with all your Liberal Lefty Twit friends) can never remember anything remotely inconvenient to you. That’s why we trust you about as far as we could kick the Washington Monument, and consider the morons who vote for you borderline brain-dead.

    C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd)

  13. Botox causes memory loss.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  14. “…the morons who vote for you borderline brain-dead.”

    But, enough about Sammy.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  15. As painful as it is, it is a good thing that the mask is now being ripped off American leftism. I was beginning to think it would never happen.

    Patricia (be0117)

  16. I would never vote for Nancy Pelosi. Well, almost never.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  17. Pelosi, Boxer and Feinstien are like the three witches in Shakespeare.

    pay (83ebf3)

  18. i do not feel even a little bit like i share a common humanity with this whore

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  19. In Re: #17 (83edf3)

    Actually, California and the country would probably be net better off WITH the three witches from Shakespeare.

    Bill M (e0a4e5)

  20. “i do not feel even a little bit like i share a common humanity with this whore”

    How DARE you say such a thing!!!!!111!1!

    Leviticus (b98400)

  21. Pelosi’s problems began when she insisted that they use a novocaine needle for the botox.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  22. People get the government they deserve.

    nk (875f57)

  23. Nk – right now they are getting it good, long, and hard.

    JD (20406c)

  24. Sun rises in east. Leftists can’t remember what happened 5 minutes ago. They also have skulls so thick it would take a diamond-tipped drill to penetrate them. Plus theirs is a faux ideology for which complete reality detachment is mandatory. You could show Pelosi a videotape of her saying what she said and in any event she’d deny it. Then she’d go back to counting her trust fund monies.

    There are much larger and far more important points related to this nonsense, although ironically enough they largely will be lost on the blogosphere’s chattering class. It’s a party-based system, there only are two political parties and elections have ripple effects. If you don’t bother voting for a GOP House candidate in a district in Michigan or in Virginia, etc., then you’ve just cast a de facto ballot for Pelosi to be Speaker of the House. Connect the dots.

    William Scalia (4fc30a)

  25. And not even a kiss.

    nk (875f57)

  26. If you don’t bother voting for a GOP House candidate in a district in Michigan or in Virginia, etc., then you’ve just cast a de facto ballot for Pelosi to be Speaker of the House. Connect the dots.

    this is not true really Mr. Scalia

    I’m remindered how those poor hapless wisconsin voters who voted for phony economic conservative / susan b anthony crotch-sniffer paul ryan had no way to know they were voting to slop slop slop the union piggies and sink our already broke-ass joke of a country deeper into the mire of debt and fail

    “36 House Republicans uphold Davis-Bacon prevailing wages”

    http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=49590

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  27. I was thinking about why Pelosi believes she can say contradictory things like this without consequences. One obvious reason is she has a forgiving press, but another might be that modern liberalism is very subjective. The goal is saying and doing things that make us feel good about ourselves, even if they don’t turn out to be correct. I suspect this appeals to people who believe the highest good is individual self-fulfillment, which is most people since the 1960’s. If this is correct, it might also explain why the emphasis in education on intent rather than results produces so many people who support liberalism.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  28. Heh:

    President Obama strolled out to the podium today in San Jose, CA and was immediately at a loss for words. Not only did the President not have teleprompter, his aides forgot his speech.

    “My remarks are not sitting here,” the President declared awkwardly. “I’m uhhh….people….oh goodness….uhhhh…folks are sweating back there right now.”

    President Obama, who’s often mocked for an over-reliance on scripts, shifted uncomfortably smiling for several moments buying time. An aide sprinted out with a hard copy of the speech, tripping at one point, adding to the drama.

    Obama actually handled the situation in reasonably good humor — except for his obvious displeasure with his staff — but it was still awkward. Video at the link.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  29. Haven’t you folks been listening to her over the years. She’s simply going senile. She can remember distant Democrap talking points, from long ago; but she has no short term memory. At this point she’s simply run by her staff, who trot her out so she can win elections; and so they can keep their jobs.

    Mike Giles (54b9d0)

  30. Sadly, DRJ, I think that Nancy probably actually believed it back at the time she said it. There was so little openness at the time to hearing contrary economic views of Obamacare (that were mostly coming from conservatives of course) that eager liberals and the press continually reinforced themselves and questioned nothing. We here all viewed it as a lie then, as well as now. But I think she and many lib pols wanted and needed to believe it to sell it–so they did. It would be nice if she could come clean and apologize and say she made a mistake when she said it, or maybe say that things are turning out differently than she had hoped–but she can’t do it. From scandal to scandal, from policy disaster to policy disaster, it’s not in their DNA to be able to admit they were wrong about anything.

    elissa (44e088)

  31. The District of Columbia is now suing the Obama Adminsitration over Davis Bacon.

    Wall Street Jiurnal editorial:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324563004578525601303146548.html

    In late May the district sued to overturn a federal Department of Labor ruling that applied Davis-Bacon to a $700 million downtown development project called CityCenterDC. Davis-Bacon is the 1931 law that requires contractors on all federal projects to pay a “prevailing wage”—which means the highest local union wage. Study after study has shown that the law inflates costs and mires projects in red tape.

    As bad as Davis-Bacon is, it has at least only applied to “public” buildings or works—meaning those funded, owned or occupied by the U.S. or D.C. governments. CityCenter meets none of those requirements. Private developers are funding the project, and neither the federal nor D.C. governments will occupy CityCenter. In 2009 the Carpenters Union petitioned to have Davis-Bacon applied, but a civil servant in the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division declined.

    Yet in June 2011 Nancy Leppink, the acting administrator of Wage and Hour and an Obama appointee, summarily reversed that ruling. She took the position that while the D.C. government has leased the land to developers for 99 years, it still technically owns it and retains some (token) regulatory construction oversight. She added that because CityCenter will supply jobs and tax revenue for the city, these “economic benefits” mean the project is a “public work.”

    This unprecedented definition of “public” has thrown the D.C. government into an uproar, since it will be required to reimburse the private developers of CityCenter for some $20 million in higher Davis-Bacon wages. Mayor Vincent Gray’s administration has been fighting the Leppink ruling administratively, but on April 30 Labor’s Administrative Review Board (stacked with political appointees) sided with the unions.

    District Attorney General Irvin Nathan then sued in federal court, as have the private developers. Mr. Nathan calls the imposition of Davis-Bacon “contrary to 80 years of jurisprudence” and a “serious danger to many other construction projects in the District.” …

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  32. I agree, elissa. I think they 100% believe everything they say when they say it. But I’m curious why they don’t feel the need to look backward and wonder why they were wrong. Maybe they do privately but just not publicly, but my impression is they don’t think it’s important. It’s as if every day is a new day to them, and learning from the past is a wasted exercise.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  33. Let me add that because intent is what matters most, liberals don’t seem to feel the need to be sure what they say every day is right. What’s important is whether it feels right.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  34. Will today’s embarrassing Obama teleprompter debacle make it to any of the evening news shows? Will have to watch and see. (Probably not, unless an unfortunate nervous sip of water was also involved ala Rubio.) Regardless of his current out of favor status, that media created imbroglio around Rubio was the nadir of network journalism as far as I am concerned.

    elissa (44e088)

  35. It is the old addage about how a liar should have a really good memory, so they can remember all the lies they’ve told (and who they specifically told them to !) in the past.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  36. DRJ (#27) I think the liberal mind abnormality is more severe than just a focus on self-fulfillment. They appear to believe that what they think actually affects reality. Hence the focus on controlling speach and presumably thought. They embrace things like anthropogenic global warming with such ardor because they want to be able to control things, and if they could cause the oceans to rise or fall (either would do) it would be an affirmation of their omniscience. And they despise those who disagree with them because they think this disagreement is a disruption of the mythical force they are hoping to master, and thus hinders the “good” outcome they are imagining. It is related to the Alpha trait in dogs in the sense that certain behaviors allow people to dominate others in inter-personal relations, and liberalism is just the unwarranted extension of these behavioral patterns into the physical world.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  37. That’s interesting, bobathome. We might be saying the same thing because I view the things you describe as liberals’ attempt to justify individual self-fulfillment as something that will also help society. That enables liberals to claim the moral imperative of a religion and explains why some display a religious zealotry or conviction that they are the only true believers.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  38. As long as Leftists advocate the “good” course, it doesn’t matter if their goals never materialize, as that is always the fault of others, regardless of whether the goal was actually attainable, or would benefit the majority in any way.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  39. I suspect there is a lot Pelosi does not remember.
    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 6/7/2013 @ 8:29 am

    — Some of those Botox needles may have pierced the skull.

    Icy (c33448)

  40. Who are you going to believe? Pelosi–or your lying ears?

    This shameless old hack has had a very selective “memory” for a very long time.

    Comanche Voter (f4c7d5)

  41. DRJ, I was thinking about this and recalled Thomas Sowell’s book about contrained and unconstrained views of human nature (A Conflict of Visions), and the relation to political affiliation. And that gets you down the road quite a ways, but it doesn’t explain the liberal’s complete lack of interest in history. I know a lot of very bright PhDs who daily work with all sorts of reality issues in their speciality (the conservation of mass for example,) but they don’t apply the same discipline to their political thought. Pelosi’s Keynesian multiplier for unemployment benefits, which allowed her to view the handout as a wonderful “investment”, would be accepted without question by these guys. I think it is mainly laziness. And your notion of a moral imperative works to justify their willful choice of ignorance, which also suggests that the myths motivating these people are more compelling as the issue become more emotional. So it’s always “for the children”. Perhaps things will become sufficiently clear in the current crises that some fraction of these fools will resort to rational thought. The problem is that traditionally it has taken enormous hardship, two world wars in the last century, to get them to recognize that wishing for something doesn’t make it happen. Some view Sowell’s contrained man as a tragic vision. But that is because they haven’t bothered to think about what our founders knew and implemented. It is only tragic because they can’t command reality in the same way they think they can command their peers.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  42. She’ll have to read her health care coverage bill to see what’s in it. Oh. Well, we’ll know.

    htom (412a17)

  43. bobathome,

    By my count, there are 12 pithy and thought-provoking sentences in your last comment. I read them twice to make sure I fully grasp what you’re saying, and I agree with every one.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  44. What about the Title of the Bill?
    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/7/2013 @ 8:27 am

    — And now you know what they meant: Making health insurance/health care more affordable for those that previously (allegedly) could not afford it; and all the rest of us are paying for it. IOW, all it is is a massive expansion of Medicaid.

    Icy (c33448)

  45. Expanding Medicaid to move closer to the ultimate goal of universal health care.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  46. Thomas Sowell puts it very well, and his “Vision of the Anointed” and “Conflict of Visions” are SO well worth reading and thinking about.

    I could be flippant, and suggest that far-Leftists have no religion, so they have created one out of politics. And there may well be some truth to that, based on their behavior.

    But I think the issue is more philosophical. Rousseau believed that the “natural state” of humanity was good and decent, and that society has warped us (the “Noble Savage” nonsense). Hobbes believed in a different vision of course, but even there, believed that external forces could “perfect” humanity.

    In both cases, the idea that an external force—government, to the Left…God to some folks on the Right—can perfect human beings. And that drives much of our politics, on the Right and on the Left.

    The only problem is that the idea that religion should dictate our political lives was not popular with the Founders. The Left has utterly no problem dictating their “religion.” And if you believe that you are “cosmically correct” (as in religious fervor), then people who disagree with you must be cosmically incorrect. Which is why that McDermott character actually tried to claim it was the Tea Party Organizations’ fault that they were persecuted, since they came to the IRS.

    Imagine the reverse, that the IRS was going after Left organizations in exactly the same fashion, under a Republican administration. McDermott would change his position so quickly it would cause whiplash. Because he believes “his side” is cosmically correct.

    Which takes us to the hypocrisy we see from Pelosi, et al.

    As I said/quoted before: the only just rule or law is one you do not mind in the hands of your bitterest enemies.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  47. I think it is their secular religion, Simon, because people need morality in their lives. If they don’t believe in God and His morality, they will find it somewhere else.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  48. Those last 2 comments from bobathome are a tour de force.

    JD (b63a52)

  49. It reminds me of Ernest Hemingway, whose writings focused on morality, individual conduct and a search for values. (Some say all literature is about this.) I think humans are constantly trying to find a code of conduct that both guides and comforts us in our lives.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  50. “the liberal mind abnormality is more severe than just a focus on self-fulfillment. They appear to believe that what they think actually affects reality.”

    – bobathome

    “The liberal mind abnormality”… making conservativism “normal,” somehow?

    And what people think does “actually affect reality.” Do you disagree with that?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  51. DRJ, I don’t know that it is morality, but ethos in the classical sense. Where is nk when you need him?

    But some of the current sentiment is clearly quasi-religious, like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DePimVb9dY

    I used to think it was because no supporter would want to admit that they were crudely played by a Chicago pol without a great record. But it seems deeper than that. To the point that some of these folks simply don’t care what the President does. If he does it, it must be best.

    Creepy.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  52. “some of these folks simply don’t care what the President does. If he does it, it must be best.

    Creepy.”

    – Simon Jester

    Agreed. Super-creepy.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  53. Like, Anthony-Weiner-creey.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  54. *creepy

    dammit

    Leviticus (b98400)

  55. And what people think does “actually affect reality.” Do you disagree with that?

    Yes, because unless you put your thoughts into action, it’s all just conjecture.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  56. Yeah, but people are constantly putting their thoughts into action. So even though there’s a degree of removal, what people think most definitely affects reality.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  57. I think leftists, who believe man is good and freedom is the normal state of man, have glimpses of reality and think, this is terrible, how can we fix it? So they hear an answer, the idealism or utopianism supplied by the left, and they stop.

    Their moral and intellectual panic is so profound that they stop at the resting place offered.

    Patricia (be0117)

  58. Rest in Hell

    Rcihard Ramirez has died.

    Kevin M (b463f7)

  59. Conservatives need to take a deep breath and at least attempt to understand the need for and value of Obamacare:

    Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expensive to cover. We are the only democracy — the only advanced democracy on Earth — the only wealthy nation — that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.(h/t President Barack Obama)

    I think we can all agree that the status quo is unacceptable. If not Obamacare, then what?

    Gramps2 (2ce516)

  60. So should we forgive her because she suffers from a genuine lack of recall(which is very worrysome), or her attempt to hide her complicity,
    or her utter incompetence? This is not an issue due to political affiliation, but an issue of basic morals.

    James (534ee4)

  61. NO rest for Ramirez, ever.

    Icy (c33448)

  62. No, this is deliberate, as were the lies to sell the program,

    narciso (3fec35)

  63. Perry, your post has WHAT to do with Pelosi lying to the American people about the cost of health insurance premiums under Obamacare?

    Icy (c33448)

  64. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage

    The implication is that they never regain their coverage, which is false. If it were true, we’d have an extra 5.1 million people uninsured every year, or 30 million in the last 6 years. That’s patently false.

    And let’s not forget that you are confusing the difference between coverage and care. You can get medical care without insurance. I did it for years.

    Chuck Bartowski (11fb31)

  65. We are the only democracy — the only advanced democracy on Earth — the only wealthy nation — that allows such hardship for millions of its people.

    The alternative to Obamacare is stopping liberals from vandalizing the health care system.

    If it’s not broke, as the old saying goes, they’ll fix it until it is. Obamacare is just another liberal attempt to break the system further, lying to the public all the while that they’re making things better, in order to destroy every last vestige of a “market” in health care.

    We shouldn’t allow hardship for millions of people. Which is why we need to stop liberals from legislating that hardship into existence.

    It’s very convenient now for liberals like Pelosi and Obama to forget exactly what pitch they used to sell this abortion to the American people. It didn’t work, by the way as most Americans aren’t buying it. But Pelosi did say everybody would have a lower rate. Obama promised your rates would go down so much your employer could give you a raise. And that if you like your health insurance, you could keep it.

    All very obvious lies. Now for millions of Americans the issue won’t be keeping your insurance, because it’s a given they won’t. It’s going to be a question of keeping their jobs.

    Obama and his wrecking crew aren’t just allowing hardship for millions of people; they’re regulating it into existence by design.

    And they’re lying about it, as is Pelosi when she says she can’t remember when she used one of the main Democratic talking points about the benefits of Obamacare.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  66. Speaking of liars, Eric Holder confirms he lied to the judge to get the Rosen warrant.

    http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/05/18781813-holder-says-he-has-no-intention-of-stepping-down?lite

    He defends his actions by claiming if you want to get a secret search warrant for a reporter, that’s what you need to say even if you you don’t believe it’s true.

    As for using the term “co-conspirator” in describing Rosen’s role in a leak investigation, Holder explained that the phrasing was necessary in order to get a search warrant.

    “I don’t like that, because it means that me as a government official, and who has great respect for the press, is in essence saying that the reporter who is doing his or her job, and doing that very important job, is somehow branded a criminal,” he said. “And I’m just not comfortable with that. And we’re going to change it.”

    There’s a word for saying things you don’t believe are true. It’s called lying.

    We have the classic Obama administration passive voice of evasion. Roses wasn’t “somehow branded a criminal.” Holder deliberately branded Rosen a criminal in order to get a search warrant and to keep it secret from Rosen and Fox. He could have gotten a search warrant for Rosen’s emails and phone records if he merely wanted evidence of Mr. Kim’s guilt.

    But to get a secret warrant to snoop on Rosen, Holder had to convince a judge that it Rosen faced “potential criminal liability.” So he In other words potential prosecution. And thus Holder needed to convince the judge the warrant needed to be kept secret from Rosen because he wouldn’t voluntarily cooperate with the warrant knowing the DoJ was searching for direct evidence of his guilt as well as Kim’s. So he used an affidavit in the warrant request that he personally approved to assert those things he says now he didn’t believe to be true at the time.

    As former prosecutor Bill Otis points out on his blog…

    http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2013/06/the-bordering-on-silly-defense-1.html#more

    It’s the whole point of an investigation to determine whether or not a prosecution is warranted. While the investigation is on-going, by definition the government doesn’t know whether its targets will or will not be prosecuted. The outcome of an investigation conducted with even minimal integrity depends, not on pre-existing personal or political inclinations, but on what the evidence turns up. Every serious investigation — and this one was as serious as it gets — holds in it, at the minimum, a potential prosecution. To deny this cannot be anything but false.

    If he didn’t personally approve of the warrant application that included those assertions he knew to be false at the time, then as Holder admits in the NBC interview he never would have gotten a secret warrant to spy on Rosen.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  67. There’s a word for saying things you don’t believe are true. It’s called lying.

    Steve, that’s a very precise, accurate, and devastating point. It cuts right to the heart of what’s wrong with government today.

    Given Holder’s body of work as a lawyer, it is no surprise he lied to a judge in order to attack the civil rights of a political enemy (a free press reporting accurately). But that it’s no surprise doesn’t mean it’s not news.

    Dustin (303dca)

  68. “Steve, that’s a very precise, accurate, and devastating point. It cuts right to the heart of what’s wrong with government today.”

    – Dustin

    I agree with Dustin and Steve57 on this point.

    Leviticus (2c236c)

  69. Perry is on his second identity, GrampsDos. Yet another serial troll.

    JD (b63a52)

  70. Getting back to the topic, Nancy Pelosi isn’t the only one who doesn’t remember the claims they made about Obamacare when they were trying to sell it to the public.

    Remember this?

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-6306991.html

    Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.

    “You’ll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool,” Mr. Obama said. “And that will lower rates, it’s estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you’re currently getting. That’s money out of pocket.”

    And that’s not all.

    Mr. Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.

    “Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent,” said the president, “which means they could give you a raise.”

    A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.

    None of this was remotely true at the time, and that was obviously the case. No one knew what had to be included even in the minimum qualifying coverage. The thousands of pages of wish list (it couldn’t even be realistically called a law) the President signed simply authorized the HHS to write the rules as to what qualified coverage would look like “as the Secretary shall direct.” So a) it was axiomatically true you couldn’t keep your health insurance plan if you liked it because the feds were changing the rules about what your health insurance plan had to include and b) Given the fact you had to subsidize other people’s insurance who had preexisting conditions (as well as expanded Medicaid coverages) plus you weren’t allowed to buy only what coverage you needed it was a lock the rates were going to go up.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  71. FWIW, I feel that Obama’s sins do indeed have their root in the Bush administration.

    Did Obama take them farther? Yes. Does ‘BOOOSH’ give Obama any protection from blame? None at all.

    But doors were opened in the aftermath to 9/11 that have predictably led the way here. The Obama administration’s recent scandals point to a far more sinister way of doing politics than Bush had. I don’t recall Bush abusing his office to help himself or his party politically. Obama’s IRS and BATF among other agencies clearly do exactly that, at tremendous cost to all of us (and I don’t mean monetarily, though certainly there as well).

    So I guess Bush’s administration was fundamentally different in its abuses. Yet still I wish they hadn’t opened the door to this world we’re in now.

    I also notice that our sour political climate has led to many defending when Republicans do abuse their office for sheer political advantage (rather than wise policies that win support, things like Christie’s corrupt electioneering). Sadly, too many in the GOP are difficult to distinguish morally from Obama’s most shameless sycophants.

    Anyway, pox on both houses.

    Dustin (303dca)

  72. The thing is Dustin, and I pointed this out on the other thread, he ran explicitly in 2008, as being opposed to expanded surveilance,

    narciso (3fec35)

  73. The roots to Obama and Bush’s sins are liberalism. Period.

    Fact Obama has lied about just everything he can is simply a character flaw.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  74. Dustin – I don’t get it. I tried. Putting this on Bush is BS. It is abundantly clear that Bush never envisioned that which Obama has created with this system.

    JD (b63a52)

  75. #72. Bingo. Instead of doing what he claimed he would he did the other. Promised most transparent … er. Promised post-partisan ,,, er. Promised to end wars … er. Promised to improve Islamic relations …. er. Promised to improve the economy … er. List is endless.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  76. #74 It misses the entire point IMHO. Dude has been in office 4+ years, is he responsible for anything yet?????? Anything?

    President Passerby.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  77. I pointed this out on the other thread, he ran explicitly in 2008, as being opposed to expanded surveilance,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35)

    Absolutely, narciso. The left, and Obama in particular, made this kind of issue a massive indictment of the evils of Republicans. As soon as they got their turn at the wheel, they made these programs far worse, and apparently they are targeting every American. It all sounds like one of those crazy Alex Jones reports that exaggerates and sensationalizes what it doesn’t make up. It’s sad to realize that many far fetched conspiracy theories are difficult to distinguish from the truth.

    I’m convinced one reason Obama is worse is that he has a compliant press. Bush’s most cynical advisers would always realize the press was always ready to make a huge issue of any excess they discovered. Obama’s advisers know Obama can get away with much, much more.

    I’m sure that’s a big reason these scoops were held until after the election. I would be surprised if deals weren’t made to that exact effect. I feel that calls the legitimacy of the election into question, too.

    The roots to Obama and Bush’s sins are liberalism. Period.

    I agree. Morality is the truth in full bloom, and conservative principles of a moral government (much of which used to be called classical liberalism) is for limitations on government because it preserves freedom. Every way government grows in awareness and power is going to corrode our privacy and freedom, of course.

    I believe Bush 43 is a very good man, but we lost too much freedom on 9/11.

    Dustin (303dca)

  78. Dustin – I don’t get it. I tried. Putting this on Bush is BS. It is abundantly clear that Bush never envisioned that which Obama has created with this system.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 6/7/2013 @ 8:49 pm

    I agree that pinning Obama’s expansions of surveillance, and the massive expansion in the target of this surveillance, is not something Bush did, nor something I think he’d want. More to the point that concerns me, Obama’s administrations abuse of office, for politics sake, is something I think the Bush administration was pretty good about avoiding.

    But the Bush administration went farther than I wish they had, and opened the door to these abuses in a predictable way. This is a difficult issue for a leader who is trying to protect us from massive attacks and doesn’t have the luxury of worrying about corrupt democrats a decade into the future, of course. But they opened the door to this. I believe that.

    Dustin (303dca)

  79. Steve. The difference between a garden variety leftist or even a liberal of the Bill Clinton order, is that, heretofore-average lib like Clinton, would lie when cornered, or would lie to save his own skin if and when necessary.
    The MARXIST real live, Commie, such as Obama, LIES as a necessity to move his IDEOLOGICAL GOALS down the track. Obama and other Alynski types, realize that their goals are not immediate gratification and policy goals of the moment. Obama is dismantling the traditions, institutions and American mores and political processes that we have always known. To tell the truth, would lead to far more debate and wrangling in the Legislative branch. The perfect shyte storm happened when Obama had the House and Senate at the same time in 09, and 2010. In those 2 years, Obama and Congress (Pelosi and Reid) did INCREDIBLE DAMAGE to the country. Obamacare, known Orwellianly as THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, and the also Orwellian…RECOVERY ACT, have nearly bankrupted this nation going forward. The RECOVERY ACT has been spent 4 times over THUS FAR, because no BUDGET has been passed, and CONGRESS was dumb enough to pass a continuing resolution. Obama lies each and every time he speaks, and as scary as it seems, AMERICA hasn’t caught on to him quite yet.

    Gus (694db4)

  80. Dustin, I think your post was thought out, sincere and very logical. One problem. Obama doesn’t obey the law. Obama does not allow dissent. Whether Bush and Congress, including many many democrats, EVER, thought up and passed the Patriot Act. And re-passed it. Obama is going to do what Obama is going to do. The Patriot Act is the EXCUSE, and the Diversion. What our PROBLEM is, is Obama, and his SERIOUS MARXIST IDEOLOGY. If not the Patriot Act, Obama would use other means. Does the term EXECUTIVE ORDER ring a bell??? Furthermore, George Bush was faced with a REAL REAL DISASTER. We learn as we go, but George Bush’s intent was good and honorable. Obama’s intentions are MARXIST/SOCIALIST.

    Gus (694db4)

  81. this is so different than Bush in many ways not least of which that we now know beyond a shadow of a doubt, quite contrary to what is indicated by Princess Lindsey’s curtsey of approval, that our amoral whore of a government including the NSA is run by fascist piggy pigs who don’t give a goddamn crap about the welfare or dignity of you or me or ashton kutcher or black people or teachers or legal immigrants or lesbian single mothers or insurance salesmen or presbyterians or people what are suffering the ravages of persistent bedbug infestation

    they don’t give a crap and they will eff you up and abuse your freedoms without thinking twice

    our government is a fascist pig-like one, and it is not to be trusted

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  82. incidentally electing a Team R to our whore magnet white house won’t do a damn thing to dislodge the fascist pigsluts what permeate each and every layer upon layer of the pension whore bureaucracy what runs this doomed and rapidly declining once-promising little country

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  83. fortunately we can relax and refresh with the refreshing taste of bud light with clamato chelada

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  84. The problem with Bush is he was a “compassionate, big government, conservative.”

    In other words, not really conservative. He believed too much in government, that it was a force for good, just like all the other establishment Republicans in DC. Hence Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind, to name two examples. There were times during his presidency I totally agreed with Ace. Who several times expressed disgust at defending the man, and said if the Democrats wanted to impeach Bush he was willing to let nature take its course.

    But the problem with all these scandals popping up is this is what happens when you empower government. Specifically the executive branch. Really the difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama can thumb his nose at Congressional oversight. Who’s going to make him cooperate with the House’s investigations in his DoJ, EPA, NSA, DoS, DoD, and IRS? Not the Senate Democrats, not the press, and certainly not his AG. The courts might; his executive privilege claim that attempts to shield internal documents and communications related to Fast & Furious generated in a department that’s entirely a creation of Congress from Congress is laughable. But given his attitude toward his non-recess recess appointments I don’t think he takes that seriously either. Maybe he’ll just thumb his nose at the judiciary as well; perhaps he’ll just show Roberts the emails the Chief Justice has been exchanging with his mistress or something. Like he apparently did with Petraeus.

    None of the departments or agencies being investigated are really cooperating. They don’t have to. That’s one of the common threads running through all these investigations.

    As far as opening the door, Bush didn’t really open the door. NSA has been conducting surveillance since forever. If you remember the Church commission you’ll remember that they, the CIA, and FBI had pretty robust domestic surveillance programs through the 50s, 60s, and 70s. FISA and the FISC were created in the late 70s under Carter supposedly to rein them in but I doubt it. The only thing that really changed under Bush was the surveillance technology got orders of magnitude better.

    All the Patriot Act did for Bush’s legal authority was it added designated terrorist organizations to the definition of “foreign power” and permitted intelligence agencies to monitor those entities and their domestic agents. It opened the door wider, but it was open pretty wide already.

    You could get rid of the Patriot Act tomorrow and the NSA and other intel and law enforcement agencies would still now have the same capabilities to collect all the same digital communications.

    Remember, before there was PRISM there was Carnivore during the Clinton era. I’m certain PRISM can capture data at a rate the feds only dreamed of then, but this was where we were headed before there ever was a Patriot Act.

    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/07/37560

    U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno said Thursday she would review a new FBI automated computer system that can wiretap the Internet to determine whether it might infringe on privacy rights.

    “I’m taking a look at it now to make sure that we balance the rights of all Americans with the technology of today,” Reno said when asked about the FBI system known as “Carnivore” that can be used to monitor all emails of a criminal suspect.

    Anyone doubt NSA and other intel agencies could have come up with a national security threat such as preventing a Chinese or NORK cyber attack to capture all the domestic data they’re capturing now if the Patriot Act had never been written? I don’t.

    Also recall that we shared PRISM data with Britain’s equivalent of NSA, the GCHQ. Does anyone doubt the intel sharing isn’t reciprocal? Does anyone believe that’s the only foreign intelligence agency we have such agreements with? That’s the thing about civil liberties and privacy laws. There’s always someone who can get around your own for you.

    There’s a lot of things I dislike about Bush. But we were well on the road to this total surveillance state before he took office.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  85. i like bush and laura they were the last for reals president and first lady america had before it devolved into a squalid fascist echo of piteous eurofail

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  86. civil liberties?

    we’re talking about America we’re talking about a vicious and hateful whorestate what will throw your ass in jail for posting a risibly bad youtube about incoherent religious twaddle

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  87. Good God. You drink that?
    My wife stuck clamato and lime in my beer once… she is mexican and evidently it made sense to her from some cultural perspective I do not share… it wasn’t bad enough to divorce her, but it wasn’t beer.
    Salt, lime and a kilo of barbacoa with unlimited tortillas and avocados is all a beer needs

    SteveG (794291)

  88. i became a chelada guy today

    for reals I really liked the best one especially

    but the bud light one would be welcome at a ball game or on a boat in the mediterranean as we make our way to a secluded North African beach

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  89. 88, but the bud light one would be welcome . . . on a boat in the mediterranean as we make our way to a secluded North African beach

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 6/7/2013 @ 10:25 pm

    I prefer Sam Adams whenever I’m invading North Africa. But if I can’t get that then Pilsner Urquell will do just fine.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  90. i prefer the beer they named after me: http://www.arrogantbastard.com/arrogantbastard/default.asp

    This is an aggressive ale. You probably won’t like it. It is quite doubtful that you have the taste or sophistication to be able to appreciate an ale of this quality and depth. We would suggest that you stick to safer and more familiar territory–maybe something with a multi-million dollar ad campaign aimed at convincing you it’s made in a little brewery, or one that implies that their tasteless fizzy yellow beverage will give you more sex appeal. Perhaps you think multi-million dollar ad campaigns make things taste better. Perhaps you’re mouthing your words as you read this.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  91. any “beer” you have to add stuff to isn’t worth the bother of drinking, unless your only goal is to get boracho.

    however, if you want a good beer to go with your
    carnitas, or barbacoa, etc, stick with Negra Modelo.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  92. the arrogant bastard is in the fridge at work my boss likes that

    i love negra myself

    but I’m on a wine kick I bought like 40 bottles of this on memorial day cause of it benefits wounded warrior

    http://www.sidebysidewine.azaleacharities.com/about/Bravery.shtml#

    here is where you also can buy yourself some and support one of the only worthy causes in the whole world

    http://www.sidebysidewine.azaleacharities.com/about/buy.shtml

    for reals I swored off charity after food stamp’s reelection but this is a good exception to make

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  93. if you try to make your own chelada don’t forget the beer salt especially this kind cause of it comes from texas

    http://www.ebay.com/itm/121019079048?hlp=false&var=

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  94. Leviticus (#50)
    “The liberal mind abnormality”… making conservativism “normal,” somehow?

    Nice try, but the latter does not follow from the former. Newt, Romney and McCain are all nominally conservatives, but finding some common “normality” amongst the lot is beyond my ability. Would that it were true, however!

    And what people think does “actually affect reality.” Do you disagree with that?

    Human intellect and logic when combined with determination, capital, and a free enterprise system that weeds out the less worthy efforts have accomplished great things. But it is silly to argue that thinking something makes it so. Thinking in the terms you suggest is at best self-delusion and about the only thing liberals accomplish with such day dreams is to modify their emotional state. Now if this makes them safer drivers, then this could affect “reality” as you and I experience it, particularly if we all live in the same city. But if liberals are in the majority in that city, reality is going to be relatively ugly, even if said liberals are happily sedated and we manage to survive our commute home.

    It is also true that a society that squanders its wealth on trivia, for example seeking to halt the ocean’s rise via cap and trade charades that hamstring productivity, while neglecting its constitutional responsibilities, will manage to make some devastating changes in the realities that its survivors experience. One need only look at France to see the wages of over two centuries of such folly. I’m just starting Harold Rood’s Kingdoms of the Blind to remind me of the consequences of liberal thought which seems to underlie all the great calamities of the last century. I had the priviledge of taking a class from Rood in the 60’s, and so far the book is much along the line of his lectures as I recall them from those distant days.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  95. I told my doctor that it contains both fruit and vegetable juices.
    He seemed unimpressed.

    SteveG (794291)

  96. Pelosi’s earlier statement is inoperative. The left admonishes us for living in the past, for glorifying what went before, be it Pelosi pronouncements or slavery.

    Pelosi can hardly be expected to remember what some aide put on the notes he gave her years ago when she can’t even remember her botox appointment on her own.

    I used to think Pelosi was abominable but at least she had a cute dimple on her chin. Then I found out that after all the “work,” it’s really her navel.

    Estragon (19fa04)

  97. I know a lot of very bright PhDs who daily work with all sorts of reality issues in their speciality (the conservation of mass for example,) but they don’t apply the same discipline to their political thought.

    The way the brains of such people works both astonishes and repels me. Even more so if the person is well past his youthful years, well past his 20s, 30s or, most certainly, 40s. (BTW, Obama, et al, are in their 50s). I tend not to be too annoyed with liberals when they’re teenagers or in their 20s. But I become increasingly irritated with them if they’re in their 30s and beyond. At that point, it’s like dealing with — and I’m being only partly sarcastic here — mental illness.

    When otherwise very intelligent people, in terms of rote memory, as one example, are lacking in common sense and a mature outlook on life (and still see human nature through a distorted lens), that is an illustration to me of the way that intellectual capacity and basic wisdom are not mutually inclusive.

    Context is also important. To have been a liberal over 50 years ago meant one thing. To be a liberal in the context of 2013, in the 21st century, is a whole different matter.

    Finally, when learning a few weeks ago of just how surprisingly bigoted/racist Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, and previously being aware of similar characteristics shared by his fellow liberal figureheads of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman (who promoted the idea of socialized healthcare over 50 years ago), I think various people on the left are motivated by a guilty conscience. Many of them also project their own worse characteristics onto others, certainly people who they oppose ideologically.

    BTW, various conservatives display a variation of this, in which deep down they have left-leaning tendencies. Ronald Reagan’s biggest blunder, Iran-Contra, stemmed from that trait.

    Mark (72edfd)

  98. Mark, I don’t know why I thought you might be interested in this story.

    nk (875f57)

  99. This is a surprise?
    surprise is she even knows
    what damn day it is

    Colonel Haiku (f416ac)

  100. bobathome,

    Friend, please contribute more often.
    Good stuff !

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  101. Palomino!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  102. Comment by Leviticus (b98400) — 6/7/2013 @ 1:36 pm

    Again, reality is affected by actions, not thoughts.
    The thoughts have to be put into effect for there to be consequences.
    You can have the greatest thoughts in the world, but unless you put pen to paper, all you have are electrons bouncing back and forth in your cranium.

    askeptic (2bb434)

  103. and not all of those cranial crumbs need to be shared, either!

    Colonel Haiku (9a1c93)

  104. One man’s treasure is everyone else’s cranial crumbs !

    Elephant Stone (da6dfd)

  105. Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein. Bubble bubble toil and trouble.

    jack (83ebf3)

  106. Pelosi, dear, we know perfectly well that you (in common with all your Liberal Lefty Twit friends) can never remember anything remotely inconvenient to you. That’s why we trust you about as far as we could kick the Washington Monument, and consider the morons who vote for you borderline brain-dead.

    Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (adb9dd) — 6/7/2013 @ 8:40 am

    Mainstream media can never remember anything inconvenient either.

    AZ Bob (c11d35)

  107. 108. This will work’

    http://twitchy.com/2013/06/08/benched-obama-gives-chinas-leader-patio-furniture-as-parting-gift-goes-golfing/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 6/8/2013 @ 7:16 pm

    See, if Obama loved America he’d have given the PRC leader a free Skype-enabled laptop or sumpthin.’

    How are we going to spy on them with patio furniture?

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  108. Oh, wait, I forgot. Spying on them isn’t the priority with this administration.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  109. his racist grandma just flat out did not raise him right

    it’s unfortunate

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  110. There’s an interesting video at the following link.

    http://therightscoop.com/louie-gohmert-if-holder-ignores-another-congressional-subpoena-its-time-to-defund-the-doj/

    Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas says if Holder ignores one more congressional subpoena it’s time to defund the DoJ. He wants Holder to come back and testify about the conflict between his testimony before Congress about the Rosen warrant and the assertions in the affidavit in the warrant application he personally approved. If he won’t come voluntarily than Congress will subpoena him.

    Gohmert, who spent years on the bench, says if Holder’s congressional testimony was truthful than he committed a fraud upon the court. You simply can not tell a judge that you need a secret warrant because the target, Rosen, my obstruct the investigation if he becomes aware of it due to his own “potential criminal liability” in the matter. One can read the warrant application as generously as possible toward Holder, as professors Kerr and Volokh have done, but you simply can not have your own definition of words. Liability is the state of being liable, and to be liable is to be “1 a : obligated according to law or equity : responsible.”

    By telling the judge that Rosen had “potential criminal liability” Holder was telling the judge Rosen may be held to account for a crime. The only way that can happen is through prosecution. It simply can not be that Holder’s warrant application was truthful and his congressional testimony was truthful.

    Fortunately Holder himself admits to this. Earlier I linked to an interview Holder gave where he admits he just said what he had to say to get a secret warrant.

    I’ve quoted former AUSA Bill Otis over at his Crime & Consequences blog before.

    http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2013/06/the-bordering-on-silly-defense-1.html#more

    He observes:

    So he now admits, to use his words, that he effectively “branded [Rosen] a criminal.” OK, quick now, when a prosecutor brands Mr. X a criminal, is there a “potential prosecution” of Mr. X?

    I could stop there, but I won’t, because it gets worse. One might think that the Attorney General of the United States would describe the target of a sought search warrant as a co-conspirator in a federal felony because — ready now? — he actually is a co-conspirator in a federal felony, rather than tossing it in because it’s, ya know, “necessary” to get the court to go along with the intrusion the government wants to undertake.

    Good grief. Has mere expediency replaced basic truth-telling as the standard for what the Attorney General tells the court? If so, there is more, not less, reason for him to resign. Did Holder also change the instructions to his line prosecutors to read: “When seeking a search warrant from a judge, state whatever boilerplate is necessary to get the warrant. Whether you actually believe it is, well, hey, look…………”

    When Otis was a federal prosecutor he met Holder and considers him “a decently capable man who’s not up to a very demanding job.” From afar I have to agree with that. He simply doesn’t seem that bright, but he’s gotten where he is by being not so much a great attorney or an ideologue but a rank careerist.

    This makes his lies different from Pelosi’s. Of course Pelosi will lie to advance her ideology; it’s the communist way. But Holder simply lies to advance Holder. That’s why all the establishment Republicans endorsed him. Holder’s a liberal but he doesn’t let that get in the way of being a good German. He’ll pretty much say and do anything for any boss if he thinks he can move up the food chain.

    That’s why he violated DoJ rules to help Marc Rich get his pardon. He wanted to move up from Deputy AG in the Clinton administration to AG in the Gore administration. So he dealt with the billionaire fugitive not by demanding he turn himself in first but by giving former WH counsel Jack Quinn a new, rich client to represent. When the line prosecutors in NY refused to settle the case, then Holder arranged them to get in the back door he created at the WH to lobby Clinton directly at the WH with no opposition from DoJ. In return he hoped Quinn would lobby Gore to get Holder the job he wanted.

    Unfortunately for decently but not remarkably capable Holder who’s gotten where he is by servicing the right people he tripped himself up here. Which is good for the country.

    It would be even better if we could get rid of serial liar Pelosi. Fortunately she seems to have tripped herself up, too. People are learning to hate Obamacare and that obnoxious picture of her carrying that gavel is going to haunt her for the rest of her life. I doubt even with Obama monitoring everyone and then using the IRS and other agencies to attack his enemies (notably not terrorists, as Louie Gohmert observes as well in the above video) can prevent the Democrats from losing even more ground in the House and hopefully the Senate entirely.

    Getting rid of Pelosi entirely is way to much to hope for from the communist enclave that keeps electing her.

    Steve57 (7895a0)

  111. It would be so cool to find out that Obama had a recording system in the oval office.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4954 secs.