Nancy Pelosi Claims She Does Not Know Who Jonathan Gruber Is … FLASHBACK to 2009, Pelosi Touted Gruber’s Work
GRUBER-GATE CONTINUES: NANCY PELOSI, A SENIOR MOMENT? HARDLY, JUST MORE LIES FROM DEMOCRATS …
Embarrassed Democrats try to distance themselves from Jonathon Gruber … House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday that, not only did Jonathan Gruber not play a significant role in drafting Obamacare, but that she doesn’t even “know who he is.” Really San Fran Nan, is that your final answer? I feel like I am watching the game show ‘Who Wants to be a
Millionaire, LYING DEMOCRAT.’ But of course it would appear that Peosi is trying to “gruber” the American people as she thinks we are stupid too. Has she learned nothing about this invention called video tape and the Internet? In 2009 at the height of the Obamacare debate, Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House, touted Gruber’s work with Obamacare. Which begs the question, does Pelosi need to pass Gruber in order to find out who he is?
Is anyone capable of telling the truth in the Democrat party?
But wait Nancy, there is VIDEO of you to commenting on Gruber’s work. Note to Nancy, when one is the architect of Obamacare and is paid nearly $400,000 as a consultant, they did write the bill. In the wake of Gruber-gate, Democrats are proving Jonathon Gruber correct that they think that Americans are stupid. Pelosi would give such a ridiculous, flipped remark that she does not know who he is when she obviously did. It gets better America, Pelosi’s office came back to correct her misspeak by saying … the minority leader meant that she didn’t know Gruber personally. Too bad that is not what she said, Pelosi said, “She said she doesn’t ‘know who he is,’ not that she’s never heard of him. But what else would you expect from Democrats who think you are stupid.
Q: As you know, the Republicans released their health- care bill this week. And I wanted to get your comment on the bill, and specifically on the CBO analysis that it would cost significantly less than the Democratic plan and that it would lower premiums.
PELOSI: Let me just say this. Anything you need to know about the difference between the Democratic bill and the Republican bill is that the Republicans do not end the health insurance companies’ discrimination against people with preexisting conditions. They let that stand. That’s scandalous, the fact that it exists. I don’t understand why they have not heard the American people, who have said preexisting conditions should not be a source of discrimination.
And secondly, the Republican plan ensures about 3 million more people than now, and ours does 36 million people. So that’s a very big difference in that.
We’re not finished getting all of our reports back from CBO, but we’ll have a side by side to compare. But our bill brings down rates. I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber of MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo versus what will happen in our bill for those who seek insurance within the exchange. And our bill takes down those costs, even some now, and much less preventing the upward spiral.
So again, we’re confident about what we set out to do in the bill: middle class affordability, security for our seniors, and accountability to our children.
Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster – ‘Health Reform And Insurance Premiums’
Opponents of health insurance reform continue to spread myths about the recently-passed Affordable Health Care for America Act. For example, they are claiming that health reform would increase premiums for most of America’s families. But the facts continue to knock these myths down—including a brand-new report from the independent Congressional Budget Office.
MYTH: The House health insurance reform bill would result in higher premiums.
FACT: An analysis of the House bill by noted MIT health care economist Jonathan Gruber concludes that the bill would result in lower premiums than under current law for the millions of Americans using the newly-established Health Insurance Exchange – including those who are not receiving affordability credits to help them purchase coverage. (The Health Insurance Exchange is for those without access to affordable employer-sponsored coverage.) As Gruber states: “the premiums that individuals will face in the new exchanges established by this legislation are … considerably lower than what they would face in the non-group insurance market [under current law], due to the market reforms put in place by the House plan, the mandate on individuals to participate regardless of health, and the market economies of new exchanges.”
- The Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, a family at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $93,710 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $1,260 or 12 percent compared to current law. Similarly, the Gruber analysis shows that, on the Exchange, an individual at 425 percent of poverty (whose income of $46,030 means that they would receive no affordability credits) would see their premiums reduced by $470 or 12 percent.
- The annual savings are much larger for lower income populations that receive affordability credits. Under the House bill, when the bill’s affordability credits are taken into account, a family at 275% of poverty (income of $60,640) would save $5,030, or 47 percent in premiums compared to current law and a family at 175 percent of poverty (income of $38,590) would save $9,050 or 84 percent in premiums compared to current law.
- Gruber also points out that, even as individuals and families on the Exchange are paying less, they will be getting more:
- The coverage those on the Exchange get under the House plan would be better than today’s typical coverage in the non-group market.
- For example, it would protect individuals and families from high out-of-pocket costs.
- That’s in addition to other consumer protections in the bill – like ending discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and guaranteeing that your coverage won’t be dropped or watered down when you get sick or need it most.
HOW LOW CAN THEY GO …
According to a new Gallup poll, the favorability for the Democrats has hit a record low following the disastrous loses in the 2014 midterm elections that saw them lose more House seats, lose control of the Senate and lose more governorships. Only 36% polled had a favorable view of the Democratic party, that is a 6% point drop from before the midterms. I think we can now understand why many of the races were not as close as projected and some races like the Senate election in Virginia was even close at all. The polling trend was against the Dems and it showed on election night. The GOP standing with 42 percent favorability, it is the first time since 2011 the Republican party has had a higher rating than the Democrats.
After the midterm elections that saw the Democratic Party suffer significant losses in Congress, a record-low 36% of Americans say they have a favorable opinion of the party, down six percentage points from before the elections. The Republican Party’s favorable rating, at 42%, is essentially unchanged from 40%. This marks the first time since September 2011 that the Republican Party has had a higher favorability rating than the Democratic Party.
These results come from a Nov. 6-9 Gallup poll, conducted after Republicans enjoyed a breathtaking sweep of important contests throughout the country in this year’s midterms. The party gained control of the Senate and will likely capture its largest House majority in nearly a century. Additionally, the GOP now controls 31 governorships and two-thirds of state legislative chambers.
How low can they go? Following the recent video revelations by Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber admitting they deliberately deceived the American people and called them stupid, look for Democrats poll numbers to fall even further.
Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Brags About Lying to the American People … “Call It the Stupidity of the American People”
OBAMACARE FRAUD … FROM THE LIAR IN CHIEF:
Finally we get the creators of Obamacare to call it for what it really is, one big lie and fraud … “Call it the stupidity of the American voter”. For those with any common sense have known from the outset that Obamacare was a sham and a fraud. But for many Americans, as Nancy Pelosi stated in the past, “we have to pass the bill to find out what is in it”. NO WE DIDN’T. Obama, his minions and Democrats purposely wrote this law with a lack of transparency to the American people so that it would pass. Wasn’t this Obama presidency supposed to be the most transparent ever? Yeah America, and I have a bridge to sell you is Brooklyn too.
“You can’t do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that. In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”
Imagine that, it was a premeditated Obama lie when he said, “If You Like Your Health Care Plan, You Can Keep It”.
From Town Hall.com, brings up a few points …
- Notice how lying to the American people is completely justified by Obama administration standards so long as the ends justify the means. Gruber would “rather have this law than not,” and therefore purposely lying about what the law actually is in order to get it passed is completely acceptable. regardless of the negative effects it has on the lives of Americans.
- Lack of transparency might be a huge political advantage in the short term, but long term there are consequences from voters, which is exactly what we saw last week during the Democrat blood bath at every level of government across the country.
- Insulting Americans as stupid and deceiving them is a really good way to lose your power on Capitol Hill, which is again exactly what we saw last week in the 2014 midterms. Twenty-eight Senators who voted for Obamacare are now out of the Senate for one reason or another.
- Obamacare in its entirely was “sold” on lies. From the promise to keep your doctor to claims insurance rates would go down, not up — to hiding that the legislation was in fact a tax until of course it was necessary to argue it was a tax to save the legislation at the Supreme Court. Government bureaucrats promising an expansion of care knowing care under Obamacare would be limited, etc. Hell, even the official name for Obamacare, “The Affordable Care Act,” is a lie. Obamacare isn’t affordable.
- The process through which Obamacare was shoved through and down the throats of the American people happened as a result of Harry Reid changing Senate rules and without the support of voters. The legislation didn’t receive a single Republican vote in the House or the Senate. Also, remember this?
Posted November 11, 2014 by Scared Monkeys
Barack Obama, Campaigner in Chief, Chicago-Style Politics, Democrats, Gutter Politics, Healthcare.gov, Liberals, Misleader, Obamacare, Politics, Progressives, Saul Alinsky, The Lying King, Transparency, WTF, You Can Keep Your Insurance, You Tube - VIDEO | 6 comments
Conservative Radio Host Rush Limbaugh Threatened to Sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for Defamation
According to The Daily Caller, Conservative Radio host Rush Limbaugh has threatened to sue the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for defamation and interference. According to accounts, El Rushbo has retained the services of attorney Patty Glaser, who reportedly delivered a letter to the DCCC on Monday notifying the committee of the possibility of a lawsuit demanding a retraction and apology for intentionally misleading the public. Limbaugh is stating that the DCCC defamed him when they made statements attributed to Rush out of context by Democrat fundraising letters trying to ignite the liberal base. The PJ Tatler is spot on when they say, it is extremely difficult for a public figure to win a defamation case and there is none more public than Rush. However, Democrats have made a cottage industry out of try to defame Rush Limbaugh in the past, why would this be any different?
Limbaugh retained the services of lawyer Patty Glaser and demanded that the DCCC “preserve all records in anticipation of a lawsuit for defamation and interference” after the Democratic Party group led a campaign against Limbaugh based on out-of-context statements the host made about sexual assault. Limbaugh’s legal team delivered a letter to DCCC representatives Monday informing them of the legal threat. Limbaugh has also demanded a public retraction and apology.
The Limbaugh team is currently proceeding from the standpoint of litigating and has not yet made a decision as to whether the DCCC could make any concessions at this point to prevent the lawsuit.
The DCCC “has intentionally disseminated demonstrably false statements concerning Rush Limbaugh in a concerted effort to harm Mr. Limbaugh, and with reckless disregard for the resulting impact to small businesses across America that choose to advertise on his radio program” according to the GlaserWeil law firm’s letter to the DCCC, which was obtained by TheDC. “Mr. Limbaugh clearly, unambiguously, and emphatically condemned the notion that ‘no’ means ‘yes.’”
“Let’s be clear: Rush Limbaugh is advocating for the tolerance of rape” the DCCC stated in a September fundraising email after Limbaugh mocked Ohio State’s new mandatory sexual consent guidelines.
This is one law suit I very much hope goes forward.
Daily Show’s Jon Stewart Rips Obama and Democrats in Post 2014 Midterm Election Analysis … ‘Chickensh*t’ Dems, Obama Played Very Cynical Midterm Politics
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart properly names the Democrats 2014 midterm election strategy … the ‘D*ckless H. Chickensh*t’ gambit.
Ha, Ha, Ha … I don’t agree with Jon Stewart that often, but he pretty much nailed this one. Democrats ran away from issues in red states that they thought were harmful to them and could cost them the elections. In the end they lost those states anyhow.
The “Daily Show” host went on to posit that the tactic was an intentional one used by the Democrats as a means to protect themselves in the midterm elections.
“Senate Democrats wanted to avoid votes on contentious issues, so they wouldn’t have to take unpopular [stances] that might cost them reelection and they got the president to go along with it,” Stewart said. “It’s a well-known political maneuver known as the ‘chickens**t gambit.’ It’s named, of course, for Senator Dickless H. Chickens**t.”
He concluded by accusing Democrats of adopting a do-nothing strategy and avoiding acting on what voters elected them to do.
Pathetic … NAACP Ignores South Carolina’s Tim Scott & Utah’s Mia Love’s Historic 2014 Election Wins (Video)
What does NAACP stand for … Advancement of Colored People, I guess it only matters if they are liberal Democrats.
The NAACP should be ashamed of itself. The following was a statement provided by Cornell William Brooks, President and CEO of the NAACP following the 2014 midterm elections:
“This election was not about who won but the rather the citizens who lost the right to participate. This first election post the Shelby vs. Holder decision resulted in problems in every single state previously protected by the Voting Rights Act. For 49 years, these states were singled out because they had a history of discriminating against American voters. The Election Protection Hotline we manned with other concerned organizations fielded over 18,000 calls yesterday, many in those same states previously protected by the VRA. As we move forward—it is imperative that our newly elected Congress work with the NAACP and our partners to pass Voting Rights Act Amendment legislation that assures that all Americans have the franchise—our very democracy depends on it.”
What the NAACP failed to mention in their post 2014 election statement was the historic wins by Tim Scott and Mia Love. Are you kidding me? How do you not celebrate all blacks, no matter whether you happen to agree or not with their politics. Tim Scott’s win on Tuesday, November 4th made him the first African-American elected to the US Senate from the South since Reconstruction. That is quite an accomplishment. Also, the NAACP failed to mention that Mia Love was the first black Republican woman to be elected to the House of Representatives.
How does an organization that claims to be about the advancement of blacks fail to mention such note worthy and historic accomplishments? Sadly, the NAACP is all about liberal politics, not the advancement of a race.
Fox News, The Five: Liberal Bob Beckel Flips his Middle Finger at Jesse Watters in Heated Post Election Discussion Clash on Democrats Playing the Race Card
Keep it classy Bob, keep it classy … Jesse Watters actually nails it.
Bob Beckel, the token liberal host on ‘The Five’ lost his cool and gave Jesse Watters the middle finger as he had no factual comeback to the accusations that Democrats had used the race card during this past midterm election. What is most interesting about the events that took place is that Jesse Watters, more known for his ‘Watters World’ segments on The O’Reilly Factor actually nailed the Democrats use of the race card and race baiting 100%, which is most likely why it hit such a nerve with Bob Beckel.
Watters said, “I think I know why they are doing it. If anything that threatens the Democrat monopoly on the black vote, threatens the entire power structure of the Democrat party. It threatens any ability to get the White House. It threatens any ability to control urban areas. It threatens money, power … they try to scared blacks into not trying to cross the line.”
BINGO!!! When you have a voting block that continually and blindly votes +90% for one party, that political party will do anything to keep that overwhelming majority. Imagine what presidential races would be like if blacks voted only 60 to 70% for Democrats?
The panel was discussing Democrats’ use of the “race card” against Republicans before and after the midterm elections when Watters argued, “Anything that threatens the Democrat monopoly on the black vote, threatens the entire power structure of the Democrat party.”
“Oh, come on,” Beckel responded in a frustrated tone.
Later in the segment, Beckel claimed the examples cited during the show were not representative of the Democratic party as a whole.
“Were there any white Democrats denouncing their rhetoric?” Watters replied. “I didn’t hear any. So they’re OK with it.”
“I’m denouncing it,” Beckel shot back.
“You’re not a leader,” Watters said.
After that critical comment, Beckel flipped Watters the bird — and the cameras caught it.
UPDATE I: Beckel later apologized during the show for his actions.
Ben Stein Says Divider in Chief Obama Playing the Race Card and “Is The Most Racist President There Has Ever Been”
Economist Ben Stein says that President Barack Obama and the Obama White House is the most racist ever …
The Community Agitator in Chief and the Divider in Chief has been the most divisive and polarizing president ever. At every possible opportunity, Barack Obama has played the race card to further divide America. Ben Stein blasted Obama saying, “He [Obama] is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans”.
Stein puts forth that the Democrats are lying to blacks and well, they pretty much are. But when you have nothing but a disastrous record, including record high black unemployment, and especially among black teens, what else is there but the politics of fear.
Economist Ben Stein believes the White House is playing the race card in an effort to get African-Americans to vote against Republicans.
Speaking to Fox News, Stein called President Barack Obama the most racist president in U.S. history.
“The president is the most racist president there has ever been in America,” Stein said. “He is purposely trying to use race to divide Americans.”
Stein claimed that Obama and other Democrats are trying to portray the GOP as anti-black.
“What the White House is trying to do is racialize all politics and they’re especially trying to tell the African-American voter that the GOP is against letting them have a chance at a good life in this economy, and that’s just a complete lie.”
Stein continued: “I watch with fascination – with incredible fascination – all the stories about how the Democratic politicians, especially Hillary [Clinton], are trying to whip up the African-American vote and say, ‘Oh, the Republicans have policies against black people in terms of the economy.’ But there are no such policies.”
Note to Ben Stein, Obama has two more years in office … look for that IRS audit in the mail coming soon.
Democrat Michelle Nunn Fading in Georgia Senate Race, So Is the Democrat Chances of Control of US Senate … David Perdue Takes Poll Lead
GEORGIA, WAKE THE HELL UP, THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER’S DEMOCRAT PARTY AND MICHELLE NUNN IS HARDLY HER FATHER SAM NUNN …
There was a point in time in the George Senate race for the retiring Republican Saxby Chambliss, that Democrat challenger Michelle Nunn had a chance of pulling off the upset and shift what has been a red state to a blue Senate seat. How much of that though was because of a liberal media pushing Michelle Nunn as the daughter of former Georgia Senator Sam Nun? Georgia, do you really want to be the state that continues to empower Harry Reid and President Barack Obama? Sorry, but Michelle is not Sam Nunn.
However, the early favorably polling for Michelle Nunn seems to be subsiding as Republican David Perdue has taken the lead in the polls. According to the most recent RCP polls, Perdue is up by 2.2%.
Just remember Georgia, a vote for Michelle Nunn, is a vote for Democrat Senate Majority Leader and President Barack Obama.
For a brief time in mid-October, some Democrats believed Michelle Nunn, the party’s Senate candidate in Georgia, could be the firewall that prevents a Republican takeover of the Senate. If Nunn could win the seat opened by retiring GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss, then Republicans would need to pick up seven, not six, seats to take control.
In half-a-dozen polls taken over a two-week period in the middle of October, Nunn led Republican opponent David Perdue in five, while the candidates tied in one. Democratic optimism surged. “National Democrats have just decided to pour $1 million into this race in Georgia, a sign of how important a victory here would be to their effort to beat the odds and hold on to control of the Senate,” the Wall Street Journal reported Oct. 17. More pro-Nunn money came after that, with a barrage of ads focusing mostly on accusations the businessman Perdue outsourced thousands of Georgia jobs.
Now, things have changed. Perdue has recovered from the attacks — he indisputably helped create thousands of jobs in his career — and in the last six polls, taken since Oct. 16, Perdue has led in five, while one was a tie. In the RealClearPolitics average of polls, Perdue is up by 2.2 percentage points. In the newest poll, a NBC News-Marist survey released Sunday, Perdue leads by four points, 48 percent to 44 percent.
Sexist Comments from Outgoing Democrat Senator Tom Harkin … “She is Really Attractive and She Sounds Nice” … “I Don’t Care if She’s as Good looking as Taylor Swift”
WELCOME TO THE DOUBLE STANDARD OF LIBERAL, DEMOCRAT POLITICS … WHAT PARTY HAS THE WAR ON WOMEN?
He said what? As reported at Buzz Feed, Retiring Democratic Iowa Senator Tom Harkin told Iowa voters that they shouldn’t be fooled because Joni Ernst is “really attractive” and “sounds nice.” HUH? The outgoing Harkin made these sexist comments and the crowd actually clapped and cheered. Just curious, how many of the Neanderthals is the crowd are the same people who talk about a GOP war on women? You folks may want to check your knuckles for scrape marks as they appear to be dragging on the ground, including you also, Tom Harkin.
Some folks want to make excuses for Tom Harkin because he is a relic and a dinosaur; however, that does not excuse those in the Democrat supporters in the audience clapping, nor the fact that if Harkin was a Republican the MSM would be making this a front-page October surprise issue to turn the election.
“You know in this Senate race I’ve been watching some of these ads and there’s sort of this sense that [people like] Joni Ernst,” Harkin said. “She is really attractive and she sounds nice, but I got to thinking about that and I don’t care if she’s as good looking as Taylor Swift or as nice as Mr. Rogers, but if she votes like Michele Bachmann, she’s wrong for the state of Iowa.”
But what what else would you expect from a desperate and pathetic political party who finds their Senate control slipping and Republican challenger Joni Ernst surging into the lead for the Senate seat in Iowa. The final Des Moines Register poll had Joni Ernst up by 7.
Wall Street Journal White House correspondent Carol Lee said that Iowa voters are “definitely down” on President Obama and the Democratic Party, creating a distinct advantage for Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst over Democratic incumbent Bruce Braley.
“I talked to a bunch of voters at that event and some of them coming to that event had voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 and had regretted voting for him,” Lee said.
“The voters there are definitely down on the president and really looking for somebody different, and [Ernst] seems to be tapping into some kind of sentiment there and it looks like she’s actually going to wind up winning.”
Lee said outgoing Democratic Senator Tom Harkin’s recent comments warning Iowa voters not to be fooled by Ernst because she is “really attractive” and “sounds nice” may backfire on Tuesday.
“If there’s one thing that any politician, particularly a seasoned one like Harkin should know, you don’t talk about women’s looks in that way,” Lee said.
Imagine, just imagine if a Republican, male Senator said the following, “I don’t care if she’s as good looking as Taylor Swift …” Sen. Harkin, I guess it really was time for you to retire. And speaking of Taylor Swift, she had a comment for you below and your mean, sexist comments.
Tom Harkin and Democrats … “All you are is mean and a liar and pathetic and alone in life and mean and mean and mean and mean!!!!! ALL YOU ARE EVER GOING TO BE IS MEAN!”
Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst said Monday she was “greatly offended” by Sen. Tom Harkin’s remarks last week that Ernst wasn’t fit to be Iowa’s senator just because she’s “really attractive and she sounds nice.”
Ernst fired back Monday on Fox News and said Harkin would have never made those comments if she were a man.
“I was very offended that Sen. Harkin would say that. I think it’s unfortunate that he and many of their party believe you can’t be a real woman if you’re conservative and you’re female,” Ernst said. “I believe if my name had been John Ernst attached to my resume, Sen. Harkin would not have said those things.”