Massie v Gruber

“I submit to you that my constituents are not your children”.

This entry was posted in International. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Massie v Gruber

  1. Token

    It is a pity no one in the Gruber questioning indulged in Ted Kennedy type editorials, you know with the bi-focals held in one hand at just the right angle before going back on the nose, in the between questions to maximise the rhetorical effect.

    One must set the “mood” when conducting such hearings after all or else the media will set it for them.

  2. jupes

    It is a pity no one in the Gruber questioning indulged in Ted Kennedy type editorials, you know with the bi-focals held in one hand at just the right angle before going back on the nose, in the between questions to maximise the rhetorical effect.

    Nevertheless some excellent questioning of the arsehole.

    Can’t imagine anyone in Australia’s parliament raising abortion and age ‘care’ in the manner Massey did.

  3. thefrollickingmole

    Hey, lets (as an economist) argue unchecked immigration from poor countries is great, and at the same time argue that aborting millions of poor potential citizens is great as well.

    I do wish hed hit him with “if you are a black baby you have a ?/? chance of being aborted compared to ?/? of a white baby” or similar to really make him squirm.

  4. Ant

    They’re all so polite.

    Yet, the fact is simply this: This first class a-hole and his mates in the Democrat Party used the instruments of government to lie, cheat and steal the health care coverage from a few millions of Americans so far which are going to grow into many millions of Americans after Obama’s various waivers expire.

    But, if you’re an American who’s one of those shafted by this first class a-hole, to where do you turn? The Republican House (and still Dem Senate) have just rammed through Congress a massive spending bill which funds all of Obamacare for next year. Completely gratuitously.

  5. Token

    Can’t imagine anyone in Australia’s parliament raising abortion and age ‘care’ in the manner Massey did.

    The way he remdined everyone of the amoral mendacious toad’s work justifying the economic benefits of killing poor children was magnficient.

  6. Shelley

    Positive selection, how very eugenic. (Grub)er by name and nature.

  7. Alfonso

    “justifying the economic benefits of killing poor children was magnficient.”
    The Gruber bloke could be a Libert. A culture free belief system based on the efficient use of money, he’d fit right in.

  8. 3d1k

    Massie was impressive. Has put me in the doldrums re the performance and intellectual acuity of our politicians.

  9. stackja

    3d1k
    #1536068, posted on December 11, 2014 at 2:23 pm
    Massie was impressive. Has put me in the doldrums re the performance and intellectual acuity of our politicians.

    Many US voters insist on their representatives follow instructions. I believe most Australian voters are not involved enough. And the ALP/MSM like uninvolved voters unless they support leftist politics.

  10. Paul

    It’s good to see our Leftist betters are so compassionate. BTW, there’s not a single mention of the Democrats Gruber disaster on the ABC, though they are extremely busy promoting the Democrats redefinition of torture.

  11. Major Elvis Newton

    “…And the ALP/MSM like uninvolved voters unless they support leftist politics…”

    True.

    But they also like them at the low information (unquestioning donkey-compliant) end of the spectrum even the most anarchic.

  12. What ever it takes

    Sounds a bit like ,”I was only following orders “, the gypsies better look out.

  13. Bruce of Newcastle

    The American people may find it hard to tell when Democrats are lying to them, but when one admits he did the results are gratifying:

    Fox News Poll: Record 58 percent would repeal ObamaCare

    Few American voters feel their family is better off under ObamaCare, and a record number would repeal the law if they could. In addition, if comments by one of the health care law’s authors about lying to “stupid” Americans are true, over half of voters think President Obama or other administration officials are responsible for that deception.

    The silly voters are in the ‘getting it good and hard’ phase.

  14. Token

    BTW, there’s not a single mention of the Democrats Gruber disaster on the ABC, though they are extremely busy promoting the Democrats redefinition of torture.

    What is fascinating is the ABC and the unfunny Chaser juveniles have never forgiven John Yoo for providing legal advice based upon directives of the same Congress which now objects to the methods the admin used.

    John Yoo’s opinion on the games by Feinstein during the lame duck session:

    These attacks on the intelligence agencies come from the very same politicians who urged the CIA to go on offense. In May 2002, Feinstein herself declared, “I have no question in my mind that had it not been for 9-11 — and I’d do anything if it hadn’t happened — that it would have been business as usual.” She made clear her understanding that the CIA would take unprecedented steps. “It took that attack, I think, to kind of shiver our timbers enough to let us know that the threat is profound, that we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.” In early 2003, Democratic senator Jay Rockefeller declared that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks, “will be grilled by us.” He went on: “I’m sure we’ll be proper with him, but I’m sure we’ll be very, very tough with him.”

    Despite the claims in the Feinstein Report, intelligence officials kept Congress well informed about interrogation. Porter Goss, who was chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and then director of the CIA, declared that the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees “were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.” According to Goss, these leaders “understood what the CIA was doing,” and they extended bipartisan support and funding for the interrogation program. “I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues,” he tellingly observes.

    At the time of the 9-11 attacks, I was a lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, one of those who worked on the interrogation policy. I don’t believe that the CIA lied to me or the other lawyers there, and the bias obvious in the report makes me doubt its claim that the CIA lied to the White House.

    Crass deflection by the people who loaded the gun and told the CIA to pick it up & use it.

  15. Shelley

    The implication from these findings is that the marginal children who were not born due to abortion
    legalization would have lived in more disadvantaged circumstances than the average child in their cohort.
    This indicates sizeable positive selection among those pregnancies that were carried to term following
    legalization of abortion. In other words, this evidence strongly suggests that abortion is used by women
    to avoid bearing children who would grow up in adverse circumstances. As noted above, this is a purely positive exercise, and we do not have much evidence on the long run implications of this change in average living standards. One clear implication of our findings, however, is that there was an effect of abortion legalization on the budgets of federal and state governments, through reduced welfare receipt. We can compute the budgetary savings in 1980 (the year of our data) to the government through the reduced welfare receipt of the average child after abortion legalization.

    Disgusting.

    Here’s the Grub’s paper.

  16. Shelley

    More from that paper…(my bold)

    Of course, this conclusion is complicated by the fact that we cannot necessarily apply the
    effects on the average child of living in poverty (for example) to the effects on the marginal child who would
    live in poverty if their pregnancy was not terminated.

    Um yes because the child is dead, no ‘cannot necessarily’ about it. And it just rolls off the tongue doesn’t it – ‘…would live in poverty if their pregnancy was not terminated’. You know, it’s just like stepping on an ant.

  17. rickw

    ‘…would live in poverty if their pregnancy was not terminated’

    Particularly if the Dems are in charge, no upward mobility, the only movement tolerated is downwards.

  18. 3d1k

    I recall Freakonomics raising merry hell: abortion lowers crime rate…

  19. Richard D

    Following that logic, if more poor people have abortions, there should be less ALP voters in the future.

    Everything has an upside.

  20. JohnA

    Anthony #1536134, posted on December 11, 2014 at 4:30 pm

    Schiklgruber.

    Is that an en passant Godwin?

  21. Alfonso

    Aborted mendicant bogans who would demand my work product to live? I’m starting to warm to the Gruber.

  22. blogstrop

    A singularly unimpressive grub.

  23. Gab

    The implication from these findings is that the marginal children who were not born due to abortion legalization would have lived in more disadvantaged circumstances than the average child in their cohort.

    Firstly, they cannot categorically state that as fact because circunstances always change.

    Secondly, there have been many a great, accomplished persons in their chosen fields who are what we call role models today. Ben Carson comes to mind, however there are many many more who began life in what can only be described as “disadvantaged circumstance” and moved on to greatness.

    What if that child that was aborted was destined to become the next great physicist, or leader, or writer ….

  24. Pusnip

    Gruber was correct , his job as an economist was to let the data speak, not make moral judgments about it. That is a task for politicians and others. If they want to give greater weight to lives not aborted than to state finances, parents’ rights and the wellbeing of those who remain, that is their perogative – and they can submit such policies to the people. Ironically, this Republican attack on Gruber is basically saying that he should not have disclosed the truth of the matter – presumably because Republicans think that people can’t handle the truth!

  25. johanna

    What if that child that was aborted was destined to become the next great physicist, or leader, or writer ….

    Stupid argument. The child could also have been a serial killer.

    Argue on the worth of each and every life, or not at all.

    And to avoid doubt, I support the right of women to have abortions.

  26. rebel with cause

    Being born into ‘disadvantaged circumstances’ wouldn’t be an issue if we had an education system that actually taught those kids the basic skills they need to succeed. It wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have a system of laws and regulations that unnecessarily stymie young entrepreneurs. It wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have laws that stop young people from working and earning an income. It wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t have a system of welfare and taxation that discouraged work.

    In an age where equality is everywhere, we do everything we can to keep the poor down.

  27. .

    Pus

    Gruber was correct

    No.

    his job as an economist was to let the data speak, not make moral judgments about it.

    No, he lied.

    That is a task for politicians and others.

    Yes well. He’s a politician now.

    If they want to give greater weight to lives not aborted than to state finances

    So none of us individually are as important as state finances? What a loopy theory. No one here supports it.

    parents’ rights and the wellbeing of those who remain, that is their perogative – and they can submit such policies to the people.

    It is a socialist misconception about free markets, do it yourself.

    Ironically, this Republican attack on Gruber is basically saying that he should not have disclosed the truth of the matter – presumably because Republicans think that people can’t handle the truth!

    He lied.

  28. Pusnip

    Sorry ‘-‘ but I didn’t say that they give greater weight to state finances rather than aborted lives; it was state finances PLUS parents rights PLUS others’ wellbeing, and even then it was clearly a hypothetical. You simply misquoted me by cutting my sentence in half. I know that’s your m.o., but its pretty pathetic.

Comments are closed.