Posted on 11/11/2014 12:53:38 PM PST by SteveH
Just posting quotes from another thread I posted on with some background on this guy. He believes in the Nanny State with the Govt. using laws/taxes to alter behavior the Govt. deems “bad”. Read his reasoning about cig taxes.
The Hypocrisy and IRONY run RICH with this one.
This is what he said in his paper about the smoking tax. Good grief, the Nanny State.
(1) smokers that smoked early wished they hadn’t
(2) smokers have a self control problem
okay, but this is his response as what to do.
Given this evidence, policymakers should not be applying the standard economics model [in which people are presumed to act rationally] to smoking policy, which would imply relatively little merit for features such as warning labels. Rather, it is important to consider alternative models that incorporate the type of evidence cited above. For example, my own research shows that if you treat all smokers as standard, rational, patient, forward-looking consumers, then we should probably tax cigarettes at below $1 per pack. But if you incorporate the self-control problems noted above — not even including the failures of teens to anticipate the future — the appropriate tax rises to $5 to $10 per pack.
It’s things like this that make me just want to watch the Hallmark Channel or TMC.
It wasn't Gruber's remark that was inappropriate. It fact Gruber's remark appropriately describes Gruber's inappropriate Obamacare actions.
Gruber should be apologizing for his actions on Obamacare.
Think of it like a mugger who robs a person, then gets caught on tape calling the victim stupid and then only apologizes for his remark.
Mia’s bastard child is still on the air?
Dude only care he got caught. Nothing more, nothing less.
This guy reminds me of Pee Wee Herman...
Yes. The inappropriateness of his comment on the tape is being used as a diversion to cover for the inappropriate actions that he confesses to on the tape.
And he again thinks that people are stupid enough to fall for his diversion.
You mean like a forced belch or fart in public? How about “deceitful,” “arrogant,” and “harmful” all at once, you deceitful, arrogant, harmful sonofab*tch.
******
Some thoughts:
1. In a way, I feel sorry for MIT professor Gruber, because he will be sweating and losing a lot of sleep over the next 6 plus months as he waits to find out if the Supreme Court will save his arrogant ass or cook it, as it decides for or against Obama's government claim that it was an honest "typo" mistake.
2. Think about this: Do you realize that hundreds of federal bureaucrats studied every word, every comma over and over to make sure that the law said exactly what Gruber and Obama people wanted it to say?
3. "Typo" error: But now Gtuber and other Obama people are crying all over the place----like at the Supreme Court--- because they want people to believe their excuse that their "Typo" error and draft error was simply an honest mistake: They really meant to use the word "federal" where only the word "state" is written. Honest mistake my ass. They knew exactly what they were writing.
4. Imagine this about MIT Professor Gruber:
5. A Gruber student at MIT is called into his office to discuss his term paper.
6. Professor Gruber says he has some troubling questions about the paper.
7. The student tries to defend himself by saying that the "mistakes" were "typo" errors and it was a poor draft done by one of his friends who tried to help him.
8. What do you think Professor Gruber's reaction will be after he listens to all the student's excuses?
9. I tell you what arrogant Gruber will say: "Sorry son, but I don't believe you. You had plenty of time to work on you paper and correct mistakes."
10."So your grade is a big 'F'. I hope this is a lesson to you to be more careful the next time you write a paper here at prestigious MIT."
IANAL but ordinarily, I would imagine that lying in order to pass a bill cannot be a crime because if it were, all politicians and aspiring politicians would be criminals (smile).
I wonder if perhaps a difference would be if there was a direct conflict of interest. Say one was paid to give financial advice to a government entity (eg, Congress, a Cabinet officer or federal or state executive department. At the same time, there was potential for personal gain based on which direction that the government entity would eventually go towards and/or favor. That would seem to run the risk of setting one up for a RICO violation.
Of course, this is all in a Liebnitz best of all possible worlds scenario. Right now (tm) we have Holder and (in MA) (elect) Healey (D), so Liebnitz BOAPW might not apply.
No kidding! I am with ya.
Wondering what happened to the Italian analog of the USSC in 1945... La Corte Suprema di Cassazione... nothing seems available in the obvious internet places...
they have American Comedy awards too (”Ronan Farrow’s rapier wit, evidenced by his deadpan delivery of questions during interviews of Jonathan Gruber on MSNBC, are deliciously on target”— SteveH, FreeRepublic commentator at large)
Prof Gruber apparently misses the irony of his statement.
Quote and Link
“I’m frustrated that the future of the American health care system rests in the hands of one or two of these unelected people who might make the decision based on political grounds,” Gruber, an M.I.T. professor, told me in a phone interview on Monday, a few hours after the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to hear challenges to the Affordable Care Act. “It’s very disturbing.”
America wants to see what MSNBC commentators like Ronan Farrow are wearing on their knees lol
Gruber makes my gaydar go ding-ding-ding. He’s wearing a wedding ring. Does he have a +pardner+?
I want to know how anyone in the USA can take anything any econ prof says seriously any more.
I have already written Gruber and Whitney Newey, head of MIT Econ Department for further information and comment.
Does MIT and prof. Whitney Newey stand behind Gruber’s statements on ACA and the stupidity of the American voting public??
Does MIT and prof. Whitney Newey stand behind Gruber’s statements on ACA and the stupidity of the American voting public??
People who indulge this kind of practice do not fear God. Their only recourse is to lie, deceive, obfuscate, and excuse ad nausea. Two simple measures would suffice: as a proven menace to the general welfare/public good, he should no longer be qualified to vote, and as a diabolical agent in inflicting harm to the physical well-being of multitudes, he should be no longer qualified to practice law or medicine.
Wow, the all seeing and all powerful Gruber can actually put a dollar value on reducing individual freedom to choose regarding one’s own body (though of course not abortion). Amazing, what a forward thinker this fellow Gruber is. I think whatever else might be said of him, that he certainly loves his taxes.
Apparently, “honest” is now the new “inappropriate” at the MSNBC-Obama Ministry of Truth. :-(
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.