Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

But the same is true of the Perry truth squad as well. This is true of all response to political attacks that don't qualify as libel or slander.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Doctors would never promise such a thing if they wanted to keep their licenses.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Link to my common sense? You made a claim of fact; "Pinkerton one knows that a big majority of economists are joined with the CBO in observing that the stimulus improved our economy and created jobs."

I don't know this. But you don't seem to "know" it either, since you now consider a "big majority of economists" thinking the stimulus improved to economy to be "common sense". Appeals to authority usually involve citing, you know, authority.

Here is what I "know" about the stimulus. Most of it isn't spent on things that even liberals consider stimulative. If State Z has to cut its budget in FY 2010, takes stimulus money, and delays those cuts until 2011, no jobs were created. The same is true of Medicaid spending.

This is nitpicking. I do not think the stimulus created jobs in nearly the proportion of the spending. I do not think the stimulus was an intelligent or useful way to help the economy. If the stimulus created ten jobs, or a thousand, or a million jobs, it is far too few to be worth the cost. So it is appropriate to dismiss it. No one needs to be polite to the stimulus. No one needs to be careful with language to "respect" the stimulus. No one needs to make sure Mr. Obama's feelings aren't hurt when we discuss the stimulus. No nuance is required; the policy failed both by the metrics of the White House and by any reasonable measure of effectiveness.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Perhaps you will favor licensing requirements for politicians then. As it stands, it was your metaphor, I was just participating.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Do you think it is a bit strange for the President of the United States to create a website where people can report rumors about him?

Now remember; that is a separate category from any media. That means hearing people saying things in real life. Neighbors, friends, coworkers.

You comfortable with that?

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a successful cancer treatment and a treatment that allows a doctor to guarantee a specific length of uninterrupted life?

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

I am using your medical metaphor to actually make it relevant to the stimulus. Your suggestion of "net new life" is meaningless. Promises were made that shouldn't have been promises, they weren't met. Now fellows like you seem angry that anyone would question new promises on the same topic.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

I am no more or less comfortable with Obama's website than I am with flouridation of drinking water.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Obama promised that the stimulus would create more jobs than the Bush recession lost?

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

He promised it would create more jobs than it did.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Me too, actually. Probably because we both consider him to be weak. It is hilarious, none the less.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Not me. I consider it to be a perfectly reasonable approach and vastly superior, both morally and practically to simply letting the rumors go unchallenged.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

If people were making THAT claim (rather than no new jobs, er, I mean no net jobs, which means not completely making up for the bush crash) then this would be a different conversation.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

The website is part of his reelection campaign. The key difference is that the site is run like part of a campaign; in no way is the office of the President used to do something here that any other presidential candidate couldn't manage just as easily.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Maybe you don't consider me to be left leaning either. I don't like the Tea Party, but I think they've been treated unfairly. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, and I hate hearing about the new bullshit that he finds himself in, but the fact that millions of people listen to him tells me that he speaks on behalf of many. Maybe they believe in ridiculous things, but atheists would make that claim about religious people also. As long as Americans with a sizable constituency have concerns, they should be taken seriously.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Also, if his criticism had anything to do with reality. That would also help it work better.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

I didn't mention this because I had assumed that everyone had a baseline level of understanding of what is at stake in the Middle East. The U.S. position since the 1967 war has often been described as "studied ambiguity". When Israel occupied the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza, and the Sinai as a result of the 1967 war, the U.N. was obligated to attempt to roll back those territorial gains, since it is part of the U.N. charter not to allow countries to seize territory by force. Several different resolutions were debated in the Security Council. The U.S. eventually backed the British proposal, which included the ambiguous condition: "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". This became UN Security Council Resolution 242. Why is this ambiguous? Because it doesn't say "all territories occupied in the recent conflict" -- and that is a key distinction, because it leaves open the possibility that Israel might need only withdraw from some of the occupied territories. The U.S. and Britain understood that the pre-1967 boundary was indefensible and they wanted to leave negotiating room for solutions such as a U.N. buffer zone in the Golan; or making Jerusalem an international zone, or even an independent entity like the Vatican City; and for various joint-governance schemes for the West Bank. Those diplomatic options would be short-circuited by a demand that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders. This is what I recall from my Middle East Studies in college, at any rate.

Turning now to Wikipedia, in a cable to the Spanish Embassy in Cairo, Dean Rusk recounted a discussion between Eugene Rostow and Anatoly Dobrynin:

In a speech on 19 June 1967 (after the war but before 242 was passed), President Johnson made this statement:

This was a statement which could reasonably be construed as underlying the US push for ambiguity in 242.

Since then, U.S. Presidents have avoided demanding, or even endorsing, a return to the 1967 borders, because this is widely understood as taking the Palestinian side of the conflict, and this would therefore be seen as a hostile move by Israel. U.S. Presidents have largely stuck by the ambiguity of 242.

In one of the Times stories I've already linked, it says

I could go on, but maybe you should chew on this first.

I thought I was perfectly clear. What Obama has done is overturn 44 years of US policy toward Israel by stating that the 1967 borders should be the baseline for negotiations. This is understood by the diplomatic community, and by most Israelis, as a demand for a return to the 1967 borders with only minor adjustments. If the 1967 borders are the "baseline", then Israel has no position for insisting that Jerusalem remain undivided. They have no position for demanding the demilitarization of the Golan. The framework that Obama says he wants would mean that Israel could only retain a united Jerusalem by giving up other pre-1967 territory. It means they could only get a Golan buffer zone in exchange for other pre-1967 territory. Do you understand this? Do you understand why this is unacceptable to Israel -- and should be to us?

No, what I object to is siding with the Palestinians over Israel and baselining the 1967 borders. I'm not sure why Mr. Pinkerton backed down on the 1967 borders part of the statement, other than that Mr. Corn was yelling that "Obama didn't say that they had to shrink back to their 1967 borders!" and "He didn't tell Israel to do this!". BTW I think Pinkerton was completely wrong when he implied the 2004 Bush policy demanded a return to the 1967 borders. In the letter to Sharon Bush wrote

Note "changes that reflect those realities" does not mean "start with 1949 [i.e. pre-1967] borders and swap from there". That's the change in policy that Obama has wrought: he wants to start negotiations with the pre-1967 borders, which has never been U.S. policy before. Note on the other hand that Bush did recognize the goal of a contiguous Palestinian state, so again I'm not sure why Pinkerton focused on that issue.

If you don't understand the need for allies in a hostile world, I'm afraid I won't be able to fix that in this thread. If you don't understand the value of democracy in a despotic region of the world, I probably can't fix that, either.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

I don't think its perfectly reasonable to report your neighbors and friends to the government for things they say. It is clearly morally inferior. And it is impractical. But since the President has shown an inability to accomplish very much, I suspect the Attack Watch is meant mostly as a treasure trove of whining for his Presidential Library, which he should be able to start work on in about a year and a half.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Jeffrey Goldberg on this claim.

Also:

Interview with Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert on the two-state solution and a workable solution.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

People don't need to say it. Its implied. Obviously Perry doesn't believe it has created "no" jobs. This is nitpicking, Pinkerton is absolutely right. If the stimulus created 100,000 jobs for $770 billion, saying it created "no jobs" meaning no net jobs, but implying insignificant job creation as well, would be perfectly fine in the nature of political rhetoric.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Except that's not part of the project. Your opposition to this website is based in large part on things you're making up.
Now the Hitler/Soviet comparisons make a lot more sense, thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

I second that, and what sugarkang wrote! AGW will vanish! The economy will recover and vault forward! We'll have flying cars! And, every person on the earth will get laid tonight! Corn and Pinkerton are back!

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

The above makes you more left-leaning that Ann Althouse. Which is my point.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Well, if Perry simply meant that the stimulus created jobs, but not enough jobs to completely counter the loss of jobs from the crash, the rest of what he said (e.g., zero divided by two is zero, so therefore the jobs bill won't create any jobs either) makes no sense, one, because dividing the net number of jobs created makes no sense mathematically, and two because the argument would be that the stimulus did not enough good rather than no good, so it wouldn't follow at all that a structured-in-a-completely different way would also do no good, or even that a structured-in-completely-different-way jobs bill would fail to completely counteract the job loss.

Its also insane to claim that anything attempting increase the number of people working fails unless it reduces the number of unemployed to zero, or to completely counteract a severe shrinkage in jobs. By that logic stitching a severe wound "doesn't work" because it doesn't restore the lost blood.

So people assuming Perry actually meant "no jobs" might have actually been charitable, because it is arguably LESS insane than his argument if he meant "no net jobs"

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Your ( and Corn's) refutation of him is a good reason why Perry, and others, will continue to benefit politically from saying Obama's created zero jobs.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

LOL!

That was brilliant.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Yes, because people hate math and stuf.

But, Perry's defenders are arguing that when Perry says zero jobs, he actually means any number less than 7.9 million.

If that HELPS him, god help us all.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Your link is to a CS Monitor column by Dan Murphy, not Jeffrey Goldberg. With all due respect to Mr. Murphy, he simply does not understand the diplomatic issue in question. He refers obliquely to the tense relations between the George H.W. Bush administration and Israel, but does not link to any particular policy statement that is equivalent to what Obama said. Bush 41 differed with Israel on the status of East Jerusalem, and was opposed to Israel's settlement policy. But he never went beyond the ambiguity of UNSC 242 to demand that negotiations start with the pre-1967 borders. When Murphy ends with

...it's clear that (a) he senses without understanding that there is a substantive difference between the two policies, but (b) he is clueless about the difference, so (c) he is literally pleading for someone to explain. It's a little late for Murphy, but there is a big difference between negotiations starting from "the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities" (Bush 43's policy) and negotiations starting from a "baseline [of] the pre-1967 borders" (Obama's policy). The former tells both parties to start with a map that reflects the changes since 1967, while the latter tells both parties to start with the 1949 borders and negotiate land swaps. To paraphrase our esteemed Vice President, this is a big f***ing deal.

All I gleaned from the Livni interview was that she's happy her political rival is being pressured by the United States. She never mentions 242 or the pre-1967 borders.

Olmert recounts his failed negotiations with Abu Mazen. Note that Olmert's starting position in those negotiations was not Obama's policy, but something closer to what George W. Bush envisioned. His going-in position -- which he also declared his final offer -- envisioned Jerusalem as an open international city, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and no mention of the Golan. However, he did endorse a contiguous Palestinian state, a goal of both W and H, through the clever use of the third dimension (take that, Khan!). He later discusses negotiations with Syria over the Golan, but he does not endorse Obama's plan, which is -- once again, I have to make sure you get this -- to start negotiations assuming Israel's withdrawal from the Golan, with no baseline for Syrian concessions.

Olmert's plan was generous in the extreme. But, as the Australian's Greg Sheridan comments,

It has been said that Mr. Obama is a terrible negotiator. The same would seem to apply to his "baselining" negotiations for others, as well.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Oh isn't it? What is a rumor? Tell me where I'm wrong. Rumors aren't things you hear in real life? Barack Obama isn't President of the United States? Sending a message to people who work for the President isn't 'reporting'? Where is the error, exactly?

Don't forget Mussolini. Our President does love his poses.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Any number less than 7.9 million? Would you like to go ahead and put a marker down telling us how many jobs were created? 7.8 million? 7 million? 4 million? 1.1 million?

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Why? If he correctly states that the stimulus created no new net jobs, assumes this jobs bill won't either, and divides this jobs bill by the cost of the last one, then there is nothing nonsensical about the math. X=0. X/2=0.

Perhaps I am being too generous. When I say that I don't think the stimulus did enough good, I am saying that it did very little good, and the expense was astronomical, meaning that overall, the stimulus was very bad.

Actually the way this is structured is to do the Keynsian part of the stimulus "for real" (Which is an indictment of the first stimulus), where the infrastructure stuff is a larger part of the package (Though again, basically the same size as the original stimulus). Here are two vital things that remain missing:

1. No wage flexbility. Jim McDermitt was basically out there saying construction jobs that don't pay $40 an hour are useless to a recovery! This as a bullshit excuse to focus these jobs on union shops. I don't know about you, but rewarding Union contributions to the Democratic party shouldn't be a priority right now.

2. No EPA or DoI waivers for projects, turning "shovel ready" from fantasy into reality. No proposal for a mechanism for expediting waivers in such a case. Maybe some enterprising reporter can go check out what the environmental impacts of the Hoover Dam are, cross check those against current regulatory impediments, and get the President on record before Rachel Maddow makes an ass out of herself in front of that structure again.

So it didn't work the first time. The Keynsian/Krugman stimulus stuff is about the same size as the last stimulus, and that was a flop. So what are you so excited about?

No, it is like stitching a wound while keeping the bullet, and the damaged organs inside the person without any attention, and saying it "doesn't work". I'm not a doctor, but again I'll say that in my medical opinion, that doesn't work. When that doctor comes around to fix my gunshot wound, I'll take my chances with the next guy.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Well, you are arguing that even if it created 7.89999 million jobs, it would be net zero, because it would be less jobs than were lost. I think most economists are saying the first stimulus created 3 to 4 million jobs.

But, yeah, it was a waste of time. Because, after all, being down 4.9 million jobs is exactly the same as being down 7.9 jobs. Why even bother creating any jobs at all, unless you can create 7.9 million of em?

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Except that you can't create a formula for net where a stimulus of half the size would create half as many jobs. Because net is Y-X, where Y = the jobs lost. It's a constant. So, if Y-X = 0, it doesn't make sense to claim that Y-(X/2) would also be zero; it could be literally any number OTHER THAN zero. Unless Y is 0. Which doesn't make sense, unless Perry meant jobs, not net jobs.

In case you're ever in the situation, where you need to take care of a bullet wound yourself, it would be useful for you to know that the best medical practice isn't always to take the bullet out, even in the safe reaches of a hospital. Depending on where the bullet is, getting it out can easily do much more harm than good. Many very good doctors leave many bullets exactly where they are, and in fact patch up the wound.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

Wait, we were down 7.9 million and the last stimulus created between 3 and 4 million.

And you are arguing that if the next one creates THE SAME AMOUNT AS the last one, it will be a failure?

Do the math on that one. What's two times 4?

Hell, assume the range is the worst case. Are you seriously saying that being down 1.9 million jobs vs. 7.9 million makes no difference at all?

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

You claimed, earlier :
This characterization is wrong for two reasons:

1. There is no spot in the "misinformation" report on that website where they ask for the names of your neighbors and friends. It's clear that they're interested in the kinds of misinformation floating about, and not in collecting information about specific individuals.

Evidently they want to know how prevalent certain bits of misinformation are, and whether they are gaining traction mostly through websites, email, talk radio, word of mouth, etc. It's like when a business asks its customers "How did you hear about us?" It's not so they can keep close tabs on who is or is not talking about them, but rather so they have some data that will help them to more effectively get their message out.

2. The information submitted via the website is not reported to "the government". It is reported to the 2012 Obama Campaign. I already pointed this out in another response to you in this thread:

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

That is a strange way to figure it. The stimulus "created" about 1.2 million jobs, including temporary jobs. That wasn't what was promised, of course. Four million jobs were promised.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/fi...hart-JPG_0.jpg

Are you saying that $1.3 trillion spent to create 2.4 million jobs is some kind of good deal? You can send a $25,000 check to every unemployed person for about the same money. How good an idea is that?

Let me guess, for $14 trillion, you can bring us to 0% unemployment?

Sorry, I only measure job creation by new jobs. You know, like how every single previous government program has worked. I don't count "saved jobs" as a valid metric. I should report you to #AttackWatch for patronizing the President with this unique measurement!

I'll go on record. 2.4 million jobs is not worth spending 1.3 trillion dollars.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

So if a state has a budget shortfall and is about to lay off 500 teachers, but then they don't have to because the ARRA patched the whole in the state's budget, those 500 jobs don't count? If anything, saving jobs like this is better than creating new jobs because you keep people in jobs that they are experienced in and avoid the various difficulties of even a short job search. And in fact, since the official end of the recession we've seen private sector job growth that would have reduced the unemployment rate had it not been offset by public sector job losses. Job losses that could have been prevented through deficit spending by the federal government.

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

bbbeard said:

You seem to be eliding over the issue of the West Bank settlements. That is, are all lands now a part of existing Israeli settlements on the West Bank and outside of the Green Line going to be included within the newly negotiated borders of Israel, some of those lands, or none of those lands? I thought the basic position in the failed negotiations of the Clinton and Bush administrations was that some of those lands would probably be included within the newly negotiated borders, not none of them, not all of them. If so, that formula is indistinguishable from return to Green Line with swaps.

As for the Golan, I would assume that the Golan would be demilitarized and under international patrol of some sort, even under this Obama plan that represents an existential threat to Israel's security, according to you.

Here is the blog post by Geoffrey Kessler in "The Washington Post" that seems to provide the basis for your position and your posts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...aT7G_blog.html

Here is a blog post by well-known anti-Zionist Walter Russell Meade (that's irony, folks), written just after Obama's May 19 speech, in which Meade fails to take any notice of the simultaneously subtle but monumental differences in US policy (that's more irony, folks) towards Israel as between Bush 43 and Obama.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.c...is-inner-bush/

Quote, from that Meade blog post:

What Americans, and particularly American Jews, should be upset about is Israel's occupation and land grab throughout the post-1967 period. What Americans should be concerned about is the advancement of American interests in a way that is consistent with a generally liveable world. Even if we grant that Obama has changed US policy towards Israel, why is that obviously a bad thing? There has been no peace settlement with the Palestinians. My assumption would be that such a peace settlement would be greatly in the interest of the US, as well as in the interest of both Israel and Palestinians. Whatever has been tried in the past has not worked. There has been no settlement. Therefore, something has to change. Perhaps part of that something should be US policy. Indeed, common sense would tell us that three things have to change, at a minimum, in order for there to be a settlement: Israeli intransigence, Palestinian intransigence, and US policy, which, in my view, has been too concerned in the past with placating Israel.

Finally, I would like to point out that the Kessler blog post elides over the question of the correct interpretation of UN Resolution 242. Kessler says that the formula for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories was left deliberately ambiguous by those negotiating the resolution. The ambiguity is that the resolution did not use either the definite article “the” or the pronominal adjective "all" to modify "occupied territories." Neither did it say "some occupied territories." Suppose that a series of edicts or laws has been issued. Now a governmental authority issues a statement that says that citizens and residents shall comply with “relevant edicts or laws previously issued by the government.” Would that mean “all relevant edicts or laws previously issued,” or just some of them? I think it would much more probably mean “all relevant edicts or laws.” I can see that the resolution as issued was negotiated and meant to be somewhat ambiguous, but the resolution of that ambiguity, insofar as there can or will be one, would tell in favor of “all occupied territories.”

P.S. Roger Cohen speaks for me, here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

P.P.S. I just listened, somewhat distractedly, to what appears to be quite a good very recent dv on recent developments in the Middle East, as they affect Israel and US-Israel relations. I will listen to certain parts again. But the point is, Israeli and US strategic interests are not congruent. Walt-Mearsheimer were totally correct about that, and their view is now coming to be shared by some important factions within the US military-strategic elite. This is not the view of radical left-wingers.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/386...9:46&out=31:17

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

I'm curious to know, where do you think the rest of the money went? I mean the money that was wasted because it didn't create jobs (according to your calculations). What happened to it?

Re: Starting a Panic (David Corn & James Pinkerton)
 

If it saved jobs, it doesn't count. I suspect that's your answer.

Imagine you are developing a drug to treat cancer. You enroll 1000 end-stage cancer patients in a trial. A year later, 999 of them are alive and one has died.

This, of course would mean your treatment is a failure. There are fewer people alive than when you gave them the drug. So the obvious conclusion is that the drug has zero (net) effect.