Mr. Chait is a stone cold liar.

[dsc]

He claimed that Robert Reich said the following:

There is a decent argument that the president should have refused this deal. But if you make that argument, you have to accept the likelihood that nearly a million fewer jobs would have been created and that we would have been at risk of a double-dip recession back then. Yet the liberal critics most exercised about Obama’s failure to secure more stimulus were, for the most part, enraged when he did exactly that. Take Robert Reich, the former secretary of labor under President Clinton. Last November, Reich pleaded for an extension of unemployment benefits, calling the plight of the jobless our “single newest and biggest social problem.” When Obama made his bargain, Reich called it “an abomination,” complaining that “the bits and pieces the president got in return” — including the unemployment benefits previously deemed vital — amounted to “peanuts.”

except he left out something pretty damn important

The bits and pieces the President got in return — extended unemployment benefits, a continuation of certain small tax benefits for the middle class — are peanuts. After last week’s awful jobs report, Senate Republicans would have been forced to extend unemployment insurance anyway. what was left out by the lying liar is in bold

Now there is no nice way to describe what Mr. Chait did. He purposely left out a quote in order to dishonestly portray what Mr. Reich said. He wanted Reich to sound like a hypocritical crackpot. Sadly for him the actual words Mr. Reich said didn't make him sound like one so he decided to leave some words out. Now maybe Mr. Reich was wrong when he said that the Senate would have been forced to pass the unemployment extension. That would have been a valid and honest argument. Instead Mr. Chait lied to us because he didn't want and more likely couldn't make that argument.

The simple fact is liberal critics of that deal were right on the three counts that we actually opposed that deal. One problem we had was that the benefits for the rich lasted until past the election of 2012 while those for the middle class and poor only lasted until 2011. That set us up for where we are right now. The House won't extent those benefits without something they really want. The second problem was that by extending the tax cuts we now hear nothing but deficit this and deficit that and deficit the other thing. The entire, not some of, not most of, but the entire deficit crisis would be solved by merely eliminating the bush tax cuts. Thirdly, by not including the debt ceiling in the deal we were left with the horrible hobson's choice that we had in Aug. Mr. Chait didn't want to address any of that, so instead, he lied to our faces.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Can you tell us how the republicans would have been forced?

in reference to this bolded "After last week’s awful jobs report, Senate Republicans would have been forced to extend unemployment insurance anyway"

How would that have worked?


Thanks for your answer! :hi:

[dsc]

5. I honestly don't know if Reich is right on that or wrong

but Chait didn't bother to answer that since he lied to our faces about what Reich said. I do think that at least some GOP Senators would have liked to see it pass since their party was going to have coownership with the economy. Maybe that wouldn't have worked, I admit to not knowing, but an honest Chait would have addressed it.

[FrenchieCat]

7. You must know if Reich was just pulling an opinion out of his ass,

based on nothing demonstrated by the Republicans,
or whether he had something to back that shit up.....
cause after all, you are the one calling folks liars
based on that single quote and starting an entire OP....
and then giving us a lecture.

So instead of moving the goalpost as to who should prove their statements to be factual,
why don't you work on that Reich statement please, since its
the one you bolded! K? Thanks!

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

11. Yes he most certainly did

he left out part of that quote, and a part that was very relevent. Chait made it sound like for Reich unemployment benefits went from being utterly necessary to unimportant. Instead what Reich was arguing, whether accurately or not, was that he would have gotten unemployment anyhow. Now if he wanted to argue that Reich was wrong about that assumption that would be one thing. Instead he called Reich a big fat hypocrite and lied about his quote in order to do so.

[FrenchieCat]

13. If someone is arguing using a point that you don't even know if it is true....

How can someone else be the liar?


The point was that Reich was saying that Obama didn't have to do what he did
because the Republicans were going to do it anyways....but they weren't going
to do it anyways, and Reich cannot prove the point that they were.

Therefore Reich used a disingenuous argument to make Obama look like he had negotiated
something that didn't need negotiating, and that wasn't true, nor can Reich prove otherwise....

Which is why Chait didn't include that bullshit.

[dsc]

18. Then Chait should have said that

instead what he said was on one day Reich called unemployment extension essential and when Obama got them changed his mind and called them worthless. That isn't what Reich said. What Reich said was that getting the extension was worthless because he would have gotten them anyhow. Again, that may or may not be true. Neither of us are mind readers so neither of us know. But that is wholly different from what Chait claims Reich said. He out and out lied to our faces about what Reich said.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

15. they wouldn't have been "forced" to do shit. they don't care.

[dsc]

17. again I could have lived with Chait honestly making that argument

but that isn't what he did. Instead he pretended that Reich on one day argued unemployment benefit extension was essential and then when Obama got them called them worthless. That isn't what Reich did. He said it was worthless because he would have gotten the extension anyhow. Again, that may be right and that may be wrong. I don't have a crystal ball but it is far different than what Reich actually argued.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Reich didn't make an honest argument,

and Chait called him on it.

You seem to believe that certain folks can say whatever they want,
even if it is pulled out of their ass, but that others can't
critique the bullshit without being called a liar. This makes no sense!

[geek tragedy]

2. Did Robert Reich really say that Republicans would have extended

unemployment benefits in December 2010 because of a jobs report released in September 2011?

[dsc]

3. No the Reich piece was written in Dec of 10

making last month Nov of 10. http://robertreich.org/post/2132901013 sorry forgot the link

[FrenchieCat]

4. Still waiting for my answer.....

because if the point is that Republicans would have yielded to the pressures of the
unemployed, I have a bridge for you and Mr. Reich! :eyes:

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

8. That's what falls apart in the arguments that POTUS 'caved' on UI benefits

It's as if people believe that if a Democrat with 'backbone' or 'strength' stares down the Tea Party long enough, the Teabags will finally see the error of their ways.

Bullcrap.

People miscalculate the willingness of the Tea Party to let things go to shit. That's what extremists are about, and that's why REASONABLE people are always going to appear to 'back down', since they are not as batshit crazy.

[dsc]

12. So people don't think I stiffed on an answer

it took me a grand total of two, count it two, minutes to get one for that poster once I started posting again in this thread.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Reich said.....

"extended unemployment benefits, a continuation of certain small tax benefits for the middle class — are peanuts."

And Chait quoted him on that.

The fact that Reich went on to say that Republicans would have extended unemployment benefits
anyways is his speculation without any basis of fact to back it up.

So no one lied, except that you called Chait a liar.

Hence your OP is futile.....and defending what Reich said, as though he didn't say what he said
is silly.

[jefferson_dem]

23. One would expect something at least plausibly substantial to hang such a character smear as this on.

The OP offers nothing. Really, it's an embarrassment.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. K&R - Good on you to call out Chait. I knew I smelled a DLC rat when

I first encountered his piece in the NYTimes.

Truth in advertising: I am benefiting personally from the extension in UE benefits and do not consider them peanuts. I am not sure I agree that Repukes would have passed the extension, but i definitely agree with you that Chait is mis-representing Reich's stance in an effort to paint all liberals as 'crazed' and 'dupes.'

[SidDithers]

19. Unrec. No he didn't...nt

Sid

[jefferson_dem]

22. Untrue and lame on multiple counts. Unrec.

Red herring. Desperate spin. Unsubstantiated, ad hominem hit piece. I could go on...

[Whisp]

24. unrec. but keep digging. you amuse me.