Biden: ‘We misread how bad the economy was’

You should do a little investigation before taking an indefensible position.

You should take your own advice when talking about California? Isn't that the state where the people recalled a Dem governor and put a Repub in his place?

:lol: you call the terminator a republican??? He's like McCain only worse

nah...you guys have just forgotten what republicans were before they decided they were the party of jesus.

go look at richard nixon's policies and tell me the governator isn't pretty much where he was....
 
Yes Jillian the war between the country clubbers and the conservatives is decades old. The only difference between the country clubbers and the Dems was how much of the welfare state they were willing to fund at my grand kids expense with the advent of Bush II even that difference slowly disappeared though your buddy Obama is rapidly succeeding in recreating that difference.
 
Government spending creates government jobs. We've got too many of those already and at the rate obama is going those will be the only Jobs there are in 8 years because cap and trade will pretty much place everyone else in the same ball park with the auto industry.
 
Stuttering Stimulus
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, July 06, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Stimulus: "The truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited," Vice President Joe Biden told ABC News. Really? What about the "worst economy since the Great Depression"?
Investors.com - Stuttering Stimulus
Those who pushed through this year's $787 billion fiscal "stimulus" seem to be counting on the American people's short memory. Wasn't it just last year that we were told, repeatedly and with stark emphasis, that this economy was the "worst" since the Great Depression?

That was the pretense for not only the stimulus, but for the federal takeover of the U.S. auto industry and the quasi-takeover of the U.S. financial industry. It's also the underlying premise for both nationalized health care and massive new taxes to cut CO2 emissions.

If the stimulus passed, the White House vowed, unemployment would peak at 8%. Today, it's 9.5% — and rising.

"The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy," said Biden. He used that phrase — "the truth is," or something similar — at least three times in a talk with ABC's George Stephanopolous. But the "truth is" something quite different.

Many voices — including ours — were raised in opposition to the stimulus when it was debated. We didn't "misread" the economy. We knew from history that, left alone, it would get better without government meddling.

Instead, Americans were promised "shovel ready" projects would put stimulus money to work right away creating jobs. For the record, since February, the month the stimulus was passed, the U.S. has lost 2 million jobs. The stimulus is clearly a failure.

Yet, says Biden: "The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that the recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of the money."

But that's not the "truth of the matter" at all. Many economists and conservative politicians warned explicitly about this very problem. So did IBD. And so did numerous other media outlets. The notion that no one brought it up is simply false.

Of $157.8 billion "made available" under the stimulus, only $56.3 billion has been paid out — or 7% of the total $787 billion. And according to ex-Treasury Department economist Bruce Bartlett, "just 11% of the the discretionary spending on highways, mass transit, energy efficiency and other programs involving direct government purchases will have been spent by the end of this fiscal year."

Based on this, there are only two possible conclusions: One, the stimulus has been the most inept public waste of money in history. Or two, it was a cynical attempt by the Democrats to vastly expand the scope of government during a time of crisis. Or maybe it's both.

After all, how else could a government seize major parts of a once-private economy with nary a peep? How else could it boost spending to record levels, then blame earlier administrations for their fiscal incontinence? And how else could they add $10 trillion to the nation's debt in just 10 years and still claim fiscal prudence?

Yet, faced with this, economist Paul Krugman and others on the left argue that a second stimulus is needed. Asked about it, Biden — who oversees the stimulus, by the way — refused to reject it.

This is a little like a medieval barber bleeding his patients to improve their health, then bleeding them again when they fail to improve. At some point we'll all wake up and use modern medicine. Until then, why double-down on failure?

Those who argue doing nothing wasn't an option are wrong. We would now be emerging from this recession if the government had left well enough alone. The Fed's interest-rate cuts to zero last December would have been plenty.

Instead, we're facing the worst recovery since the Depression, and the entrepreneurs who fuel job growth are hunkering down to weather planned tax hikes in the trillions of dollars.
 
Well, they're both at least twice as intelligent as the last idiot in the WH, so having put up with him for eight years, no wonder the US is in the shit financially...
 
WHINE%20TEST.bmp
 
Yes Jillian the war between the country clubbers and the conservatives is decades old. The only difference between the country clubbers and the Dems was how much of the welfare state they were willing to fund at my grand kids expense with the advent of Bush II even that difference slowly disappeared though your buddy Obama is rapidly succeeding in recreating that difference.

do you think that responds to my post?

didn't think so.

but then again, expecting cogent analysis from you is akin to expecting a million dollars to fall out of the sky and land on my terrace in neat little bundles.
 
a sinking ship...

washingtonpost.com


Obama's Iceberg
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Around midnight on April 15, 1912, there were a few minutes when Capt. Edward Smith of the Titanic realized his ship was going down -- six watertight compartments breached, less than two hours to float -- yet his passengers slept in happy ignorance. A historical fate hardened while most of the participants dreamed on.

The jobs report last week opened a long gash beneath the waterline of President Obama's legislative agenda. Few realize it, but a scramble for lifeboats is about to begin.

On closer inspection, the economic news, which seemed bad, is even worse. Not only did unemployment rise to 9.5 percent but wages fell, undermining the consumption needed to revive a consumption-driven economy. Unemployment increased among "breadwinners" -- married men and women who head households -- also making major family purchases more difficult. Recent increases in unemployment benefits and food stamps have helped many Americans pay for food and rent. Jobs, however, are what lead to the purchase of furniture, cars and homes. Paired with a decline in business investment, these trends make a second-half recovery less likely.

The stimulus package hasn't been very stimulating -- as many economists predicted. Pouring money into the economy through a thirsty sponge of federal programs -- the preferred method of Congress -- is slow and inefficient. In retrospect, all of the stimulus funds should have been given to individuals directly from the tap.

There are political implications of a weak recovery -- none of them good for the president....

By the time the health-care debate begins in earnest, these challenges at the federal level will be unavoidable. Perhaps $1 trillion in spending will be on the table. Some of the resources necessary for a "revenue-neutral" bill may come from savings in the health system. But administration and congressional officials are already hinting at the need for new revenue, including some type of tax on employer-provided health benefits. "The important thing at this point is . . . to keep the discussions going," says Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, even if discussions include such taxes. "We haven't drawn a lot of bright lines," explains White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

To pass his health proposal this year, Obama would first need to violate his word. As a presidential candidate, he pledged that "no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase" -- the most memorable number of the 2008 campaign. Taxing health benefits would certainly cross this very bright line and add to the public stock of cynicism.

Second, Obama would need to abandon economic common sense -- adding debt to debt or new taxes to a struggling economy. Either way, it would be a sad story.

Or maybe the captain could wake the passengers, end their dreams and announce the obvious: Because the economy has not improved, ambitious health reform must wait.
 
a sinking ship...

washingtonpost.com


Obama's Iceberg
By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Around midnight on April 15, 1912, there were a few minutes when Capt. Edward Smith of the Titanic realized his ship was going down -- six watertight compartments breached, less than two hours to float -- yet his passengers slept in happy ignorance. A historical fate hardened while most of the participants dreamed on.

The jobs report last week opened a long gash beneath the waterline of President Obama's legislative agenda. Few realize it, but a scramble for lifeboats is about to begin.

On closer inspection, the economic news, which seemed bad, is even worse. Not only did unemployment rise to 9.5 percent but wages fell, undermining the consumption needed to revive a consumption-driven economy. Unemployment increased among "breadwinners" -- married men and women who head households -- also making major family purchases more difficult. Recent increases in unemployment benefits and food stamps have helped many Americans pay for food and rent. Jobs, however, are what lead to the purchase of furniture, cars and homes. Paired with a decline in business investment, these trends make a second-half recovery less likely.

The stimulus package hasn't been very stimulating -- as many economists predicted. Pouring money into the economy through a thirsty sponge of federal programs -- the preferred method of Congress -- is slow and inefficient. In retrospect, all of the stimulus funds should have been given to individuals directly from the tap.

There are political implications of a weak recovery -- none of them good for the president....

By the time the health-care debate begins in earnest, these challenges at the federal level will be unavoidable. Perhaps $1 trillion in spending will be on the table. Some of the resources necessary for a "revenue-neutral" bill may come from savings in the health system. But administration and congressional officials are already hinting at the need for new revenue, including some type of tax on employer-provided health benefits. "The important thing at this point is . . . to keep the discussions going," says Obama senior adviser David Axelrod, even if discussions include such taxes. "We haven't drawn a lot of bright lines," explains White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

To pass his health proposal this year, Obama would first need to violate his word. As a presidential candidate, he pledged that "no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase" -- the most memorable number of the 2008 campaign. Taxing health benefits would certainly cross this very bright line and add to the public stock of cynicism.

Second, Obama would need to abandon economic common sense -- adding debt to debt or new taxes to a struggling economy. Either way, it would be a sad story.

Or maybe the captain could wake the passengers, end their dreams and announce the obvious: Because the economy has not improved, ambitious health reform must wait.

I thought the economy was Obama's Katrina, and now it's his iceberg?

Imagine this, the climate bill fails in the Senate, health insurance legislature is so anemic it satisfies no one, the recession doesn't bottom out until next year and unemployment is still climbing as we go into the mid term elections.

After the elections, President Obama makes a speech about his plans for the remainder of his first term and raucous laughter can be heard coming for the Capitol building.
 
This doesn't surprise me as the first stimulus package under the Obama administration basically went to pay off his union allies. Most of the money won't be shelled out until 2010 and later. This is the same stimulus package that had to be voted on so quickly without even reading it because there was such a "crisis." WTF?
Could the reason be that he doesn't want all the debt on the books before his "Cap & Trade", and "Healthcare Reform," gets pushed through?
 
Now they are looking for a '2nd' stimulus, I mean the first one has done so much! Now we keep hearing that those 'shovel ready' projects weren't quite as ready as claimed. So where did they spend what they did? Bailing out failing states Links at site:

James Pethokoukis » Blog Archive » Maybe this is why the stimulus isn’t creating tons of jobs yet | Blogs |

July 8th, 2009
Maybe this is why the stimulus isn’t creating tons of jobs yet
Post a comment
Posted by: James Pethokoukis
Tags: Uncategorized, Obamanomics, stimulus
Here is what the Government Accounting Office is saying about the progress of stimulus spending:


Across the United States, as of June 19, 2009, Treasury had outlayed about $29 billion of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funds projected for use in states and localities in fiscal year 2009.​

And how is that $29 billion being spent? Like this (hint, not on infrastructure projects):
 
NJ is getting 17 billion and only 9 percent is for "infrastructure and energy" Haven't seen one friggin road project going on despite the fact that a majority if our bridges are falling down. I don't know anyone that would have a problem with the bridges being fixed. But that's not what they plan to do with the money. We were lied to.
 
gop.elephant.dead.jpg


Casting blame on the dead party is easy. They did nothing to protect the safegards in our financial markets. Then they offered no plan to correct the situation, again doing nothing. Nobody knows what the stimulus plan is going to do precisely, but at least Democrats met with experts, and came up with a reasonable plan.

Republicans had no plan, and did nothing. Now the Repubs sit in their offices taking pot shots at the guy who tried to do something! It is time for some hangings, Republicans are UnAmerican.
 
Last edited:



Casting blame on the dead party is easy. They did nothing to protect the safegards in our financial markets. Then they offered no plan to correct the situation, again doing nothing. Nobody knows what the stimulus plan is going to do precisely, but at least Democrats met with experts, and came up with a reasonable plan.

Republicans had no plan, and did nothing. Now the Repubs sit in their offices taking pot shots at the guy who tried to do something! It is time for some hangings, Republicans are UnAmerican.
that is a complete LIE
but then thats all you ever do
 

Forum List

Back
Top