Big admission from Vice President Joe Biden today.
“The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy,” Biden told me during our exclusive “This Week” interview in Iraq.
Biden acknowledged administration officials were too optimistic earlier this year when they predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8 percent as part of their effort to sell the stimulus package. The national unemployment rate has ballooned to 9.5 percent in June — the worst in 26 years.
“The truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited,” said Biden, who is leading the administration’s effort to implement it’s $787 billion economic stimulus plan.
“Now, that doesn’t — I’m not — it’s now our responsibility. So the second question becomes, did the economic package we put in place, including the Recovery Act, is it the right package given the circumstances we’re in? And we believe it is the right package given the circumstances we’re in,” he told me.
The vice president argued more time is needed for the stimulus to work.
“We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package,” he said. “The truth of the matter was, no one anticipated, no one expected that that recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of money.”
Everyone misread the economy? I think not.
Read the transcript of the interview.
#52, Bobbo,
The criticism of Obama at the time was some thinking he should let the banks fail, some thought his stimulus package should be much bigger.
Uummm, the right wing nut crowd had been screaming we needed to reduce taxes. There was very little comment about making the Stimulus Bill larger as the loud wing nut set: FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity, Alphie, et al were totally against the package. Many democrats only voted for the bill through arm twisting.
Yes, there was talk about letting the banks fail. That though is a second point and was loudest from September to December. It was also the same crowd yelling how bad the Stimulus is.
Obama’s position that he was doing enough–ie–he was using numbers that were too optimistic.
The political reality is that if the Stimulus was larger then it would never have passed. Remember, Congress had seen $350 Billion used in TARP funds that they couldn’t get answers for. Many Americans were not too happy with TARP and a sizable number were against any stimulus. Also at the time, Obama did say he might have to come back for more stimulus funds.
Bush publicly stated that the Fannies needed more oversight, he got pushback from Frank, and he let the issue go.
Right wing nut propoganda. Bush wanted to remove oversight to the White House through the Treasury. Even though the REPUBLICAN Finance Chairmen in Congress (Barney Frank had nothing to do with this) dropped the bill, Bush still pushed a lot of toxic assets on the Fms.
BUSH the RETARD is responsible for our current mess.
A fact the right wing nuts are in denial about. The loudest right wing nuts though want the stimulus to fail. They would rather America fail so they can be proved right.
#49, slightly,
Obama did exactly what the republicans would have done with the stimulus,
Wrong. The Republicans sole plan was to cut taxes. Even several months later, they have yet to come with anything other than cut taxes. They even had a big press conference to announce their policy, complete with an 18 pg book with nothing in it.
Bush is smart because he was pushing it as well,
Bush was mute during the whole thing. To some he appeared completely overwhelmed and even shell shocked. He let Treasury Secretary Paulson do all the talking and that ended up being “we’ll wait for the Democrats to take over and do something”.
If you really want to know the names of 3 liberals who admitted the numbers Obama used …
You claimed many were so it shouldn’t be difficult.
Me? I don’t have an opinion as I don’t have access to all the numbers and I am not a professional economist. Those that call Obama and Biden liars because of they were optimistic are most likely very short sighted themselves.
why don’t you list 3 things that Bush did to create the housing bubble.
Nope. Wrong topic. Typical right wing nut attitude is to change the subject.
I did not see (Bush) doing things that contributed to the credit bubble.
Then you are blind. It was the lack of oversight by the OCC, Thrift, SEC, and Treasury, among other Departments that allowed the banks to hold so much toxic assets. When the warning signs came that people that should not get credit were getting it, he didn’t warn Congress. In February, 2008 Paulson told the House Finance Committee that the economy was great even though he and Benanke had just discussed the problems a few days earlier.
MF — It doesn’t take a blind man to see the bubble began in 1996.
Anybody know what happened in 1996?
—–Me? I don’t have an opinion—-
That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day! Little Fusion has opinions about everything…he starts with “It’s Bush’s fault” and then proceeds to spew his opinion over half a screen of the comments page.
Name the character:
“The right wing blah blah blah. The wingnuts blah blah blah…”
#61 Fusion,
Can you even write one post that does that does not veer off into attacking ‘right wing nut jobs’. And seriously, if you don’t want people to ‘shift the topic’ then don’t bring the crap up in the first place in order to insult people. — The fact is, Bush warned against the risks of lack of oversight of Freddie Mac and Fannie May 17 times. Ron Paul warned against it even earlier than Bush. Did Obama warn of anything like this when he was a senator? Yes, Bush should have pushed even harder for more regulation, but was the Republicans were overly concerned about appearing to take money away from poor people. So please, if you want to ‘shift topics’, that is not a topic you want to shift into if you are Obama drone you seem to be. You could probably stand to do some reading on that subject.
nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
online.wsj.com/article/SB123137220550562585.html
usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/10/06/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac.html
youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
Mr Fusion,
I had to separate my reply into two parts to keep my research assignment civilized.
As promised, here are the names you demanded.
Democrats who voted against stimulus bill:
Allan Boyd (D-FL) Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Jim Cooper (D-TN) Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
Parker Griffith (D-AL) Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD) Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Collin Peterson (D-MN) Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Other liberals who pointed out obviously inflated recovery predictions used to push stimulus:
Mickey Kaus
Richard Posner
Paul Krugman
Simon Johnson
Ed Leamer (His policies generally seem liberal, but not sure officially how he leans.)
Menzie Chinn (Ditto… sorry – likewise)
Jared Bernstein (Hey, at least the administration finally admitted it, though still not being realistic.)
None of these are even the ones I remember talking about it, and I could dig those up as well but you only asked for three.
This shows how we are tracking vs. Obama’s job predictions.
We could theoretically still hit them if things change sharply in the next year, but numbers we will surely not hit are the federal revenue numbers used to show how the money spent on the stimulus and the future spending it requires will not explode the national debt.
Other good reads on the subject:
Is The Economic Forecast Too Optimistic?
May Unemployment Numbers Worse Than Projected, Long Term Unemployment Sets Record
Rosy Scenario, or the Audacity of Hope?
Since you are reaping the enlightenment of my work, would you be so kind as to specifically list three things Bush did to cause the housing bubble or the resulting credit crunch? I assure you that your work will not go unread, as I suspect is the fate for my citations.
Fusion==thanks. I think the truth is that on any given subject “every” opinion gets
stated by someone somewhere. When the crap shoot of history takes its turn, we find winners and losers. The losers find excuses and the winners claim expertise.
The numbers vary, its only over the long haul you win by betting on 7 rather than snake-eyes, but only in the long haul.
The Democrats used the crisis as a diversion from their theft, mismanagement, and fringe politics…a they didn’t waste the crisis…
Accordingly they did nothing for jobs…for the economy…porkulus spending projects, Green stupidity that does nothing to create real jobs…
AND the first thing Obama did was ensure our dependency upon foreign oil…shut down domestic oil expansion, thus guaranteeing gas would be above $1.00 a gallon, robbing the economy of that stimulus.
THEY BET the economy would recover on its own, and as they knew the first 100 days was the best to pass legislation, they focused in their STATIST agenda, mislabeling everything they did to establish Government control as “stimulus…job creation” when in fact it accomplished the opposite.
They created the anti-business climate BANANA REPUBLICS manifest, and now BANANA Republic of the United States gets the same level of job creating investment as other banana republics, where the “leader” promises to “spread the wealth around”, ZERO
Obama owns our high unemployment…he made sure it can only increase, by being anti business.
Just as a UNION MAN won’t go to work, if its promised they will have to pay by the hour, not get paid, so also job creating business don’t form when its guaranteed their profits will be stolen by Obama and Congress.
#66, Slightly,
New York Times
Very true. There was nothing about assuming toxic assets that the Bush Administration forced them to assume later in 2006 – 2008. There is lots though about the American dream of home ownership, something pushed by Clinton and later by Bush.
WSJ
An opinion piece by, of all people, Karl Rove. And you are suggesting you want credibility? I won’t waste my time reading this.
US Today
Another opinion piece. The links backing up his statement are dead. The stronger regulation proposed by Bush was to move the FMs to being regulated by the White House instead of through Congress. Yet, for six years the Republicans had control of Congress and the White House and didn’t pass anything.
The Ranking Member doesn’t control what legislation goes through the committee. Yet we continually hear about how Barney Frank stopped some legislation. The Republicans can’t admit it was THEM who dropped a bad bill.
OH WAIT !!! It was that dastardly Barney Frank who finally passed a new oversight bill for the FMs in 2007, after the Democrats took control of Congress and Frank took over the Chairmanship of the Banking Committee.
*
For some insight on why the meltdown occurred,
economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/bill-clinton-on-his-economic-legacy/
For the most extensive report on Bush and his Administration’s role in this
nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=1
(one of the best summaries to date)
*
And you still haven’t posted all those “Liberals” who were all complaining the Stimulus Package was too little. Instead you changed course when you realized you had lost, again. Please try to answer my concerns from #36.
#70, Fusion, you are amazing. Poo-pooing something by Karl Rove and then posting an interview with Bill Clinton; although, I do enjoy all his counterfactual speculating. At least your second linked article was actually informative, in a non-CYA kind of way.
Democrats Admit That Their Cap and Trade Bill Is a Job Killer
…OH WAIT !!! It was that dastardly Barney Frank who finally passed a new oversight bill for the FMs in 2007, after the Democrats took control of Congress and Frank took over the Chairmanship of the Banking Committee…
Yeah, that same dastardly person who said he had just reviewed the FM’s and found them to be a sound investment….just a few months before the collapse. The same person who re-wrote regulations (in that bill that’s being touted as a savior) forcing the FM’s to loan money to people who had slim to no chance of being qualified. Yeah, that’s the same crook who got all sorts of extra contributions cause of his hard work.
********************
All things aside, Obama maybe a decent person – but he has surrounded himself with so many crooks, liars and thieves that we’ll never get a chance to see what he is really like. Though crooked Chicago politics are as good of an indication as any.
Mr. Fusion said,
“yoshi,
Krugman misread the economy as well.
Another incredibly stupid comment. If you can’t link or cite where you got your quotes then they are just more bullshit.”
I love you too. Sorry for not linking, but that’s pretty harsh reply, you could’ve used Google if you had some patience. I’ll add sources next time.
I copied and pasted sources to a drop just for you:
http://drop.io/krugmanquotes
Mr. Fusion said,
“yoshi,
Krugman misread the economy as well.
Another incredibly stupid comment. If you can’t link or cite where you got your quotes then they are just more bullshit.”
I love you too. Sorry for not linking, but that’s pretty harsh reply, you could’ve used Google if you had some patience. I’ll add sources next time.
I copied and pasted sources to a drop just for you:
http://drop.io/krugmanquotes
#75, YOSHI,
Sorry to disagree, but it isn’t a harsh reply. You stated that “Krugman misread the economy as well.” and post a bunch of quotes. Your quotes come out of nowhere and seem entirely phoney.
In fact they are useless. You use some “drop” site for a reference. Only very few of those quotes are traceable. Then, it appears most of those quotes are taken out of context (the few I looked at) and old. If something refers to another situatuation, it is very wrong to use it in the current discussion.
Yes I know posting several links on this blog always gets caught in the spam filter, but as I recently dicovered, removing the “http://www.” will allow the address through. The reader will need to copy and paste but I think most honest readers appreciate the time and effort required.
By not posting your sources (links) you leave yourself open to be accused of invention. Trying to apply a Krugman quote from 2002 to the surrent situation is just such an invention. It is intellectually dishonest.
Expecting someone else to spend the time researching your claims is just plain wrong. You made the claim, not I. You back them up.
LOL
piss and moan cause too lazy to have already read or look up general knowledge then piss and moan cause the links provided don’t match the format you’re use to.
next complaint will be cause the link comes from a biased source(can only use ‘approved sources’)…ya know, like FOX, MSNBC, WaPo or AP
)
sounds a bit like my old english teacher, nothing I did was ever good enough for her either:)
#77, Rick,
And judging from your comment, your teacher was correct. You don’t seem to be able to decipher between bullshit and the truth.
Opinions are NOT facts. Quotes out of context are disingenuous. Falsely attributing something to someone is just plain wrong.
#78
“..Opinions are NOT facts…”
Unless it’s a consensus of scientists….then it becomes a law:)
But to your point, those were actual quotes referenced and they were not taken out of context because great effort was made to include more than 1/2 a sentence. The specific of your post that irritated me was:
“…You use some “drop” site for a reference. Only very few of those quotes are traceable…”
There were 14 references listed for nine quotes…I’d call that “traceable”.
You are right about one thing, there is
something terrible wrong with someone falsely attributing something [comment/statement/action/lack of traceable quotes] to someone…specially when facts have been previously made clear – but are ignored in order to forward personal agendas.
Sadly, this applies to the global warming, the economy & pretty much everything that’s currently being proposed in Washington – and applies to both parties and many posters on this site.
It’s also part of what makes finding the proper villain, so hard. Times were so much easier back in the days when ‘badguys’ were a different race or spoke a different language, wore a black hat….something easy for all to identify.