Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Biden: “We misread the economy”
Vice President Joe Biden told George Stephanopoulos yesterday that the Obama administration “misread the economy” earlier this year and was too optimistic that unemployment rates would only peak at 8 percent. (As of June, unemployment rates had inflated to 9.5 percent.)
However, Biden still defended the stimulus package that Congress passed earlier this year, calling it “the right package given the circumstances we’re in.”
“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.”
Although Biden downplayed calls for a second stimulus package, he did not rule out the possibility.
back to top43 Comments to “Biden: “We misread the economy””
Obviously, Mr. Biden is still blinded by idiotic ideology which suggests the federal spending package (guised as stimulus) is working as planned. Nothing of the sort has occurred.
Report comment to moderator
Mis-read it my big fanny. I doubt they even “read” it if recent bills are any indication.
There were plenty of economists who were predicting 10% unemployment or better.
Report comment to moderator
Obama-Biden simply said whatever got them by politically at the time. It turns out they were wrong. But the media will gloss this over and cover for them as much as possible–no matter how many actual human beings are suffering. Meanwhile, their spend, tax & borrow–spend, tax & borrow–spend, tax & borrow policies are making the economy worse. As the unemployment rates continue to rise, we must still face the fact that inflation is also coming. All this money-printing will be the cause.
Report comment to moderator
Something that I don’t understand is that during last year’s election campaign, Obama consistently had the highest numbers as the candidate who would be “best for the economy.” Why? What from his past experience warranted that kind of optimism? I guess once again it says more about the voters than anything else…
Report comment to moderator
And it’s been six months, its Obama’s stimulus, but they are still talking about what they inherited! I don’t recall almost ten per cent unemployment last November, or January for that matter.
Report comment to moderator
Putting Biden out front as spokesman on this or any big issue can only prompt further devaluations in the dollar by overseas currency markets.
Admit it, you now miss silent Dick Cheney doncha?
Report comment to moderator
Dreams vanish as reality sets in. Or in the case of the current administration, reality is embellished as dreams turn to nightmares.
Report comment to moderator
On the bright side,
This group still expects unemployment to peak at 10.3 percent in early 2010, but they’re encouraged by “the slight improvement in sales of existing homes [which] ticked up for the fourth consecutive month” and “that average weekly overtime at factories was up to 2.8 hours in June, suggesting that while companies aren’t yet ready to hire, they are getting healthier.”
Six months is not enough time to judge the success or failure of an economic policy. Certainly you can criticize on its perceived inequities or criticize its theory, but you can’t declare it a proven failure after only six months.
We’ll see.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, here’s that link:
NPR
Report comment to moderator
Yes, but in the real estate industry itself, we are hearing that the market has not yet bottomed out. Absorption rates in some towns are picking up, but only if you already had the money. The “poor” towns (between $220-300K) are not moving.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know enough about economics to say, but I do remember that economists, by large margins, supported Obama as the candidate who would be best for the economy. And The Economist magazine endorsed him.
So I’m guessing they know something we don’t.
Report comment to moderator
We’ll see, indeed, JJF. I’ll go on record and say the stimulus policy–merely an extension in degree of the previous admin’s–will be a disaster. Rather than guessing “they” know something we don’t, I imagine either a) “they” have a vested interest in the status quo and/or b)”they” don’t know something (you? and) I and many others know intuitively: Keynesian economics is a bust. When Paul Krugman was touting low interest rates, and encouraging a housing bubble, we could have said, “We’ll see.” Austrian economists were saying, “Yeah we will, and it won’t be pretty.”
Report comment to moderator
Fair enough.
We surely will see. Maybe it won’t be pretty. I certainly hope that isn’t the case.
And if it isn’t pretty, I’ll know next time not to trust the Keynesian on the economy. But as I’d already witnessed the failure of right-wing economics, I was willing to see if the left had any better ideas.
Report comment to moderator
And you thought spending up the wazoo was a better idea?
Report comment to moderator
Maybe. That’s the Keynesian claim, anyway. We’ll see.
Report comment to moderator
What is still not obvious to everyone is that Obama is happy that he has kept the economy tanked. He wants the country in crisis mode. Rush predicted well before the election that the democrats would say that the economy was worse than expected. so Biden’s words are no surprise.
The big surprise is still that the American people voted for such a cold hate filled president in the first place.
Report comment to moderator
Most economists, liberal and conservative, understood the need for some sort of stimulus. Rejection of the stimulus approach in favor of say, the more austere Austrian remedy is very much a minority, or dare I say it, sectarian position.
Report comment to moderator
Hi again, JJF.
But as I’d already witnessed the failure of right-wing economics, I was willing to see if the left had any better ideas.
I see this thought expressed here and there (and everywhere!). It also takes the form, “We’ve seen where de-regulation gets us!” It may be the case that “right-wing” economics has failed us, and I’m no apologist for today’s “mainline” “right-winger” (I feel like we have to put quotes around all these terms nowadays), but I suggest we haven’t seen, let alone been able to assess, a free market at work.
Report comment to moderator
Again, a fair point, and one I’ve discussed with Frank in (Wherever He Is Now… I still always want to say Pheonix).
I’ll grant that the Republicans don’t put into place pure free market policies, of the Ron Paul kind. But they also don’t put into place pure Keynesian markets, as Krugman’s current discontent testifies. So the best we have to go on is the leanings in each direction that the right and left make.
Some may argue (and many do) that half-measures won’t work. For de-regulation and free markets to really work, they say, we need to abolish the Fed, get on the gold standard, and dismantle all regulatory and bureaucratic agencies not expressly written in the Constitution. But I view this with the same trepidation I view Krugman’s calls to spend another $800 billion and nationalize the banks. Those are pretty extreme measures. If some de-regulation didn’t work, on what grounds should I believe that complete de-regulation will? If some government social spending doesn’t work, on what grounds should I believe more of it will?
Report comment to moderator
I wasn’t happy with all the spending the Republicans were doing, but the Democrats are making them look like pikers. And I’m darn sure not happy with what they are doing.
Seems to me that spending was part of the problem to begin with. And if deregulation was a problem, why isn’t it a problem when the administration is “deregulated”? They’re spending money faster than it can be printed.
Report comment to moderator
Oops. That’s confusing. I meant this:
I’ll grant that the Republicans don’t put into place pure free market policies, of the Ron Paul kind. But
theythe Democrats also don’t put into place pure Keynesian markets, as Krugman’s current discontent testifies.Report comment to moderator
Harris, too bad we listened to the majority for so long.
Report comment to moderator
You odn’t spend money you don’t have. It’s very simple.
Until the median salary person can buy the median priced home, we’re going nowhere.
Report comment to moderator
Simply a CYA statement by Biden for the administration.
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to add- it’s all W’s fault anyway! NOT!
Report comment to moderator
Monetarist economist of the Friedman ilk argued from the late 70s to the late 90s that there was a natural rate of unemployment. If unemployment went below this number, inflation would become a problem and hence the central bank and other institutions needed to balance the two. When the unemployment went into single digits, monetarists began to panic and called for an increase in interest rates to thwart the expected inflation. Outside of the housing bubble, inflation was a non-issue despite the low interest rates.
I mention the above to question the current monetarist critics of the neo-Keynesian policies of the administration. With unemployment back in double digits and no significant correlation to interest rates — rather its the lack of interest application (ie loans)– monetarists have no applicable advice. Keynesian, on the other hand, have a more flexible approach to unemployment and economic growth which allows for spending and gov’t intervention.
The Keynesian credentials of the current administration are questionable. Given the wimpish nature of the Democratic Congress, money and credit is given not to people but through a series of filters designed to appease those who smell socialism in every corner of the administration. The net effect has been socialism for the corporate elite and trickle down economics for the rest.
Report comment to moderator
Many of the economic problems we have benn experiencing recently are due to overspending during the previous administration due to pork attached to bills passed in the name of national security. Soon we will harvest much more severe economic problems due to pork attached to bills passed in the name of economic recovery during this administration.
We desperately need some responsible adults in Washington. Voters, please select people who are ready to make responsible decisions, not ones who promise you that you can have everything you want and that someone else will pay for it.
Report comment to moderator
Friedman ≠ Austrian
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: Meanwhile, their spend, tax & borrow–spend, tax & borrow–spend, tax & borrow policies are making the economy worse.
Please explain. Everybody’s quarterly payments are at the same rate as last year. Stimulus spending is just getting started. It seems to me that Obama’s policies have had little effect except in raising confidence.
Report comment to moderator
MAKE IT MAN There were plenty of economists who were predicting 10% unemployment or better.
Good point. Paul Krugman, famously. Also, Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia U warned that the Stim was too small to offset the contraction in demand. A host of economists joined in the chorus. James Galbraith of U Texas and Dean Baker said Obama was underestimating the size of the crisis. Nouriel Roubini criticized Obama for not rounding up international stimulus spending and monetary easing by countries that can afford it. The great Brad DeLong of UC Berkeley has been warning of contraction not experienced since the Depression.
JOEL MARK: Obama-Biden simply said whatever got them by politically at the time.
They took what they could get and put the best face on it they could. Unfortunately, the inadequacy of the Stim makes the apparent need for more Stim politically harder to get, not easier.
Report comment to moderator
SAWgUnNER: Admit it, you now miss silent Dick Cheney doncha?
Naw, I’ll stay with Joe. He’s an ass-et not an . . . Every administration needs someone to say the embarrassing things that need to be said, because not saying them is worse. Dick Cheney is exhibit A, and A stands for . . . When Biden says these things, people think it’s just ol’ Joe eating his shoe again.
Substantively, the Chinese money mandarins are smart enough to understand that in Dec. 2008 Obama had to low-ball job losses or he would have been savaged for talking down the economy. Obama’s got problems, but professional incompetence is not one of them.
Report comment to moderator
“We misread the economy”
I’ll say they did. So did Sen. Chris Dodd and Congressman Barny Frank. And as usual, the people must pay for their misreading and mistakes.
Report comment to moderator
The US congress has been misreading the economy since 2006, and they are the ones causing most of the difficulties.
Report comment to moderator
And as usual, the people must pay for their misreading and mistakes.
If only the bill for W’s (mis)reading was as small!
Report comment to moderator
GWB is gone. This belongs to Obama, and it’s high time you guys get used to it. Promises, promises and they haven’t been kept.
Report comment to moderator
George is gone, but he left us with the bill.
Report comment to moderator
SCROOP= Give it up, you sound like a broken record. This is Obama’s mess. Joe Biden may be a loose cannon but in this he spoke the truth.
Report comment to moderator
Sure is refreshing to have an honest administration. Can you imagine how much worse things would be now if McCain and Ms. I-Quit were in charge of anything that mattered? Thanks the Lord for guiding the voters.
Report comment to moderator
An honest administration? Like you, this administration is not very good at keeping its promises. And the economy is in shambles. A lot of those voters sure wish they could have their votes back!
Report comment to moderator
Definition of a liberal: Someone who will cut off your leg, then sell you a crutch, and expect that you will be grateful for the assistance.
Report comment to moderator
“George is gone, but he left us with the bill.”
Whee! Ain’t blamin’ GWB fun? That’s gotta be the stock answer for folks who haven’t got an argument….
Report comment to moderator
“Unfortunately, the inadequacy of the Stim makes the apparent need for more Stim politically harder to get, not easier.”
Good. I wish we could have all the money back for the first coupla Stim packages.
Report comment to moderator
RPN, Don’t blame the Lord for this mess!
and by the way if everyone in the congress got the same information as GWB concerning Sadam Hussein and they voted to act according to that information why is it that BUSH lied…and yet the new administration didn’t lie they just misread. RIGHT
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!