'We Misread How Bad the Economy Was'

So, let's throw 1.7 TRILLION dollars down the toilet...and what is their comeback?
Sarah Palin.

Quote :

Joe Biden: 'We misread how bad the economy was'

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden said the Obama administration "misread how bad the economy was" but stands by its stimulus package and believes the plan will create more jobs as the pace of its spending picks up.

Biden, in an interview airing Sunday on ABC's "This Week," said the nation's 9.5 percent unemployment rate is "much too high."

"The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there," Biden said.

"We misread how bad the economy was, but we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package," Biden added. More jobs will be created in coming months, he said.

Biden noted that the $787 billion economic stimulus package was set up to spend the money over 18 months. Major programs will take effect in September, including $7.5 billion for broadband Internet service, plus new money for high-speed rail and the nation's electrical grid, he said.

Biden said it's premature to say whether the country will need a second stimulus package.

The way I see it there's a huge difference between underestimating how bad the economy is and just denying there was a problem in the first place. What's freaky is that those unemployment numbers only represent those still receiving unemployment. The true number is much higher.

paul87920 wrote:

The way I see it there's a huge difference between underestimating how bad the economy is and just denying there was a problem in the first place. What's freaky is that those unemployment numbers only represent those still receiving unemployment. The true number is much higher.

Right you are. It does not reflect those people whose unemployment benefits ran out.

I won't say I know what the solution to the economy is either, but I'm certain that it will work itself out. I think we have to escape the doom an gloom mindset first.

Were the republicans this impatient when the economy went down the toilet in the 80's?

KarenT wrote:

Were the republicans this impatient when the economy went down the toilet in the 80's?

Couldn't tell ya. I'm not a Republican and I wasn't born til 87, but we will get through it.

LoisLane wrote:

So, let's throw 1.7 TRILLION dollars down the toilet...and what is their comeback?

Where does the "1.7 Trillion" figure come from? I do know that this administration inherited a roughly 1.2 trillion dollar deficit from the Bush administration, so are you referring to that, or maybe the size of the inherited deficit plus the stimulus package?

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/obamas_prime_time_pitch.html

Quote :

The Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.18 trillion deficit on Jan. 8, 2009, its last estimate before Obama took office Jan. 20. That was the CBO's estimate for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.

If you're referring to something else, then perhaps you could clarify?

Scorpion wrote:

The Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.18 trillion deficit on Jan. 8, 2009, its last estimate before Obama took office Jan. 20. That was the CBO's estimate for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.

I believe it is the 1.18 TRILLION that was grossly underestimated. But the exact figure isn't the topic of this debate, is it? Nobama waits until he's "out of town", and lets his Cabin Boy, Biden, take care of the dirty laundry. Perhaps by the time Nobama is back, we will all forget about it. (Remember Nasty Pelosi's lies about not knowing anything about waterboarding, then WHOOSH, off she goes on a trip to China) This administration is all about lies and opportunities.

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.18 trillion deficit on Jan. 8, 2009, its last estimate before Obama took office Jan. 20. That was the CBO's estimate for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.

I believe it is the 1.18 TRILLION that was grossly underestimated. But the exact figure isn't the topic of this debate, is it? Nobama waits until he's "out of town", and lets his Cabin Boy, Biden, take care of the dirty laundry. Perhaps by the time Nobama is back, we will all forget about it. (Remember Nasty Pelosi's lies about not knowing anything about waterboarding, then WHOOSH, off she goes on a trip to China) This administration is all about lies and opportunities.

Yeah. Well the President has been pretty forthright about the economy getting worse before it gets better, and he has already acknowledged that the unemployment rate is higher than expected, so I guess I don't see your point. The trip to Moscow was scheduled some time ago, (during Obama's first overseas trip after taking office) so it's nonsense to imply that the President "left town" because of bad economic news.

BTW - I know you don't like Pelosi, but Pelosi is not part of the Obama administration.

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.18 trillion deficit on Jan. 8, 2009, its last estimate before Obama took office Jan. 20. That was the CBO's estimate for the current fiscal year, which ends in September.

I believe it is the 1.18 TRILLION that was grossly underestimated. But the exact figure isn't the topic of this debate, is it?

I guess not. But if you think that the CBO projected deficit before Obama took office was "grossly underestimated," then that undercuts your entire argument.

Miscalculated the Budget Deficit! And you trust these clowns with your health care?

LoisLane wrote:

Miscalculated the Budget Deficit! And you trust these clowns with your health care?

I've seen no evidence that the CBO " grossly miscalculated." If you have anything besides your "belief" then lets see it.

Once again, the proposed legislation involves health care insurance coverage. The simple fact of the matter is that insurance premiums have been rising at an average of at least 10% annually, and that is simply not sustainable. If we do nothing, then more and more people will end up uninsured, and we will all pay the price when the increasing number of uninsured people go without basic medical care, become ill and end up in hospital emergency rooms.

I have seen no viable alternative to the proposed "public option" plan which would provide an alternative insurance coverage plan to the uninsured in this country. It would also provide some much needed competition to the current monopoly that the private insurers enjoy. Competition means lower prices for all. I just hope that the politicians in Washington put aside their political and ideological differences and pass some truly game changing health care insurance reform.

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Miscalculated the Budget Deficit! And you trust these clowns with your health care?

I've seen no evidence that the CBO " grossly miscalculated." If you have anything besides your "belief" then lets see it.

Once again, the proposed legislation involves health care insurance coverage. The simple fact of the matter is that insurance premiums have been rising at an average of at least 10% annually, and that is simply not sustainable. If we do nothing, then more and more people will end up uninsured, and we will all pay the price when the increasing number of uninsured people go without medical care, become ill and end up in hospital emergency rooms.

I have seen no viable alternative to the proposed "public option" plan which would provide an alternative insurance coverage plan to the uninsured in this country. It would also provide some much needed competition to the current monopoly that the private insurers enjoy. Competition means lower prices for all. I just hope that the politicians in Washington put aside their political and ideological differences and pass some truly game changing health care insurance reform.

So, you believe more government is the answer? They screw up EVERYTHING they touch. If you want a look into future government involvement in health insurance/health care, look at the mess with the Veteran's Hospitals.

LoisLane wrote:

So, you believe more government is the answer? They screw up EVERYTHING they touch.

Spoken like a true brainwashed conservative. There are plenty of gov't programs that work just fine. The problems start when the Republicans are in charge. FEMA with "Brownie",a former president of the "Arabian Horse Ass'n",appointed by Dubya as the head of it,is a good example.

Quote :

If you want a look into future government involvement in health insurance/health care, look at the mess with the Veteran's Hospitals.

OK.

June 13, 2008
WASHINGTON – A new “hospital report card” by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives the Department’s health care system high marks, with VA facilities often outscoring private-sector health plans in standards commonly accepted by the health care industry.

“This report is a comprehensive snapshot of the quality of care VA provides to our veterans,” said Dr. James B. Peake, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “From waiting times and staffing levels to hospital accreditation and patient satisfaction, this report demonstrates VA is providing high quality care to the veterans we serve.”

Among the report’s findings:

* 98 percent of veterans were seen within 30 days at primary care facilities, 97 percent at specialty clinics. (Veterans requiring emergency care are seen immediately.)
* All of VA’s 153 medical centers are accredited by the independent Joint Commission which accredits all U.S. health care facilities.
* The quality scores for older veterans are similar to those for younger veterans.
http://www1.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=1515

LoisLane wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Miscalculated the Budget Deficit! And you trust these clowns with your health care?

I've seen no evidence that the CBO " grossly miscalculated." If you have anything besides your "belief" then lets see it.

Once again, the proposed legislation involves health care insurance coverage. The simple fact of the matter is that insurance premiums have been rising at an average of at least 10% annually, and that is simply not sustainable. If we do nothing, then more and more people will end up uninsured, and we will all pay the price when the increasing number of uninsured people go without medical care, become ill and end up in hospital emergency rooms.

I have seen no viable alternative to the proposed "public option" plan which would provide an alternative insurance coverage plan to the uninsured in this country. It would also provide some much needed competition to the current monopoly that the private insurers enjoy. Competition means lower prices for all. I just hope that the politicians in Washington put aside their political and ideological differences and pass some truly game changing health care insurance reform.

So, you believe more government is the answer? They screw up EVERYTHING they touch. If you want a look into future government involvement in health insurance/health care, look at the mess with the Veteran's Hospitals.

I don't see how the VA is relevant. What's being proposed involves insurance, not "government run" hospitals. We already provide insurance benefits to federal employees. That "government" insurance plan has been around for decades, and I haven't heard a lot of complaints about it... that's a valid "apples to apples" comparison.

I'm not for or against anything because of "more government," or "less government." Ideology doesn't solve anything. IMHO, that's just not a rational reason to oppose solutions to our problems. We simply can no longer afford to not provide health insurance coverage to the uninsured in this country. So we have to solve this problem, and I see no basis to think that setting up a group insurance plan for the citizenry is going to be some kind of disaster.

Scorpion wrote:

We already provide insurance benefits to federal employees. That "government" insurance plan has been around for decades, and I haven't heard a lot of complaints about it... that's a valid "apples to apples" comparison.

That's my favorite part about all the arguments against this. "My government run insurance is perfectly acceptable, but yours will be terrible!!" There's certainly not a big enough problem that they've opted for the "benefits" of private insurance over teh government plan. This point that undercuts their entire argument. Hell... some of them have even been promoting it.

Heretic wrote:

That's my favorite part about all the arguments against this. "My government run insurance is perfectly acceptable, but yours will be terrible!!" There's certainly not a big enough problem that they've opted for the "benefits" of private insurance over teh government plan. This point that undercuts their entire argument. Hell... some of them have even been promoting it.

Chuck Grassley R-Iowa has been one of the major opponents to the public option. It's time for the Dems to cut bait and stop wasting their time trying to woo the Repubs into voting for it. Reconciliation is the only way we're ever going to get a decent bill passed.

Artie60438 wrote:

Heretic wrote:

That's my favorite part about all the arguments against this. "My government run insurance is perfectly acceptable, but yours will be terrible!!" There's certainly not a big enough problem that they've opted for the "benefits" of private insurance over teh government plan. This point that undercuts their entire argument. Hell... some of them have even been promoting it.

Chuck Grassley R-Iowa has been one of the major opponents to the public option. It's time for the Dems to cut bait and stop wasting their time trying to woo the Repubs into voting for it. Reconciliation is the only way we're ever going to get a decent bill passed.

Yeah, well if the Republicans won't back a "public option" then I agree.

I ran across an amusing Op-Ed piece that I figured you guys might enjoy...

If You Don't Want the Public Option, Get the Hell Out of the Way

Here's an excerpt...

Quote :

And of course none of the Republicans or Blue Dogs in Congress are covered by a government health insurance plan. Except for all of them.

Please explain, conservatives and wingnuts, why you wouldn't seriously consider switching to the public option if it turned out to be more affordable and portable from job to job -- not to mention the fact that you wouldn't be turned down for a preexisting condition; you wouldn't be randomly booted from the plan as soon as you needed it most; and you would never have to worry about health insurance coverage ever again. Employed or unemployed. Sick or healthy.

I find it hard to believe that you, Mr. and Mrs. Wingnut, would defiantly pay more for less reliable insurance if offered a better deal. To pay more for less would be outstandingly backwards. Palin backwards. "Quitter" equals "fighter" backwards.

The fact remains that the only downside to the public option is that it's just too awesome. We don't deserve anything that good. Simply put: it's Medicare, but for anyone who wants it. And this is somehow a nightmare scenario -- one that we must never be allowed to experience even though it would cost much less than our current system, it would cover everyone who wants it, and it would be accountable to the American people.

There are a couple of interesting links in the piece, so it's definitely worth checking out . For example, I hadn't checked the stats in a while, and I was appalled to discover that the US has slipped to 29th in infant mortality, and our life expectancy now ranks 42nd.

Scorpion wrote:

There are a couple of interesting links in the piece, so it's definitely worth checking out . For example, I hadn't checked the stats in a while, and I was appalled to discover that the US has slipped to 29th in infant mortality, and our life expectancy now ranks 42nd.

I'm sure you're probably aware of this study done back in 2000 by the World Health Org,and I may have posted it previously,but others might not have seen it..

The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems.


1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America