October 6, 2010

Biden: "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them."

Interesting. I wonder if WaPo columnist Richard Cohen will struggle to repress a tear contemplating these hateful words fired like bullets.

69 comments:

former law student said...

Biden sounds like my mom.

traditionalguy said...

Biden has never met any Tea Party budget balancers, and therefore he thinks the GOP mantra to balance anything is hot air. Biden is too old like Robert Byrd.

Alex said...

Liberals are the real haters. Witness their violent language in this comment threads.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)




I echo Alex's sentiments, isn't his just violent, eliminationist rhetoric? I await Olberman’s condemnation….

ricpic said...

Today I decided not to buy a $400 leather jacket that I've been lusting over for half a month. Something about a budget that I have to balance with MY MONEY. No such drag weight on Uncle Joe.

lemondog said...

Dems don't mention balancing the budget?

Repubs get religion on balancing budgets. If they regain control, instant amnesia will set in.

“No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session.” - Benjamin Franklin

Big Mike said...

@Professor, Jennifer Rubin agrees with you.

And I agree with Alex.

And if Joe Biden tried to strangle me, I doubt he'd enjoy the consequences.

TRO said...

He's brain damaged - for real from the brain aneurysm he suffered a while back - so I always cut him some slack.

I can't say if the remaining liberals have the same excuse, however.

Alex said...

Everything that comes forth from FLS, Alpha Liberal, Ritmo, victoria, garage mahal is HATE HATE HATE.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

More eliminationist rhetoric and death threats from the inept Socialists - unable to drag their "spread the wealth" agenda across the finish line.

It's no wonder Washington elites are attempting to enlist Hillary Clinton in their plans for a bloodless coup.

traditionalguy said...

Alex...Victoria can be rather insulting at times, but IMO the other usual suspects are rather funny. They are not violent. They just incite us to want to strangle them. Do you remember Inspector Clouseau's house boy in Pink Panther...that is their function.

MadisonMan said...

The thing most interesting about that news story? Walter Mondale is still alive!

I had forgotten about him

Big Mike said...

I used to be very concerned about Bush's $200B budget deficits. Thanks to four years of Pelosi as Speaker and two years of Barack Obama as President I'd be thrilled to have us get deficits back down to that level.

Shanna said...

I used to be very concerned about Bush's $200B budget deficits. Thanks to four years of Pelosi as Speaker and two years of Barack Obama as President I'd be thrilled to have us get deficits back down to that level.

I said pretty much this to a friend the other day. Obama spent the campaign season trashing bush for budget issues and is now doing WAY worse than Bush on budget issues. So why should I take any DEMOCRAT seriously on balancing the budget or when they complain about budget woes. They aren't serious.

Our challenge is to find ANY politiican who is serious, but if the options are Bush's deficits vs Obama's deficits I'll take Bush's every day. This is a logical position.

peter hoh said...

Big Mike, the problem with adopting the principle that "deficits don't matter" is that it sets up the next guy to follow suit.

Sucks to abandon principles when you're in power.

HDHouse said...

@Alex....don't mistake pity for hate.

michangelo said...

Biden likes to express himself this way. There was some abortion legislation in the news and he got mad at people telling him about what he should do because he was Catholic so he explained that he'd shove a Rosary down the throat of the next person that questioned his faith.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Big Mike, the problem with adopting the principle that "deficits don't matter" is that it sets up the next guy to follow suit.

Or the problem is that the current crop running things doesn't grasp the concept of a deficit relative to the state of the economy. A $200 billion deficit during a time of economic expansion and full employment probably doesn't matter as much as it does when the economy is tettering on the edge of another recession/depression with 10$ unemployment and said deficit is now $1 trillion.

Larry J said...

Once again, Joe Biden demonstrates how he is more qualified to be Vice President than Sarah Palin. [/snark]

Biden remains the idiot he has always been. Only Democrats are stupid enough to think Biden deserves to be elected to positions of authority.

MadisonMan said...

Sucks to abandon principles when you're in power.

Far better never to have any.

(Someone had to say it)

HDHouse said...

Shanna said...
I used to be very concerned about Bush's $200B budget deficits."


i guess if you don't count wars and stuff...but 3.3 trillion over 8 years without counting wars and stuff is not 200billion a year..that never happened...sorry.

DADvocate said...

The image of Biden trying to strangle someone is comical. On the other hand, it is more of the same violent rhetroic and imagery from the left.

And, why does Biden find balancing the budget such an aggravating idea?

Big Mike said...

@HD, that's a lie and you're a liar. But then mendacity is as natural to a liberal as breathing.

Big Mike said...

@peter hoh, I think the point of my comment was that I had always thought that deficts are not good, just that there's a difference between a paper cut and total amputation of the finger.

WV: repent. Good advice for all you liberals out there.

Sixty Grit said...

hdhouse - too stupid to be pitied or hated. Marinate, feculence boy, marinate.

AllenS said...

Gird your loins! You're about to be strangled! That's a big fuckin' deal.

Joe M. said...

Ugh. I hate journalists.

Hoosier Daddy said...

i guess if you don't count wars and stuff...but 3.3 trillion over 8 years without counting wars and stuff is not 200billion a year..that never happened...sorry.

Last figure I saw was both wars were a hair under $1 trillion to date (that comes to about $200 billion annually). If someone else has a credible figure, I'd like to see it.

Lance said...

@Hoosier
Or the problem is that the current crop running things doesn't grasp the concept of a deficit relative to the state of the economy.

It's the other way around, actually. It's when the economy is down that we most need access to cheap credit. Running deficits (and stealing from SS) during prosperous times makes it hard to compensate for the lean times.

edutcher said...

Good old Halo Joe. Remember, he brought badly needed gravitas to the Demos' '08 ticket.

HDHouse said...

Shanna said...
I used to be very concerned about Bush's $200B budget deficits."

i guess if you don't count wars and stuff...but 3.3 trillion over 8 years without counting wars and stuff is not 200billion a year..that never happened...sorry.


Apparently HD thinks it's worse to spend 3.3 tril over 8 years, part of which was spent in a war to defend this country after it was attacked, than to spend 3.2 tril in two years bailing out unions and building Off Ramps To Nowhere.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's the other way around, actually. It's when the economy is down that we most need access to cheap credit. Running deficits (and stealing from SS) during prosperous times makes it hard to compensate for the lean times.

You misunderstand. I prefer a balanced budget but a $200 billion deficit in good times isn't as bad as a $1 trillion deficit in crappy times.

Then again, some might say it was the cheap credit that got us in this mess from day one. I tend to agree.

garage mahal said...

Obama came into office with a 200 billion deficit? Would lerv to see those numbers!

Scott M said...

@Alex

Everything that comes forth from FLS, Alpha Liberal, Ritmo, victoria, garage mahal is HATE HATE HATE.

It's completely unfair to lump FLS in with that group. If nothing else, FLS's comments are usually quite reasonable, even where we disagree.

Freeman Hunt said...

Now some Republican political columnist can turn his tears into words about Biden's scary violent tendencies. Or is that only a think with Democrat political columnists?

stevenehrbar said...

According to the Obama Administration's own historical budget tables ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals ), using the total outlays vs. total receipts instead of just the "on-budget" items, the Bush years deficits (2001-2008) totaled $2,005.6 billion, and averaged $250.7 billion a year.

According to those same tables, the Obama years 2009 deficit was $1,412.7 billion, and the Obama Administration estimated deficit for 2010 is $1,555.6 billion. So, in two years, Obama has increased the debt almost 50% more than Bush managed in eight, wars and all.

If HDHouse is right that the wars cost $3.3 trillion, that means Bush ran a surplus except for the cost of the wars, while Obama is running an over-trillion-dollar annual deficit not including the costs of the wars.

So, Bush was much, much better on the deficit than Obama . . . at least if you believe the Obama Administration and HDHouse.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Obama came into office with a 200 billion deficit? Would lerv (sic) to see those numbers!"

That's not what was said. What was said was that, over the eight years of his Presidency, Mr. Bush presided over an average annual deficit of a hardly worth mentioning $200 billion per year.

Here is a picture for you Garage, seeing as how you need pictures to go with your stories. This picture was drawn for you by the Washington Post (which by the by endorsed Barack Obama and is not known as particularly fond of Republicans).

The picture compares Bush small deficits with Obama's enormous bankrupting of the United States. It incorporates projections by both Obama's own White House and the Congressional Budget office. You do believe what you read in the Washington Post ... right?

http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg

Daniel said...

Hey stevenehrbar, I don't want to get involved in this conversation really, but I just felt it was important to weigh in and mention that the "year" 2009 is actually the "fiscal year" that begins in October 2008 and goes until the end of September 2009.

Roger J. said...

Biden is an absolute idiot with a distinguished track record to prove it--I figured that Biden is Obama's insurance policy--although at this stage of the game maybe Biden would be a step up.

Lance said...

You misunderstand. I prefer a balanced budget but a $200 billion deficit in good times isn't as bad as a $1 trillion deficit in crappy times.

I didn't mean to accuse you of favoring imbalanced budgets. Mi dispiace.

Rather, I meant to make the point that Keynes made, that targeted federal borrowing and spending can fill recessionary gaps in the economy and get things back on track more quickly. But that this works only to the extent that credit is available and cheap, and that running up debts during prosperous times undercuts the availability of cheap credit. A lesson which neither Democrats nor Republicans seem to have learned, let alone mastered.

Then again, some might say it was the cheap credit that got us in this mess from day one. I tend to agree.

Agreed. And it's true on multiple levels: federal deficits, federal raids on the SS "trust fund", national trade deficits, state government deficits, and (last but not least) corporate and consumer debts.

peter hoh said...

Roger, that's the idea of the modern VP. Pick someone whom even the crazies don't want to see become president, but especially pick someone disliked by the majority of senators.

George H.W. Bush was the last VP whom everyone pretty much agreed would make a good replacement.

c3 said...

Interesting, especially after listening to this Tina Brown "Must Read" segment on NPR this am. First speaking of an article on Glen Beck

Well, in his recent "Restoring Honor" rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., Beck spoke about getting back to core American values — about uniting the nation and "how we have to come together with our values," Brown says.

But as Leibovich notes, there's a very different side of Beck.

"He's also talking about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, or choking to death Michael Moore, or beating to death with a shovel Charlie Rangel," Brown says. "I mean, the rhetorics just don't match."


then regarding an article on Joe Biden

Vice President Joe Biden. "The Salesman," by Mark Bowden in The Atlantic magazine, is "a big, deep, almost luxurious look at the guy, and he really talks about Biden as a salesman — a high-level one, but a salesman at heart,"

I'm no fan of Glenn Beck but why is it when ever I listen to Tina Brown I seem to hear this:

I'm supposed to be an "objective journalist" but lets be honest, conservatives and Republicans are just not cool

Baron Zemo said...

Ah young Josef, he reminds so much of my good friend Rudi.

Perhaps he will also take a plane and defect to Pakistan.

History does have a way of repeating itself you know?

stevenehrbar said...

Sure. And the stimulus and a lot of other spending was passed and began disbursments in the Obama-in-office portion of that fiscal year, which can hardly be accounted to Bush.

If you want to do a more detailed breakdown, though, go ahead; it'll move the two moderately closer, but not enough to change the fact that Obama-only FY2010 is a massive deficit compared to any deficit that can be accounted to Bush, bigger than Bush's first four fully-responsible-for spending years (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005) combined.

MayBee said...

Democrats are currently running on the idea that:

a) The Republicans were irresponsible spenders and ran up a deficit
b) The Republicans are horrible because they have no plan how to cut the deficit
c) The Republicans are blocking the Democrats ability to cut the deficit
d) The Republican want to actually cut spending to reduce the deficit, and that is irresponsible
e) The Republicans support tax cuts for all, which are too expensive
f) The Republicans are irresponsibly blocking tax cuts for the middle class that Obama wants, which are only slightly less expensive
g)The Republicans are the party of hateful rhetoric, and they should be choked

former law student said...

On further reflection, my mother would threaten to wring our necks more than she would threaten to strangle us. A subtle difference, to be sure.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
On further reflection, my mother would threaten to wring our necks more than she would threaten to strangle us. A subtle difference, to be sure.


I think that wringing your neck is less cruel than throttling you…

Maguro said...

When Biden strangles someone, it's for the betterment of humanity. His intentions are pure.

Eggs, omlettes, you know the drill.

Tony said...

As if Biden had nothing to do with the increase in the national debt during his 36 years in the Senate.

Robert Cook said...

"Apparently HD thinks it's worse to spend 3.3 tril over 8 years, part of which was spent in a war to defend this country...."

Neither of the wars we started after 9/11 are in defense of our country.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"When Biden strangles someone, it's for the betterment of humanity."

Joe Biden, in actual fact, has never laid hands on anyone.

Because frankly, he's a pussy.

Real men don't threaten.

Real men act.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Neither of the wars we started after 9/11 are in defense of our country."

Yes, they are.

We are fighting Islamic Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan and in Pakistan because they allowed al Queda terrorists to operate freely within the borders of their country and provided them with aid and comfort.

That was a stupid fucking mistake for which the cost was their lives.

We fought the war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein thought it was a good idea to fire missiles at our aircraft. That turns out to have been a pretty fucking stupid idea too. Islamic Muslim terrorists seem to have an affinity for stupid fucking ideas.

And since Iraq sits on top of a really large gas station, a war had side benefits, seeing as how to the victor goes the spoils.

If you don't want your country invaded, then don't fuck with us.

That seems like a really easy message to receive if a person is receptive and even semi-intelligent.

blake said...

I never got that.

It was a war for oil, right?

We won, right?

Where's our f(*&*(&ing oil?

Scott M said...

We fought the war in Iraq because Saddam Hussein thought it was a good idea to fire missiles at our aircraft. That turns out to have been a pretty fucking stupid idea too. Islamic Muslim terrorists seem to have an affinity for stupid fucking ideas.

Of course, I didn't know the man personally, but from what I've read about him, he was a marginal Muslim at best.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Where's our f(*&*(&ing oil?"

Average price of a gallon of gas in 2008 (height of the Iraq war): $4.12

Average price of a gallon of gas in September 2010: $2.70.

It took a while to ramp up production seeing as how Saddam destroyed and booby-trapped his oil fields before he was hung, but there's your fucking oil.

Enjoy your nice cozy winter.

garage mahal said...

Where's our f(*&*(&ing oil?

Even oil drilled off our own coast isn't "ours".

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... he was a marginal Muslim at best."

They all are. As are all the Christians and Jews.

Only the Hari Krishnas are pure.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Even oil drilled off our own coast isn't "ours"."

Whatever we take and can keep, is ours.

That is, in short, a useful history of man.

garage mahal said...

Whatever we take and can keep, is ours.

By "we", you mean multinational corporations that can and will sell to whoever they want to?

Historic crude oil prices per/bbl:

2002 $22.81
2003 $27.69
2004 $37.66
2005 $50.04
2006 $58.30
2007 $64.20
2008 $91.48
2009 $53.48
2010 $70.67

blake said...

Ham,

Why would you use the price at the HEIGHT of the war?

Gas should be cheaper now than it was when the war started, which it is not.

During the first Gulf War, it dropped to a $1/gallon!

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"By "we", you mean multinational corporations that can and will sell to whoever they want to?"

Yeah. Us.

Oh wait ... you're not one of us, are you?

No wonder you're pissed off.

I support any multi-national militaristic corporations who will sell me gasoline to heat my child's bedroom at $2.70/gallon as opposed to $4.20 a gallon.

Because, you know, I'd just as soon my child not fucking freeze to death if I had my druthers.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"Gas should be cheaper now than it was when the war started, which it is not."

Who says?

Inflation, alone, would rule that out. And then there's the "exploration" costs.

A steady, reasonably inexpensive supply is good for America. And if some moron is sitting on a lot of gas and feels like they want to lob some fucking missiles at our aircraft, then I'll gladly support any President who is willing to go relieve them of both their breath and their oil.

We didn't start the fight. But we're damn well going to enjoy the spoils due to the victor - because that is the nature of life on this planet.

garage mahal said...

I support any multi-national militaristic corporations who will sell me gasoline to heat my child's bedroom at $2.70/gallon as opposed to $4.20 a gallon.

You heat your house with unleaded gas, like from a gas station? What kind of furnace is that?

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"You heat your house with unleaded gas, like from a gas station? What kind of furnace is that?"

This just goes to show what a moron you are, Garage.

Most of the homes in the northeastern United States are heated by diesel fuel. It's called "home heating oil" but it is merely the diesel fuel you could purchase at any gas station (minus the transportation taxes).

Smart people even tank up their Volvo's with it (and thus, avoid paying excessive transportation taxes for roads paid for decades ago).

So yea ... it's the same thing you buy at the gas station to fuel up your Volvo.

garage mahal said...

Most of the homes in the northeastern United States are heated by diesel fuel.

You said you heated your child's bedroom with gasoline. Just checking, it sounded weird. But Volvo doesn't make a passenger diesel auto that I've ever heard of.

New "Hussein" Ham said...

"... Volvo doesn't make a passenger diesel auto that I've ever heard of."

Again, you're embarrassing yourself by revealing just how unintelligent and uninformed you are (which is par for the course really on any given topic).

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/4302658

garage mahal said...

Did you read link Hammy? You didn't, did you.

"That diesel engine could come to the U.S. next year as a 2011 XC60 model. "

You had no idea what you were talking about when you said people could fill up their Volvos with home heating oil. I think you probably meant Volkswagen (who make diesel engine passenger vehicles) when you googled how to get out of this mess you're currently in on this thread.

Don said...

Hey Biteme...
Balance the budget.
Budget Balance.
The budget should be balanced.
Balance the damn budget.

You gonna strangle me?
It'd be a, you know, big fkn deal, eh?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Actually, I do NOT want a balanced budget.

I want a budget that has more on the net income side. I want a budget that shows a positive cash flow position and a surplus of cash over expenditures.

Just balancing the budget to have expenses equal income is an economic failure.

BooMushroom said...

MayBee said...
Democrats are currently running on the idea that:

a) The Republicans were irresponsible spenders and ran up a deficit
b) The Republicans are horrible because they have no plan how to cut the deficit
c) The Republicans are blocking the Democrats ability to cut the deficit
d) The Republican want to actually cut spending to reduce the deficit, and that is irresponsible
e) The Republicans support tax cuts for all, which are too expensive
f) The Republicans are irresponsibly blocking tax cuts for the middle class that Obama wants, which are only slightly less expensive
g)The Republicans are the party of hateful rhetoric, and they should be choked

10/6/10 3:13 PM

QFT