The Joe Biden gaffe thread.

[Goryani]

Has anyone talking about V.P. Biden's gaffe read or listened to the entirety of the answer which included this gaffe? I'm guessing no.

Q Good morning, Mr. President [sic]. And I’m a -- student from the medical school of Sichuan University. But my question is about economy first. And as you know that the China holds about $1 trillion U.S. bonds of treasury bonds. And that much money -- actually the value is uncertain because of the downgrade of U.S. credit rating. You seem to have instilled the confidence of the U.S. financial well-being into young people today because I heard you say that the U.S. economy is really resilient. And -- but words alone cannot ease the mounting concern over the safety of China’s assets. So we would like to hear more about what measures you’re going to implement to reduce those deficits and redeem the financial strength of America.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It’s a very good question. One of the multiple rating agencies reduced our rating from AAA to -- plus -- come down one notch. And that was very disturbing and bothersome to us, and we have to deal with is.

We do have a deficit that I was asked by the President to head up a commission to try to deal with that deficit. And we made some significant progress, but not the progress we could have made and will make. The bottom line is we have to deal with two elements of our economy. One is what we call entitlement programs -- long-term commitments to our people in the area of particularly Medicare. That is the safety net we have for people once they reach the age of 65 to be able to be assured that they have health care.

And it is not sustainable without some changes in large part because we had what we call a baby boom, which doesn’t sound like much to Chinese -- 40 million people is not a big deal, I know. (Laughter.) But adding 40 million people to those who will benefit from the Medicare -- Medicaid payment -- Medicare payments has put the program in a position where changes have to be made.

It’s easy to make those changes, and we had a tentative agreement to do that between the major political leaders of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and the administration. But there is a group within the Republican Party that is a very strong voice now that did -- wanted different changes, and so that deal fell through at the very end.

What we ended up doing is setting up a system whereby we did cut by $1.2 trillion upfront, the deficit over the next 10 years. And we set up a group of senators that have to come up with another $1.2 to $1.7 trillion in savings or automatically there will be cuts that go into effect in January to get those savings. So the savings will be accomplished. But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I’m not second-guessing -- of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.

Knowing and understanding a policy does not mean you agree with the policy. It's like calling jmervyn a socialist and progressive because he can point out socialist and progressive policies. Bad logic is bad, even if you like calling jmervyn names.

I don't get what he said. What's "second-guessing" in this context? Having doubts in retrospect? Predicting something?

"I fully understand (...) of one-child policy", that doesn't make sense. Maybe he means "to understand about"?

Could somebody translate it to everyday/correct English for us non-native speakers?

V.P. Biden isn't second guessing his understanding of China's one child policy. The "fully understand" and "not second guessing" are filler words and phrases similar to using "ummm," "like," and "you know." Bad public speaking certainly.

Biden was trying to work in "one child policy is bad" without infuriating some listeners who might agree with that policy. But Biden was coy about it. He said the one child policy was bad because of economic reasons. How it causes 1 worker in China to support 3 retirees.

Economics seems to be what the Chinese government listens to the most, so V.P. Biden phrased disagreement with a social policy using economic terms. Choosing ambiguous words allowed those adamantly opposed to the one child policy to infer support for said policy even though Biden said otherwise.

Well, he was chosen as running mate for THE ONE to guarantee doubters that the new President would have strong, statesman-like foreign policy. Biden was regarded as one of the most accomplished Democrat Senators in that arena.

No, really!

From my chair, V.P. Biden showed strong, statesman-like behavior while talking about disagreeable foreign policy. Pissing off your detractors isn't strong, statesman-like foreign policy. There are simply too many disagreeable foreign policies to go Reagan on them all.

[jmervyn]

Has anyone talking about V.P. Biden's gaffe read or listened to the entirety of the answer which included this gaffe? I'm guessing no.

I read it previously, though I had to fight to keep my eyes from closing.

Bad logic is bad, even if you like calling jmervyn names.

It's a sport anyone can play.

V.P. Biden isn't second guessing his understanding of China's one child policy. The "fully understand" and "not second guessing" are filler words and phrases similar to using "ummm," "like," and "you know." Bad public speaking certainly.

See, this is where he stepped in it. He should have been far more careful, knowing full well that he was speaking on the record; if you choose to consider it "filler", then I'm sure you can remember a number of occasions where such "filler" was seized upon as a declaration of war &c.

How it causes 1 worker in China to support 3 retirees.

I would definitely wonder what the status quo for Chinese Social Security really is. Having only hearsay and movies to extrapolate from, I'd guess that keeping Gran in cheap rice and a windowless hut doesn't really burden the metro types in the cities. But "unsustainable" in 200 years doesn't hold a candle to "unsustainable" now, which I don't think Biden would ever want to be seen as recognizing.

From my chair, V.P. Biden showed strong, statesman-like behavior while talking about disagreeable foreign policy. Pissing off your detractors isn't strong, statesman-like foreign policy. There are simply too many disagreeable foreign policies to go Reagan on them all.

Oh, there's definitely a core truth that we can't pee in our banker's face - but if Biden is the best face we can put before the Chinese, that alone should be enough to humiliate the Democrat Party for a century.

Then again, most have lost all sense of shame, along with their patriotism and self-reliance. They want to ape China, while China is trying to claw its way out of the socialist trap it's in.

[Stevinator]

um, that's not really a gaffe. more a mis-quoting.

And actually i think biden as amusing as his gaffes normally are, really is pretty good at doing the tour and wave make nicey-nice with foriegn countries kinda stuff. That doesn't mean i agree with his foriegn policy all the time, but I do think he presents better than people give him credit for.

[BobCox2]

I Like Will Rogers or Gracie Burns Gaffes better.

[jmervyn]

um, that's not really a gaffe. more a mis-quoting.

What, if he had said that Hitler didn't really kill 6 million J00z*, would it have been any less of a gaffe? There's some things anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't say as a public figure, and saying something approving of a policy of infanticide and forced sterilization is one of them.

*True, by the way - not only were many records destroyed by the Germans, but it could easily have been a higher or lower number.

[Stevinator]

You're misquoting because he was saying the one child policy is bad because it will eventually overload the Chinese version of social security.

He did not say, hey I totally support your one child policy, like you're trying to make it sound.

[krischan]

Maybe, but it was still clumsy.

[Amra]

He did not say, hey I totally support your one child policy, like you're trying to make it sound.

The vice president told an audience at Sichuan University in Chengdu: “Your policy has been one which I fully understand—I’m not second-guessing—of one child per family.”

You are right in that supporting and understand are two different things. Yet, it was still not the best thing to say at a university and in full view of the United States public.

From the White House:

The vice president believes such practices are repugnant. He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable.”

Did that statement reach those who were at the university speech?

[BobCox2]

Revealing the location of your secret escape bunker isn't a grammatical error, nor is saying that you wouldn't fly on a plane or ride a subway for fear of catching swine flu.Coach outletCoach outlet stores

Catch the next couch out of town.
:d

[jmervyn]

You're misquoting because he was saying the one child policy is bad because it will eventually overload the Chinese version of social security.

He did not say, hey I totally support your one child policy, like you're trying to make it sound.

No, Amra addressed that already; you are misinterpreting the concept of a "gaffe". A "gaffe" is not explicitly an incoherent statement, like "57 States", or inadvertent insult, like "Macaca", or even asking someone wheelchair-bound to stand up. It can be something as simple as Sarah Palin correctly claiming Paul Revere warned the British, because Revere's fame was for warning the colonial citizens.

It is a faux pas, and is frequently in the eye of the beholder; media attention is often used to fabricate them for enemies, like GOP Presidents tripping or vomiting in public, or downplay them for the favored.