Posted on 01/26/2005 11:57:24 AM PST by ConservativeMajority
FROM TODAY'S PRESIDENTIAL PRESS CONFERENCE:
JEFF GANNON: Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?
THE PRESIDENT: Continue to speak to the American people. Right after my State of the Union, I think I'm going to four or five states to continue to address this issue. You know, I can remember President Clinton doing the same thing on Social Security. I thought he was very effective in teeing up the issue, of making the case. And I will do the same thing. There is a -- in terms of whether the economy is growing or not, there is a -- the jobs are increasing, the forecast looks strong. Obviously, there are some things we need to do to make sure that America is a good place to continue to risk capital and invest. That's why I'm urging the Congress to pass legal reform.
You might remember, one of the first issues that I addressed after election was legal reform, asbestos reform, class-action reform, medical liability reform. I believe if there is a -- that we've got a chance to get some good, meaningful legislation out of the Congress early, which will send a good signal that we will address those issues that make -- that stand in the way for further economic expansion. We need an energy bill and I look forward to working with members of both parties to get a good energy bill out.
Obviously, people in the capital markets are going to be watching the issue of twin deficits -- on the one hand, the spending deficit, the fiscal deficit. We'll address that in our budget that we're getting ready to submit to Congress. Obviously, we're going to have to work closely together to send the signal that we're willing to tackle some tough issues. The budget I'll be submitting is one that says, we'll spend money on projects that work, but we must make sure we're not wasting the taxpayer's money.
In terms of the trade deficit, it is important for us to make sure that -- in countries that are -- that countries treat their currencies in market fashion. I've been working with China, in specific, on that issue. Secondly, that people knock down their barriers to our goods and services. Thirdly, that we continue to grow our economy at home by making -- by some of the reforms I've just discussed.
But I think most people are optimistic about the economy next year. It's very important that we continue to put pro-growth policies in place.
smart move..
Whoops! Jeff Gannon is from Talon News. www.talonnews.com
rush just read this question aloud, said the emdia is listeningn to him again.
Hopefully Bush also hears from the American people that a one size fits all solution will not work!
I think that the fact that the economy is growing is one of the major reasons behind the trade deficit to begin with. By that logic it's just going to get worse.
Must not have been an impressive teeing up since I don't remember it. Clinton was successful, however, in teeing my off.
The most pressing problem is the ILLEGALS. Better not take his amnesty plan to the people with 80% + against it.
If the Republicans want people to have more say in how their retirement money is managed, why don't they suggest reducing the SS tax so that the people can have that money and manage exactly as they wish to, instead of being forced to do so within the narrow scope of a government program that allegedly exists to give them "freedom" to manage it as they wish?
And that's the way it should be.
I wonder how much the lefties will spend on misinforming the public???
The President is following a good model: What Would Reagan Do?
Ummm...hate to burst your bubble, but you've been lied to...there is no Bush "amnesty plan" being considered in Congress.
On Jan. 7, Mr. Bush proposed raising the level of legal immigration and creating a perpetual guest-worker program that would both allow the estimated 8 million to 12 million illegals already in the country to remain and work and allow new applicants from foreign countries to apply for guest-worker status as long as they can find a willing employer.IOW, Bush's never submitted a written plan, only a vague verbal outline during his speech and he clearly stated that it was up to Congress to work out the details. This so-called "plan" has been DOA for months, and Congress is to blame for not picking the issue up after Bush threw it on the table. If people expended as much time supporting Tancredo's proposal as they do bickering about the no-longer-existent Bush proposal, we'd all be better off. Write your Congress-critters and tell them to get off their butts and do something!But his proposal met with objections from both sides. Few lawmakers endorsed his proposal, and many even called it "dead on arrival."
Mr. Bush has not submitted specific legislation, and his Jan. 7 speech was just a statement of principles.
This is good. All Presidents should take big issues to the People.
Now, Bush, I love ya, but when are you going to ask The People about your plans for illegal immigrants, huh? I dare you to ask We The People what we want to do with OUR Borders.
Where would the money come from to pay the current SS retirees?
The same place it would come from if Bush lets people put their own money in private retirement accounts: somewhere else. My question is, if Bush lets people set aside x amount of their own money to fund private accounts (under the guise of "choice"), why doesn't he just reduce the tax by the same amount, x, such that those people can have their own money directly, and invest it however they see fit?
Becase of the fear that most of them would spend it, instead of investing, and then they would have to go on welfare when they retire.
1. So even the Republicans really don't trust people with their own money, after all, despite the rhetoric.
2. They fear people would "have to go on welfare" presumes that welfare is good and necessary as well. Many think that the government shouldn't be in the retirement plan business (SS), or in the wealth redistribution business either (welfare). Something about the government being restricted to protecting "life, liberty and property." Oh well, the touching faith in limited government and enumerated powers.
1. Even you have to be realistic enough to know that there are some people who are grasshoppers. Those others who want to will invest for the future, irrespective of any government program. SS was initiated for those who don't.
2. Are you proposing that we let the feckless ones starve? That's a logical position, but rather unpopular.
Under what Constitutional Authority? Furthermore, you dodge my point that the rhetoric is that "Republicans trust people with their own money, Democrats don't." But the fact that Republicans will take people's money, and then force them to "choose" from among a short list of approved investments, where to invest it.
Are you proposing that we let the feckless ones starve? That's a logical position, but rather unpopular.
If you subsidize fecklessness, you get more fecklessness, for the obvious reason that it pays to be feckless. Is this something that you really want the government to do? (What do you plan to do when 51% of registered voters are 100% feckless?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.