I disagree with your concern with freedom from want.
His mentioning of that line is connected to his brief discussion of his ownership society, in which people choose their own path via ownership etc.
It is not tied to govt. welfare expanding etc.
Here's the passage that bugged me:
In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act, and the G.I. Bill of Rights.
Here the President cites an expanded definition of liberty, one that would motivate the Social Security Act. (He also mentions the Homestead Act and the GI Bill, but these represent exceptional cases, applying to soldiers and settlers).
The problem is this: if the definition of liberty is broadened to the point where it would motivate the Social Security Act, then it's no longer consistent with our founding definition of liberty. Our Founders conceived of freedom in the negative sense -- ie that liberty exists when others are restrained from impeding your pursuit of your needs (or desires, or whatever you might put into the category of "happiness"). But this expanded definition crosses the line into a positive conception of freedom, so that others are compelled to meet your needs for you, thereby "freeing" you from having your needs unmet or having to meet your own needs (ie freedom from want).
This latter definition of freedom is the one socialists hold and it's a foundational concept in their thinking. If you alter this one strand of philosophical DNA by changing or "expanding" from the negative conception to the positive conception -- and if you're consistent with what follows from this change -- then you wind up with a government that's an entirely different beast than what you started with. You jump tracks from a liberal form of government (liberal in the classical sense) to one that's socialist.
Anyway, yes, it was just a line or two and was a footnote in the Bush's discussion of the path to ownership, but it still troubles me to see a president mention and agree with a premise that's fundamentally at odds with the true understanding of liberty.
As I said earlier, I'm hoping that the President's privatizing and ownership ideas can help start incrementing things in the direction of true liberty.