President Bush to Hold 10 a.m. News Conference

Fox News ^ | 3/22/06

[areafiftyone]

President Bush to Hold 10 a.m. News Conference (Just Breaking No Info Yet!)

[Bahbah]

LOL.

[You Dirty Rats]

Our President hasn't gone anywhere. The media is painting him as unresponsive because he's not responding to them, to his critics or to the polls. He is still C-in-C, Big Dick Cheney is still Veep, and Rummy still rules the Pentagon. Meanwhile the 'Rats and media have no power. Sucks to be them.

[Danae]

No DOUBT! When he is just being himself, NOT reading a speech off a sheet, he is BRILLIANT! He is a GREAT speaker when he is doing it straight from himself! He knows what he is doing, he knows why and he BLEIEVES in what he is doing! He's 100% right to believe it by the way! To get most of us to follow us, all he has to do is get the word TO us, and that means the dreaded News conferences he Hates.

Well, I hate getting up a 3am with the Baby, but I do it because I HAVE to for the good of my Daughter. Same with GW and the Idiots of the US Press (No not you Stretch). Us plain old 6-pack Joes and Janes want to hear it from him. Not a speech writer, not Scottie in the Briefing room. But from him in his own words! I JUST LOVE IT!

[woofie]

what gets me is when the guy at behind the counter at Burger King is a critic and foreign policy expert....

[sam_paine]

Bush is talking about all entitlement programs.... The WH and Congress have no control over the rates of increase.

Sorry. Buuzzzzz. BS! Stroke of the pen. Congress and the WH are the ONLY people that control the rates of increase. I think it is assinine (with all due respect) to give Congress some kind of cover that certain spending programs are uncontrollable because they are on "autopilot" when Congress and the WH are the ones that can flip the switch on the autopilot ANY DAY THEY'RE IN SESSION.

They write the laws, and they can unwrite/rewrite any law ever passed just as easily as passing any new taxes.

This idea of "legislation inertia" may be comfortable, like a fat-ass in an easy chair, but it is not true.

Like the fat-ass, they could lean up if they'd JUST DO IT.

[STARWISE]

Nope ... they live in the bubble of self-adulation and importance.

[johnny7]

“I'm not 'gonna hurt'ya Wendy... er, Helen... I'm just 'gonna bash 'yer fu_king brains in!”

[MikefromOhio]

well you have to remember what Tread's priorities are....

#1: Reading his BS

#2: Doing more of the first...

#3: Possibly believing his garbage no matter how insane

#4: Getting you to read his crap....

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

The SOTU is what the POTUS makes of it. If he wants to do his "laundry list" as you say instead of making a news event out of it with bold demands on Congress that make news headlines, then that is a sign of a poor leader.

No, Bush has not done everything possible. As I stated, his new entitlement programs and his expansion of existing social welfare programs makes any attempt to reign in spending seem comical.

Re military spending.....no, the military has not improved. R&D spending is not what it used to be. Major weapon programs like the F-22 and DD(X) have been scaled back or delayed. The military is under pressure to find more ways to scale back in order to pay for more socialism.

Did you miss the announcement that the entire F-117 fleet is to be decommissioned as well as 50% of the B-52 fleet, just to buy four (4) Raptors? Most of the money spent on the DOD is going for logistics, wear and tear, payroll, and other war associated costs, not to make this nation more secure with new modern weapon platforms,

[kabar]

And use the veto. Oh wait, what was I thinking, LOL!

LOL. No veto used yet. However, there is no possible way to veto entitlement spending. It is on automatic pilot. Even Congress can't control it unless they change the legislation governing the programs.

It's all discretionary. Calling a good portion of it mandatory is yet another slick way to screw the taxpayer, but I admit it's a strategy that's worked.

Perhaps a matter of semantics. But Congress has no control over the amount or rate of increase of the entitlement programs unless they change the legislation. There is one excpetion: Legislation enacted in 1983 may limit the COLA if the combined assets of the Social Security trust funds are below 20 percent of annual expenditures. (This limitation only applies to Social Security; SSI would be unaffected.)

Under the budget approval process, Congress can't control the amount of the benefits or rate of increase unless they change the program, hence it is called mandatory. The entitlement programs are treated differently than the rest of the budget.

[Christian4Bush]

Carl Cameron on subject of terrorist surv. program...impleachment..what does the discussion of impleachment do to you (basically)

"Need for honest and open debate without needless partisanship...

he is pointing out that no dem member of congress is standing up saygin "vote for me, I promise no surveillance act"

---

It might just be me, or my out-of-body experience as a resident of Rio Linda, but something tells me that a certain man named Limbaugh is licking his chops, waiting to get on the air in a minute or so. This might be a podcast for the ages. (I would love to have a copy of his show of the day after the 2004 Election, but he wasn't podcasting yet.)

[hedgetrimmer]

He can't go back and change the rules for prior entitlement programs

Ever heard of an 'executive order'?

[Wasanother]

Give a Burger Flipper a poll number and it's amazing what conclusions they can come up with.

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

Re "make Congress" . . .

No, POTUS can't make Congress send up better legislation, but POTUS has the power to make demands upon them. He also can lead. If Bush were to veto some crazy spending, then Congress just may scale it back.

Bush has not used the veto yet, and he is into his 2nd term.

Also, as I stated, he blows nationally televeised speeches by making aid to Africa (as just one example) his #1 priority, intead of reigning in entitlement programs or saving SS.

No, you can't "make Congress . . ." -- we agree on that. But, you CAN lead, and lead like a fiscally responsible POTUS. That would go a long way to showing Congress the right direction. Bush has failed us all there.

[Mo1]

I must have missed this section in Government class. Please explain how the Executive Branch MAKES the Legislative Branch do something?

It doesn't ... otherwise the President would pick the congress members he wants and not the american people

[Moonman62]

It is on automatic pilot. Even Congress can't control it unless they change the legislation governing the programs.

So they can change it.

But Congress has no control over the amount or rate of increase of the entitlement programs unless they change the legislation.

Right, they can change it.

[kabar]

They write the laws, and they can unwrite/rewrite any law ever passed just as easily as passing any new taxes. This idea of "legislation inertia" may be comfortable, like a fat-ass in an easy chair, but it is not true. Like the fat-ass, they could lean up if they'd JUST DO IT.

It starts with Congress. Unless you change the laws governing the entitlement programs, the benefits and rates of increase follow established formulas and indicies. There are political considerations when you are dealing with benefits affecting over 75 million people and the millions more who are currently paying into the system.

Politicians don't JUST DO IT if there is a political price to pay or an advantage gained. I suspect that most voters want to keep the benefits coming and the current rules kept in place. How many Americans would support raising the retirement age to 70? Or raising the OASDI tax?

[Dont_Tread_On_Me_888]

I am using the SOTU as an example. It does not matter the ratings it gets, if Bush were to make bold demands, it would be the talking points of every cable news show, the network news, newspapers, magazines, etc. Again, I used that as an EXAMPLE.

You refuse to understand the power the POTUS has. Reagan bypassed Congress and went to the people with his charisma and caused change. POTUS is the Chief Executive--a strong POTUS can make changes happen, even if he can't do it directly, he can get it done indirectly, if he was the right type of leader and used all the marketing skill and leadership at his disposal. A powerful POTUS has the power to do that; a weak POTUS does not do that.

[Eagle of Liberty]

Instead, Bush made aid to Africa his very first statement at one SOTU.

But not in this year's SOTU. He talked about America's financial stability quite a bit. In fact, it was the first domestic topic that he covered after talked about the WOT for a while.

[True Republican Patriot]

Your post states beautifully why We Love to hear President Bush speak out with his own words and emotions and how spectacular his Leadership is. I hope everyone rereads the post you sent to me.Thank you so very much Danae.