Posted on 04/28/2005 4:00:18 PM PDT by Howlin
FROM WASHINGTON
Pres. Bush Press Conf. Tonight
At the White House, Pres. Bush holds an evening press confer-ence. The President intends to talk about his Social Security reform plan and his energy plan. He is also likely to get questions on other topics such as the John Bolton nomination, Senate filibuster rules on judicial nomina-tions, House ethics rules, etc.
Live at 8:00 P.M. EDT
Watch live from the White House web site:
(Link on right)
or
(link at top)
and all the usual suspected news outlets.
I guess the others could not spare the extra minute or two.............. disgusting. Says everything about the old lefty destructive media.
Ooops, here is the answer to my question. I should have investigated first before asking.
"Thank you for your interest. God bless our country" was the President's finish.
Here's hoping something has been gained by this press conference.
I am certain it was intentional, because early in the press conference he intentionally called on TV reporters first, and said so. He knew the TV people would be under pressure to finish by 9. After he had called on all of them, he went to the print press, who of course didn't care about any deadline. He ran that conference right up to the wire on purpose.
So, he spoke to a large audience supplied by two popular network shows, got his message on Social Security and energy out, spoke plainly enough that most average people could understand, and managed to avoid the partisan pundits attacking him.
Pretty smart, if you ask me.
Makes sense. Thanks. It's always better for the country when the old media doesn't give us their evil and slanted summations.
It's still hard for me to believe that the Old Media is dying (I've been around a LONG time), esp since the polls show that the president's Soc Sec ideas are not going over well with "the people". "The people" must be listening to the Old Media. It is discouraging.
Which poll. Many of the polls put out by the old media are skewed badly.
We all better start telling our representatives to start cooperating with this man. How rare is it that we get a President who actually cares and wants to do GOOD for the country. It's so aggravating.
I don't think that the president was particuarly smooth or polished, but he was certainly no wuss. And I don't vote on polish. He's his own man, even when I don't agree with him.
Tony Blair and george Bush did NOT lie concerning the Iraq war.
I am afraid Tony Blair did George Bush did not
As far as your main issue is concerned, the way I see it is that that's a red herring. They've been dumping non-negotiable bond notes into the Trust Fund for decades to keep the books 'straight', and aren't going to switch them to negotiable ones in the future. The whole thing becomes moot when the income from FICA is less than the outlays, since there will then be no more bonds issued. The ones already in there will be retired on a one-to-one basis with the amount that outlays exceed income each month.
If they never get to that point (e.g., they raise FICA taxes or reduce benefits again), they will continue in the same old way, with non-negotiables. That's my assessment, FWIW.
Keeping in mind, the definition of lie is something said with the deliberate intent to deceive, please tell me what was Tony Blair's lie?
I'm not arguing, just trying to be better informed.
Transcript is up.
From it, excerpted:
****************************
[The vile David Gregory] Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, recently the head of the Family Research Council said that judicial filibusters are an attack against people of faith. And I wonder whether you believe that, in fact, that is what is nominating [sic] Democrats who oppose your judicial choices? And I wonder what you think generally about the role that faith is playing, how it's being used in our political debates right now?
...blah blah blah, all over the landscape; then...
Q Do you think that's an inappropriate statement? And what I asked is --
THE PRESIDENT: No, I just don't agree with it.
Q You don't agree with it.
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think people oppose my nominees because -- because of judicial philosophy.
****************************
Gregory got what he wanted. Bush cut Frist and FRC off at the knees... so he wouldn't hurt the Donks' feelings.
I'm very curious about Blair's deceit, are you still there?
Last time I checked the Constitution, I don't remember reading the national government had a requirement or power to take care of 'old poor people'. Well that is unless you are a liberal and read 'promote the general welfare' as establish a welfare state that the citizens of the respective states must pay for. For 140 years prior to 1935, somehow the issue never arose but now even 'conservatives' expect it as some sort of entitlement. That's a grand vision right there. LBJ and FDR are applauding..
Yep that's the faith Jefferson held of the average citizen. Allow liberty and freedom and you'll have starving hordes. Forget Locke, it's apparent the Republicans have thrown that ideal to the wind. Nope, we need to put our faith in Bush and the Republican Party. They have the answers and the "Rats" are the problem. Seems I remember someone in this nation of states past warning us about that.
maybe someday the free state project will get off the ground and you'll make piles of rudolph and mcveigh currency that you won't have to share with anybody
Now that's a stretch. As a conservative, I don't support Social Security in any form, so by definition I must automatically be a libertarian who wants a different form of currency named after two murderers. Republicans definitely need to stop the hyperbole.
And as not to complain without providing an answer or solution, I would submit that it is already there. Again Federalist #45 comes into play (as it has already during the debacle in Florida a few weeks back). Madison was clear about this. I would imagine getting old falls under the 'ordinary course of affairs' of a citizen of a respective state doesn't it?
I have an answer to the vision for old poor people. They had their whole lives to prepare to be old. Not only that, they are fortunate to be in the greatest, most prosperous nation the world has ever known while they lived their lives of preparation for their older years. If they are of healthy body and mind and irresponsibly do not prepare, who is the federal government to deny them their deserved consequences? WHAT THIS NATION NEEDS IS MORE HUNGRY BELLIES! I'm tired of seeing FAT poor people, I want to see skinny poor people!
If they made bad choices, or no choices why should the government take up the slack?
The first ones to provide for the "old poor" would be their families and friends. If this failed, churches and charity oraganizations.
It is unconstitutional for Congress to force the American people to pay for the welfare of others. This includes mandatory Social Security confiscations, oh, I mean contributiuons.
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.