Isn't it cool when contradictions are separated by breaths rather than days?
Q Do you think there's a risk of a recession? How do you rate that?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, you need to talk to economists. I think I got a B in Econ 101. I got an A, however, in keeping taxes low -- (laughter) -- and being fiscally responsible with the people's money. We've submitted a plan that will enable this budget to become balanced by 2012, so long as Congress learns to set priorities. And we can balance the budget without raising taxes.
(...)
Q Alan Greenspan has come out with a book, a recent book, criticizing you for being fiscally irresponsible. And they're not the first former government officials to come out and be critical of you. And I'm wondering two things. First, do you feel betrayed by some of these people who have served you and then have come out and criticized you? And then, more particularly, can you respond to Greenspan's criticism?
THE PRESIDENT: My feelings are not hurt. You might have been a little selective in quoting Donald Rumsfeld, which I know you didn't mean to be, you know. I respect Secretary Rumsfeld, I believe he did a fine job. And I respect Alan Greenspan. I respectfully disagree with Alan Greenspan when it comes to saying that this administration didn't handle the fiscal issues we faced in good fashion. As a matter of fact, we did.
The deficit, as a percent of GDP, is low. It's lower than the 30-year average. We have submitted a plan to balance the budget. We dealt with a recession, a terrorist attack and corporate scandals. And we did it by cutting taxes. The tax cuts worked. The economy recovered. People are working. Interest rates are low.
I'm a supply-sider. I believe supply-side economics, when properly instituted, enables us to achieve certain objectives. One, people find work and there's hope in the economy. Two, that supply-side economics yields additional tax revenues. And if we're smart about how we manage the fiscal budget, it leads to balance, and that's what we have done. We are fighting a war at the same time that we're headed toward balance. In other words, we're making sure our troops get the money they need and veterans get the benefits they need.
Name one.... just one... spending bill the Republicans put in front of him that he vetoed. ONE!
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush plans to to cite expensive new gear and the troop buildup in his request for $200 billion to fund the Iraq war in 2008.
If approved, the massive spending request would make 2008 the most expensive year of the war yet, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday.
Bush's request, to be presented to Congress this Wednesday, will detail the growing cost of maintaining combat forces in Iraq and the expense of new technology, such as mine-resistant trucks which cost three to six times as much as an armored Humvee, the Times said.
The war in Iraq currently costs taxpayers about $12 billion a month, said Winslow T. Wheeler, a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.
"Thus far it has continued to get bloodier and more expensive," Wheeler said. "Everyone says we are going to turn the corner here, but the corner has not been turned."
Mission Accomplished. The CEO President needs Economists to answer questions but needs no basis in reality to talk to the points he was handed. If you don't budget for the war it's already underfunded. Supplementary funding is emergency measures required to compensate for that which is unexpected. Could we get at a minimum, one WH Press Corps member to call him on his bullshit? ONE?!
Posted by kerry at September 24, 2007 06:20 AM