Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These... Whatever They Ares?

George W. Bush... well, maybe you can call it "speaks"... but maybe not:

Press Conference of the President: Q Mr. President, in the upcoming elections I think many Republicans would tell you one of the big things they're worried about is the national debt, which was $5.7 trillion when you took office, and is now nearly $8.2 trillion, and Congress has just voted to raise it to $8.9 trillion. That would be a 58-percent increase. You've yet to veto a single bill, sir -- I assume that means you're satisfied with this.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I'm not satisfied with the rise of mandatory spending. As you know, the President doesn't have the -- doesn't veto mandatory spending increases. And mandatory spending increases are those increases in the budget caused by increases in spending on Medicare and Social Security. And that's why -- back to this man's question right here -- it's important for -- "this man" being Jim -- (laughter) -- sorry, Jim, I've got a lot on my mind these days. That's why it's important for us to modernize and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, in order to be able to deal with the increases in mandatory spending.

Secondly, in terms of discretionary spending, that part of the budget over which Congress has got some control, and over which the President can make suggestions -- we have suggested that the Congress fully fund the troops in harm's way. And they have, and for that the American people should be grateful.

Secondly, we suggested that Congress fund the reconstruction efforts for Katrina. They have spent now a little more than $100 billion, and I think that's money well-spent, a commitment that needed to be keep [sic]. Thirdly, we have said that other than security discretionary spending, that we ought to, last year, actually reduce the amount of discretionary spending, and were able to do so. Ever since I've been the President we have slowed the rate of growth of non-security discretionary spending and actually cut discretionary spending -- non-security discretionary spending. Last year I submitted a budget to the United States Congress. I would hope they would meet the targets of the budget that I submitted, in order to continue to make a commitment to the American people.

But in terms of the debt, mandatory spending increases is driving a lot of that debt. And that's why it's important to get the reforms done.

Q Thank you, sir. For the first time in years, interest rates are rising in the U.S., Europe and Japan at the same time. Is this a concern for you? And how much strain are higher interest rates placing on consumers and companies?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, interest rates are set by an independent organization, which --

Q -- still, are you concerned about that?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not quite through with my answer yet.

Q I'm sorry.

THE PRESIDENT: I'm kind of stalling for time here. (Laughter.) Interest rates are set by the independent organization. I can only tell you that the economy of the United States looks very strong. And the reason I say that is that projections for first-quarter growth of this year look pretty decent. That's just projections, that's a guess by some economists, and until the actual numbers come out we won't know. But no question that the job market is strong. When you have 4.8 percent unemployment -- 4.8 percent nationwide unemployment, that indicates a strong job market, and that's very important.

One of the measures as to whether or not this economy will remain strong is productivity. And our productivity of the American worker and productivity of the American business sector is rising. And that's positive, because productivity increases eventually yield -- eventually yield higher standards of living. Home ownership is at an all-time high. And there has been all kinds of speculation about whether or not home ownership would -- home building would remain strong, and it appears to be steady. And that's important.

In other words -- and so to answer your question, I feel -- without getting into kind of the -- kind of micro-economics, from my perch and my perspective, the economy appears to be strong and getting stronger. And the fundamental question that those of us in Washington have to answer is, what do we do to keep it that way. How do we make sure, one, we don't put bad policies in place that will hurt economic growth? A bad policy is to raise taxes -- which some want to do. There are people in the United States Congress, primarily on the Democrat side, that would be anxious to let some of the tax relief expire. Some of them actually want to raise taxes now. I think raising taxes would be wrong. As a matter of fact, that's why -- and I think it's important for us to have certainty in the tax code. That's why I'd like to see the tax relief made permanent.

You know, it's a myth in Washington, for Washington people to go around the country saying, well, we'll balance the budget, just let us raise taxes. That's not how Washington works. Washington works raising taxes and they figure out new ways to spend. There is a huge appetite for spending here. One way to help cure that appetite is to give me the line-item veto. You mentioned vetoing a bill -- one reason why I haven't vetoed any appropriation bills is because they met the benchmarks we've set. They have -- on the discretionary spending, we've said, here is the budget, we've agreed to a number, and they met those numbers.

Now, sometimes I didn't -- I like the size of the pie, sometimes I didn't particularly like the slices within the pie. And so one way to deal with the slices in the pie is to give the President the line-item veto. And I was heartened the other day when members of both parties came down in the Cabinet Room to talk about passage of a line-item veto. I was particularly pleased that my opponent in the 2004 campaign, Senator Kerry, graciously came down and lent his support to a line-item veto, and also made very constructive suggestions about how to get one out of the United States Congress.

Let's see here. They told me what to say. David.

Interesting that he cannot remember "Federal Reserve" on the fly. Also interesting that he does not know that the Federal Reserve controls the overnight federal funds rate, but does not control--it influences--long-term rates. Interesting that he thinks his power to veto appropriations bills is the power to "make suggestions" about spending levels.

Who is the "they"? And did "they" really tell him to say that?

---

Comments

[nattybumpo]

Also note he doesn't seem to know the difference between Mircroeconomics and Macroeconomics.

[david]

Or the Fed fails to influence long-term rates to everyone's surprise.

The transcript looks to me like he means that they told him the order on which to call reporters, something he's made clear before that they tell him. Is there some other, more sinister interpretation, I'm missing? Cause I'm happy to believe much worse.

[liberal]

President Bush said, "That's why it's important for us to modernize and strengthen Social Security and Medicare, in order to be able to deal with the increases in mandatory spending."

Except for the wee little fact that increases in SS spending are dealt with through circa 2050.

[DanG]

And I guess it's not necessary to point out that Social Security and Medicare both are currently running surpluses and therefore have nothing to do with the growth in the national deficit or debt?

[joel]

Also note he doesn't seem to know the difference between Mircroeconomics and Macroeconomics.

Posted by: nattybumpo | March 21, 2006 at 02:08 PM

Au contraire. In Humpty-Dumpty bushpeak, "microeconomics" refers to that portion of the realm of economic study which can fit into Bush's microbrain.

So given that meaning, I suppose he used it correctly.

I would also propose that given the allocation of the Bush family's current wealth, as well as the estate-tax-free windfall GWB is bound to inherit upon his octogenarian parents' demise, the economy really does "appear to be strong and getting stronger" using the traditional meaning of "microeconomics" as applied to GWB's personal financial state.

[Hedley Lamarr]

As a fellow looks upon this man, this stupid man, he wonders just how dumb a president would have to be before the Great American Public sees him for what he is.

Three more years, boy and girls...

[sm]

If there are a lot of smart Democrats as asserted the other day, they would take the "they told me what to say" clip and turn it into a TV ad. Followed by the "withdrawal from Iraq will be up to future presidents" line.

I can see this, surely a real pro can see even better.

[Katie]

It's time for a drink! Or a straitjacket!

[DJ]

The really disgusting thing about that news conference was the giggling, fawning media.

[BC]

Hey, take it easy on the guy. He's got "a lot on his mind"...

3 more years.

[ogmb]

Which blogger wrote the post about Dubya being like a student who blew off the whole semester, then tried to waffle his way through the exam? Brad linked to it.

Btw, Macro in Bush-speak: the big picture. Micro = nuance.

[sglover]

I heard Bush "answer" an earlier question, about fundamentalist Christians, "rapture" theology, that kind of thing. He never really did. Instead, he did an immediate pivot into a kind of rambling free association about "September 11.... terrorists.... protect America..."

I gotta say, it is positively unnerving, it is downright spooky, listening to the dumb bastard flounder. I think we've all met high school students who can think on their feet better than this idiot. I cannot imagine how the worthless fuckwit is gonna keep it together -- even by his own sorry standard -- for another three years.

Sorry about the profanity, but it's hard to talk about the idiot without it.....

[christofay]

As Bush is leading us to Argentina, let him answer in Spanish.

It's better than letting him speak in tongues which is the best that I can make out of the replies quoted above.

He can't speak too clearly or he might give away the date of the rapture which I'm sure he knows from the NSA listening in to his conversations with Jesus.

[liberal]

christofay wrote, "I'm sure he knows from the NSA listening in to his conversations with Jesus."

No, you got that one wrong. _The Onion_ already covered this. Turns out what Bush thought was the voice of God was actually Cheney on a White House intercom.

[Brian G]

I have a problem with two contradictary comments. Does anyone else see the problem here:

Question 1 (Why have you increased debt 58%):
I've been the President we have slowed the rate of growth of non-security discretionary spending and actually cut discretionary spending -- non-security discretionary spending.

Question 2 (Do you like debt?):
You mentioned vetoing a bill -- one reason why I haven't vetoed any appropriation bills is because they met the benchmarks we've set. They have -- on the discretionary spending, we've said, here is the budget, we've agreed to a number, and they met those numbers

Wait. So you *approve* of the *reduced* growth in "discretionary spending", wait, no, "Non-security discretionary spending" ... which as Brad pointed out before is a completely insubstantial portion of the budget .... and ... uh ... I guess I'm really just picking nits.

[RKKA]

Really, is there anything displayed here that wasn't abundantly clear in the debates with Kerry? Is the incoherent rambling new? Nope. Is the misunderstanding of the basics of the topics new? Nope. And with all this clearly desplayed on national TV before millions of Americans, a majority of voters chose him.

Why?

Because he was supported by a vast right-wing conspiracy, with elements to raise funds (K Street, DeLay), produce propaganda (Heritage, Cato, AEI), desseminate propaganda (Faux News, the Washington Times, and the various gasbags of the Rethuglican punditocracy), and organize the above elements under a coherent strategy (Rove, Norquist).

Now as the Bush presidency collapses under the weight of its lies, the smarter Rethuglicans are attempting to save the above political machine by distancing themselves from Bush, since he has turned into an anchor around their necks. And this we must not permit. Our job is to stick them to Bush as tightly as possible, so that they share the consequences of his political failure and go down at the same time. Otherwise, we'll be right where we are now, ruled by liars who care nothing for governance and whose only skill is doing what it takes to win elections.

[bakho]

Now maybe you understand why Bush doesn't do press conferences. WTF do we know now that we didn't know before he spoke?

Bush fiscal policy is to give tax cuts, corporate welfare and sweetheart deals to his K Street "base". Deficits don't matter. Of course Bush isn't satisfied with the debt. If he could dole political payola without running a deficit he would. The people might not complain as much about the corruption. However, 2+2 does not equal 22. If tax cuts and political payola mean running deficits, then Bush doesn't care.

[Idiot]

Yes, I think we've all met high school students who can think on their feet better than this idiot. I cannot imagine how the worthless fuckwit is gonna keep it together -- even by his own sorry standard -- for another three years.

[Zephyr]

Al Gore would have been a much better president. He should have blown Dubya out of the water but he was tainted by the decadence and corruption of the Clinton presidency...

Dubya could have been defeated in 2004 if a decent candidate had run against him. But Kerry was too obvious and inconsistent in his dishonest bull shit and he failed to offer anything more than "I am not Bush" and that just wasn't enough to get elected.

By the way, Kerry's grades at Yale were actually lower than Dubya's... a scary thought.

So here we are with this guy who is in way over his head...

['As You Know' Bob]

"Interesting that he cannot remember "Federal Reserve" on the fly. Also interesting that he does not know that the Federal Reserve ..."

Also interesting that the man can't count to three.

From the transcript above:
"That's why it's important for us ..."
"Secondly, in terms of discretionary spending..."
and then the next point he makes is
"Secondly, we suggested that Congress..."

Yes, it's difficult to speak extemporaneously, and everyone makes slips; and we'd overlook a minor slip like this if the fool EVER spoke coherently.

[sglover]

"By the way, Kerry's grades at Yale were actually lower than Dubya's... a scary thought."

Well, he got pretty good fitness reports during his Navy days. But even aside from that, Kerry could at least string multiple sentences together -- sentences that actually had some semantic content, and were related to each other in a meaningful way!

Call me a geezing traditionalist, but I still can't get used to listening to a President and wondering, "Is this guy retarded?"

[christofay]

Oh, Liberal, quibbling about sources again

[luci]

Harvard MBA! I know there's gotta be at least a couple micro and macro econ classes in that program, so he must've known the difference at one time.

And actually, I'd be fine with a blathering idiot Prez that DIDN'T invade countries and kill innocent people on whims or half-baked gambles.

[wkwillis]

Al Gore would have been a much better president. He should have blown Dubya out of the water but he was tainted by the decadence and corruption of the Clinton presidency...

What did Clinton steal?
What did anybody in his administration steal?
I don't mean did they steal more than the the present administration, I mean, did they steal even hotel towels?
The only guy they got a conviction on was busted for paying off a girlfriend to keep quiet about their affair and lying to the FBI about it. That was the Interior Secretary, IIRC.
So when you mention corruption...did you mean moral corruption like having an affair?

[RKKA]

"Al Gore would have been a much better president. He should have blown Dubya out of the water but he was tainted by the decadence and corruption of the Clinton presidency...

Dubya could have been defeated in 2004 if a decent candidate had run against him. But Kerry was too obvious and inconsistent in his dishonest bull shit and he failed to offer anything more than "I am not Bush" and that just wasn't enough to get elected.

By the way, Kerry's grades at Yale were actually lower than Dubya's... a scary thought.

So here we are with this guy who is in way over his head..."

You forgot to mention the part about the vast, well-funded right-wing conspiracy supporting Bush, and the ocean of slime it would have poured out on any Democratic nominee. Like I said, the one skill these lying sacks have is winning elections.

It sure ain't governing afterwards.

Which is why we must ensure that the political machine behind Bush goes down with Bush. Otherwise, we haven't really accomplished anything at all.

[ilsm]

Mandatory spending is 80 or 90 billion less than SS receipts.

What the heck???

We would have to borrow less if there were higher SS surpluses oh my!!!

[Micahel Carroll]

I think its obvious the Presidents comments in this transcript were mistranslated from the original Japanese.

[Ari]

How nice it will be when you are done with trying to bully Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman and anyone with whom you do not agree for whatever incomprehensible reasons.

[kharris]

sglover,

Find some Reagan press conference video and see if the technique looks familiar. Reagan was a master at rambling through a bunch of highly evocative non-sequitors. His audience "knew" what he had said, even though he hadn't said anything he could be pinned down on. Bush looks like a monkey doing the same thing, but he pretty much looks like a monkey whatever approach he takes to public speaking. It may well be that he can't do better, but there may be an effort to use Reagan's trick.

RKKA,

Agreed that the machine needs to be dismantled. Direct is best. We need to stick Congressional Republicans with the mess they made, rather than with Bush. If Bush gets stuck with the mess, the GOP may live to misrule another day. Members of the majority have voting records. They have campaign finance and travel records. They have speaking records. Abramaoff, Iraq, EPA, Social Security, Medicare drug benefit, energy policy, the deficit, tax cuts for the rich, falling home ownership rates for working families, stagnant real wages. Something for everybody.

Movie Guy,

You're back to being an arrogant so and so. You don't agree with the conclusions reached? Say so, but it would help to include reasons. Don't like the form the discussion takes? Go someplace else. Smarter than everybody else? No evidence of that to date.

[vtconomist]

If only it was just kid's baseball!

[Ari]

As usual you are being a crude bully incomprehensible as well. The inane tirades are all yours, though I can never imagine what you are tirading about.

[Ari]

Rudeness to Brad DeLong is always offensive, and you are being continually rude and offensive.

[Ari]

Simply temper the language in your criticisms and assume there is truth beyond what you find to be truth and your ideas will be respected.

[No Exit]

"Secondly, in terms of discretionary spending, that part of the budget over which Congress has got some control, and over which the President can make suggestions -- we have suggested that the Congress fully fund the troops in harm's way. And they have, and for that the American people should be grateful."

Staggering. Bush has "suggested" to Congress that they "fully fund" the troops "in harm's way."

And they did.

And for that we, the American People, should be GRATEFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF

IMPEACH DUBYA & CHENEY NOW

[kharris]

Movie Guy,

Agreeing with me yesterday doesn't buy you free idiot points today. Funny how you seem to think you efforts at correcting others' political thoughts is just dandy, but getting slapped down for --

a) claiming to know more than anybody on the face of the earth about Iran

b) claiming to know more than anybody here about how politics work in the real world

c) just being a complete arrogant twit about half the time

-- oh, that's just out of bounds! Beg to differ.

[cafl]

I saw the first half or 3/4 of the press conference and thought that while there were lots of lies as well as bullshit answers from campaign talking points, his demeanor was less weird than many press encounters I've seen, as if he had been drilled before hand and was ready with answers. I didn't see the deer-in-the-headlights look. I thought perhaps his poll numbers made him work harder before this one.

[piotr]

"I didn't see the deer-in-the-headlights look"

reminds me Medium Lobster's spin of the first Bush-Kerry debate. "Presidential handlers have much to crow about, Bush exceeded everybody's expectations. He remained upright throughout the debate, and he did not drool..."

However, it is easy for Brad to laugh, being a teacher at some educational ... err ... institution, I guess it is an institution, isn't it? where he is teaching about interest rates, no less!

About Kerry having worse grades and how scary it is: Bush is best described as "not an idiot, in spite of innumerable impressions to the contrary". Kerry had a knack of stringing way to many sentences together and of finding ways to disconnect himself from the listeners (global test, anyone?) and in general he was revealing quite good intelligence and good grasp of government and history.

[hirvi]

"By the way, Kerry's grades at Yale were actually lower than Dubya's..."

Nevertheless. Bush has a Yale history degree, afaik. Yet he thought Japan and the US had "cooperated closely" over the past 150 years, and he didn't know there were blacks in Brazil (nor presumably, why they were there).

Don't people with "real" history degrees know things like this, or has something unmentionable happened?

[theorajones]

Also, um, tax increases translate to more spending in Washington? Did he not notice that when he took office, there was a SURPLUS?

Again, just because you spend like a drunken sailor doesn't mean everyone else does. Some folks actually spend responsibly and pay down their debts. In Washington, those people are called Democrats.