Bush speaks out
Last night, former President Bush spoke out for the first time since leaving office on the major issues facing his successor. Many of his comments, made at the annual Manufacturer and Business Association meeting in Erie, Pa., were met with frequent applause and even cheers.
On fixing the economy:
“I know it’s going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we’re in. You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money. . . . Government does not create wealth. The major role for the government is to create an environment where people take risks to expand the job rate in the United States.”
On health care reform:
“There are a lot of ways to remedy the situation without nationalizing health care. I worry about encouraging the government to replace the private sector when it comes to providing insurance for health care.”
On interrogation techniques:
“The way I decided to address the problem was twofold: One, use every technique and tool within the law to bring terrorists to justice before they strike again.”
On closing Guantanamo:
“I told you I’m not going to criticize my successor. I’ll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don’t believe that persuasion [is] going to work. Therapy isn’t going to cause terrorists to change their mind.”
On the presidential election in Iran:
“Clearly, there’s a level of frustration on the Iranian streets. It looks like it’s not a very fair election.”
On the bank bailouts:
“I firmly believe it was necessary to put money in our banks to make sure our financial system did not collapse. . . . I did not want there to be bread lines, to be a great depression.”
On the housing bubble:
“We tried to reform [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] but couldn’t get it through the vested interests on Capitol Hill.”
On whether President Obama’s policies are “socialist”:
“I hear a lot of those words, but it depends on— . . . We’ll see.”




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top17 Comments to “Bush speaks out”
Some good points.
President Bush is correct that it will be the private sector to lead us out of the current economic times we’re in. Otherwise, any recovery will be a house of cards. “Government does not create wealth.” Gov’t must live off of the private sector.
True.
Report comment to moderator
Oh AS IF!
Report comment to moderator
Well the private sector won’t lead us out of this unless the stinking government gets off it’s back…
Report comment to moderator
Where have your heads been for the last year? The under-regulated private sector is what got us into this mess!
Report comment to moderator
KWATSON,
Where has your head been the last 30 years? The government has regulated, and fined, and over taxed the private sector so much that manufacturing has gone somewhere else…
And now that our corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world at 35%, (and threatening to go higher), the economy is imploding.
But you see nothing wrong with that. Carry on….
Report comment to moderator
Please, the government actually allows a company to deduct it’s moving expenses to take their companies overseas.
I’m not going to belabor the matter. Democrats have been complicit in this as well. They worked right along with the Republicans to bring this about. But Republicans that have spearheaded the de-regulation over the past couple of decades that landed us in this economic mess.
Report comment to moderator
“Please, the government actually allows a company to deduct it’s moving expenses to take their companies overseas.”
So? And what about jobs for US Citizens?
And have you actually tried to start a business here in the US? It’s a nightmare… I have the deepest respect for anyone who even gives an attempt.
Report comment to moderator
#7 MIM
Yes, I have. And I also have alot of respect for people who start their own business—and it is tough to be successful at it.
I also have worked closely with small manufacturers to help them get tax breaks to expand their businesses and worker base. I have listened to their concerns and worries. It’s not pretty. And our current policy of making them compete with China and India is absurd!
Part of the problem is that small businesses (especailly manufacturing) have a weak lobby, while super-corporations practically own our legislators. In my opinion, the interests of small business is not really the same as the interests of very large corporations.
The large corporations practically run government through our elected officials, and obtain our support to do so by reminding us that small business is the engine of the economy. But some of the policies that are being created actually encourage development overseas and discourage it here. It is the international companies that benefit from those policies, not small businesses here.
For example, small manufacturers actually benefit from the presence of large manufacturers in the region. Large companies have the budget and breadth of product line to need, and therefore train, machinists and other skilled and semi-skilled workers. Small companies cannot afford to train all the people they need, but are often able to attract some of these workers from the larger companies, already trained. When manufacturing goes overseas, the machinists go away too. Small manufacturing here is injured in the process; and so is American job growth and stability.
Even Bush cut support for start-ups and other small businesses by slashing the Small Business Administration. Why would you do that when small business is the backbone of the economy? Because you’re listening to big business lobbyists who tell you that what is good for big business is also good for small business.
It’s not.
Report comment to moderator
Bush had eight years to show what a good job Republicans can do. The job they did was not that good. They lost. He shoul put a sock in it for a while.
Report comment to moderator
RANDOM, Bush kept the nation safe. The Stock market was twice what Obama made it into. The country had far more freedom than we do under Obama.
As far as he went Bush was pretty reserved in his comments. Probably far more reserved than he should have been.
Report comment to moderator
#4 Kwatson, that the problem was under regulation is Obama kool aid. It is his propaganda that companies are not communist enough.
Report comment to moderator
On whether President Obama’s policies are “socialist”:
“I hear a lot of those words, but it depends on— . . . We’ll see.”
I can hear Clinton saying this. “It depends on how you define ’socialist’”
Report comment to moderator
No, what got us in the mess was the failure to reform Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats refused to fix things in order to win the election, and you’re still drinking their kool aid.
Report comment to moderator
#10 9/11 occurred under Bush’s watch. Interesting definition of keeping the nation safe.
We are now cleaning up the mess in the economy that began to cascade under his watch. “Far more freedom,” is a grand statement’ you would need to present your case in a great with a great more detail and support to be more than an empty shell.
The Republicans were not overthrown by a military putsch. They lost because a lot of people wearied of how they run things. The Democrats will mess up the same way; your turn to mess up will come again, but for now you have to sit in the dog house.
Report comment to moderator
public or private is not the issue.
The real issue is good management. Private corporations have demanded and received a more deregulated environment over the last 30 years. The results have not been encouraging rather they have demonstrated bad management.
The second issue is for whom is wealth created.
As gov’t creates an environment where wealth can be created it must able to reward or punish depending on management ability and it should be able to direct for whom the wealth benefits.
Report comment to moderator
#14 – Random – Do you really want to go there? The Clinton presidency bears much of the blame for not dealing with Osama Bin Laden when he was handed to them on a silver platter. Just because it happened on Bush’s watch (when he was still trying to prove his legitimacy as president because people were still carping about how he stole the election, yadda, yadda. That plan was in the making long before Bush took office.) The cascade you speak of started long before he took office, it’s been decades in the making. And to be fair, not that I’m an Obama fan in the least, he inheretid his mess from at least the last 3-4 predecessors, not just the last one.
There’s enough blame to go around and lay at the feet of both parties.
Report comment to moderator
Klasko: he Clinton presidency bears much of the blame for not dealing with Osama Bin Laden when he was handed to them on a silver platter.
When was that?
I’ll save you the trouble. The above never really happened; it’s a half-truth at best.
Sudan offered to extradite bin Laden, who was living there at the time, to Saudi Arabia (not America); Saudia Arabia didn’t want him.
That was in 1996. While it was clear bin Laden was an anti-American extremist (not really a rarity in that part of the world), he hadn’t actually done anything yet. The embassy bombings were still two years in the future, let alone the Cole and 9/11.
So just what was Clinton supposed to have done?
By the way, Clinton’s administration was not at all indifferent to bin Laden. It’s just that before he had committed any terrorist acts, there was no basis on which to take him.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!