Mr. President, thanks very much for making time. Thank you! A year ago of this time, right in the financial crisis hit, we sat down during the (presidential) campaign and I asked you what in your agenda, were you prepared to scale back because of the huge commitment that was gonna be required, and you said in the fact, “Nothing!” Was that a mistake?
No, it wasn’t a mistake. What I was said that we’re gonna to do financial regulatory reform to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. We’re gonna have to build an economy that was based not on ‘boom-and-bust’ but on a firmer foundation of sustained economic growth. And I said that we need to do health care to accomplish that, we needed a much more efficient energy economy, we need to improve our school system. I continue to believe that we have to do that. There is no doubt that given the interventions that have taken place both in before I took the office and since I’ve taken office. This is bitter string on a deficit, which is why from my perspective; we can’t do health reform that is not deficit neutral both now and the future. Any additional programs that we initiated can’t be a ‘budget buster’.
One thing I’m pleased about though is that when you talked to me earlier in this year, I was concerned that we might have to put more in to stabilize the financial system. We had a 250 billion $ reserve, (for) a just in case things turn South on us. And now you know you don’t have to. Now we know we don’t have to do it. We’ve seen a couple of dozen banks who have repaid so far 70 billion in dollars in money that they received from TARP. Tax payers have gotten 17% interest rate on that investment, and so we’re not out of woods, but financial system hasn’t stabilized, but what we’re seeing at least is some sense of normals in returning as I said today at the Wall Street, the key is making sure that normals doesn’t translate into complacency.
Turn South on us: A situation becomes bad to us.
Out of woods: escaped from a bad situation or
trouble.
That you indicated in speech today, that you thought Wall
Street hadn’t learned very much in the year since the crisis. What has
Well, what I’ve learned is that if Washington does not provide kind of regulatory oversight that’s needed to make sure that we got transparency, accountability, clear roles over the road, then ironically what you may end up with is the government being even more metals in the markets and then ways it would have been. So everybody looses listening. I wanna be absolutely clear: I believe in the market. I think that’s the way we generating jobs. I have absolutely no interest in having the government maintaining the levels of intervention that we have right now in the financial market.
But you didn’t give more traders any level on the floors today, didn’t walk over there. No, no, no, there was no, nothing symbolic there. That was just the fact that these days I create disruptions wherever I go.
Now one of things you said in your speech was warning to Wall Street that tax payers will not step in and break your fall, right, if the same thing happens again. But since the purpose of that intervention was to save the whole country rather than institutions themselves. Wouldn’t you end up doing the same thing all over again because it would be in the interest of country?
I would do the same thing that we’ve done so far if we are back in the same situation back in January. The point is that we wanna create some circuit breakers here. We wanna make sure that (A) when you have a large institution that are deeply interconnected so that their failure could bring about melt down of financial system. They’re gonna have to ether capital requirements. The oversight is gonna be much more rigorous. There are certain sectors of financial systems, like derivatives. They currently have no regulatory oversight whatsoever and we need to set those up. So what we wanna do is position are rules in such way that you don’t end up in a situation where your only choice is either financial meltdown on one end or taxpayers having engaged in this huge bail out. I think that is untenable position to sustain and I think that American people who are going through a real tough time right now are very frustrated with it.
About healthcare, you’ve made the argument that your healthcare plan will not add a dime to the deficit. And I know that in principles you outlined last week, you’ve got things like that tax on insurance companies, the med-pack proposals (and) other ideas some of which haven’t been tried before, but you believe in, you think what’s in cross curve. Not only do I believe in, but Democratic and Republican experts also think these have the best chance of success.
But I think that a lot of Americans out there would say, “You’re telling me that you are gonna cover 30 million people who don’t have an insurance now and not add to the deficit? Give me a break!”
Well, here’s how it goes. Two-thirds (2/3) of the costs for covering new people will be paid for by taking waste out of the system, that nobody argues (that) doesn’t exist. I mean, everybody knows that it’s there, the Congressional Budget Office which is highly respected had said it’s there, and that’s gonna be the bulk of what it takes to pay for those 30 million Americans. In addition, what we’re gonna be able to say hospitals, for example is in a what sense, now everybody’s covered, you don’t have to get all those extra uncompensated cares that cost thing every family about 900$ a year in higher premiums than they otherwise would have to pay. But, what we are absolutely clear about is that it’s not just paying for the 30 million that’s important, it’s reducing the increases in health care inflation every year that so important for families, businesses, and reducing the deficit, and that is something that we can’t accomplish without health care reform. If we don’t have that, we’re not gonna be able to reduce our deficit because if you look at all the other aspects of our budget, nothing comes close to the rising cost of health care in terms of what’s gotten in this deep financial hole.
Given the turn around that you believe in beginning to happen in the economy and your concern about the deficit, are you committed to holding the line against a second stimulus package even though unemployment is likely to go up to 10%, maybe beyond?
Well, I think we’re monitoring the situation carefully. I think that most folks believe in that now turn the corner of what we might actually start some positive economic growth in months to come. As you know jobs tend to be a lagging indicator and they come to last. So we’re focused on how to create jobs in this environment without adding to the deficit. One of the things that we did with a recovery package in the first place was anticipating that jobs would be lagging. We said this is a two-year program, not one year program, and that’s when critics to stimulus say what go only this much money has gone out so far. It was designed to be two years program because we knew that state budgets are still gonna be pinched, businesses are still gonna be weary of making big investment, and consumers haven’t gotten confidence back.
So, sounds like because of the way you designed the program, you have strong inclination not to do the second stimulus? I would be strong inclination not to do it. But obviously we’re monitoring the situation very carefully. My bottom line is how do we make sure that the economy is growing robustly again because actually that would probably have biggest impact on our deficits. If we can start getting tax revenues because companies start making profits again, people are employed again. That would probably have more to do with reducing our short term deficit problems than just about anything else.
Let me ask about trades because you’ve got the G20 coming up? You’ve sent some mixed signals on trade. You sort of set aside your pledge to renegotiate NAFTA early on which a lot of people interpret was as a sort of stamping you as a free trader after all despite the campaign literate, but you’ve beyond something with China over the weekend on eve of the G20 that I wonder whether you worry that it might be hard to control, the tip for tab.
Well, I believe in trade agreements that can make American more prosperous and our trading partners make more prosperous. I’ve always said that and I continue to believe in. I’ve also believed that if we don’t enforce the rules that are contained in our trade agreements, then it’s very hard to have credibility, and it’s hard to get the American people to support future trade agreements. So here is the situation where China entered into WTO, it had rules to contain in the session that said that in fact if there is a big surge like this, there is a surge breaker. We have exercised them. I don’t, I’m not surprised that China is upset about it, but keep in mind that we have a huge economic relationship which I, we have cultivated a strong strategic relationship with China. But, I just wanna make sure that if we actually have rules written down, that mean something because the next time I go to the American people or to the Congress, saying this trade agreement is good for America, and saying that provisions and protections are in here on labor issues or environmental issues or other making sure that intellectual property of businesses protected in China, well have you? People have to have confidence that these words are gonna mean something.
Well, you’re confident you can
avoid trade war? Absolutely, I think it’s
Two things before let you go: you had lunch with Bill Clinton today. And I understand that you talked about health care and the economy, both of which he might have some lessons for you. What did he tell you? What can you learn from him?
Well, obviously conversations with former presidents are ones that are very valuable to me. They are the people actually stood in these shoes before we had lunch right after I was elected, hosted by President George W Bush, with all the living presidents, it was extraordinary conversation. I think Bill Clinton understands very well that the struggles that middle class families are going through. Providing the lift to those struggles is the ultimate measure of our economic success. Are we expanding growth in order to expand the prosperity of the individual families, and I think we were talking about health care or energy policy or education policy. Something that he and I agree on is that ultimately it’s gonna be translated into benefits for ordinary families. Something that happened during his watch. Something that (happened) for last 8 years or so hasn’t happened even when our economy was growing, we had wages and incomes were in flat line for average American and that something that is part of this new change that we need to see and how economy works.
Did he encourage you that he believes you‘re gonna succeed or he failed on health care?
Well, I think that he and I both agreed that situations have changed since 1993. Back in 1993, I think a lot of businesses were still feeling that they could manage their rising costs. Now whether you’re small business or large business, I think you get a 25% increase in your premiums, you say “this is something we need to tackle, this we need to deal with, so what you’ve seen is doctors, nurses, hospitals, even drug companies acknowledging something has to be done. And that doesn’t solve all the political problems up on Capitol Hill, but it does create an environment in which is easier for us to get it done.
Last question on
Drone: in context, this means pilot less aircraft operated by remote control. Dictionary definition is: stingless male bee in a colony of social bees
(especially honeybees) whose sole function is to mate with the queen.
Bog down: get stuck while doing
something; "She bogged down many times while she wrote her
dissertation"
Quagmire: 1. A difficult or precarious situation; a predicament., 2. a soft wet area of low-lying
land that sinks underfoot (수렁 혹은 진흙)
Hold on, first of all I said it at the beginning of this
administration, I said during the campaign and I continue to believe that our
primary focus has to be dismantling Al Qaeda, and other extremist organizations
that can provide projected violence against United States, its allies or its
bases around the world. That is our
number one priority. And everything that
we’re doing in
Do you reflect on what happened with Linden Johnson and worried the same might happen to you?
Well, I think you have to learn lessons from history; on the
other hand each historical moment is different.
You never step in the same rubble twice, and so
Mr. President, thank you so much! Thank you! Appreciate it! Thank you John, appreciate it!