Asking the Right Questions, Part V

Finishing up our series of media questions from the Obama press conference, we once again reprint the questions Obama was asked at his March 24 press conference. We have paraphrased Obamas remarks, because he sure has a tough time speaking his intentions concisely; and just for contrast, we add what a hypothetical good president would have answered to each of the questions.

Okay. Ed Henry. Where’s Ed? There he is.
QUESTION: (...) -- you’ve been very critical of President Bush doubling the national debt. And to be fair, it’s not just Republicans hitting you. Democrat Kent Conrad, as you know, said, quote, ”When I look at this budget, I see the debt doubling again.” You keep saying that you’ve inherited a big fiscal mess. Do you worry, though, that your daughters, not to mention the next president, will be inheriting an even bigger fiscal mess if the spending goes out of control?

Barry: Well that's what sharing is all about. You spread the wealth, you spread the lack of it just as broadly. It's of no concern to me that the stakeholders have not yet been born.
Hypothetical Good President: Yes, the national debt is public enemy number one, and those who seek to grow it are the accomplices in cross generation thievery.

QUESTION: So on AIG, why did you wait -- why did you wait days to come out and express that outrage? ... It seems like the action is coming out of New York in the attorney general’s office. It took you days to come public with Secretary Geithner and say, look, we’re outraged. Why did it take so long?

Barry: I'm only as outraged as 50.1% of the public, so until the outrage reaches critical mass, it's safer for me to wait on the sidelines.
Hypothetical Good President: There's a lot of outrage to go around, but why waste it on AIG? AIG does what they do. It makes little sense to expect them to do anything else just because we put a big bag of money on their conference table. Talk about mixed messages! Giving them money in the first place signals that the government likes what they do, and wants them to continue doing it. And wants it so much, they subsidize it! Stop giving AIG money and they'll develop their own new discipline, or go out of business. Problem solved. No sir, my outrage is at the people giving them taxpayer money in the first place. And they know who they are.

Major?
QUESTION: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you. Taking this economic debate a bit globally, senior Chinese officials have publicly expressed an interest in an international currency. This is described by Chinese specialists as a sign that they are less confident than they used to be in the value and the reliability of the U.S. dollar. European countries have resisted your calls to spend more on economic stimulus.
I wonder, sir, as a candidate who ran concerned about the image of the United States globally, how comfortable you are with the Chinese government, run by communists, less confident than they used to be in the U.S. dollar, and European governments, some of the center-left, some of them socialist, who say you’re asking them to spend too much?

Barry: Well, when it comes to socialism, they are all pikers compared to this administration. It will be much easier to redistribute wealth here by printing money. Therefore the dollar is only as good as we decide it will be. What it's worth to the rest of the world doesn't matter to me.
Hypothetical Good President: This is the world's biggest economy, and the dollar will continue to be the world standard for a whole host of reasons, among them is that it represents the value produced by the world's most productive and free people. Other countries will ignore the dollar at their own peril.

QUESTION: Is there a need for a global currency?

Barry: As an advocate of one world government, and as a shepherd of the downfall of the dollar, I foresee the need for a good currency after our dollar goes the way of the peso. Further, having a common currency is only one small step to having a single world government. Bush had "exporting democracy". I favor "exporting fascism".
Hypothetical Good President: No, there is no scenario in which we can and should support any other currency. There's no reason to find a substitute for the dollar when the dollar is about to be rehabilitated by my administration.

QUESTION: Mr. President, are you -- (takes mic) -- thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Are you reconsidering your plan to cut the interest-rate deduction for mortgages and for charities? And do you regret having proposed that in the first place?

Barry: As you know, the voracious appetite of this government knows no bounds. Mortgage and charitable deductions looks like easy money, because only rich people pay taxes and donate money in the first place. It's likeWillie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks. It's because that's where the money is.
Hypothetical Good President: The law of unintended consequences really does apply here. If the government's goal is to reduce home ownership and reduce charitable deductions, then that is what will happen, and this is the way to do it. I will not support the elimination of these deductions. It's very simple. When you increase a tax on anything, you get less of it. I'm in favor of any mechanism that reduces the tax burden on our people. Since there are those in government who feel they must pick winners and losers, it strikes me as unconscionable that they would choose home owners and charities to be losers.

QUESTION: It’s not the well-to-do people; it’s the charities. Given what you’ve just said --
QUESTION: -- are you confident that charities are wrong when they contend that this would discourage giving?

Barry: It is my goal to have the government take over more of the economy, and that includes the charity business. With government controlling all charity, not just welfare based charity, and not just FEMA type charities, our goal of socialism is much more completely met.
Hypothetical Good President: If we can get the government out of the charity business entirely, it would be a good thing. If people wanting a handout were required to get it from the local churches, secular charities, and independent aid organizations, they would be much better cared for, and all the sooner back into productive society. A tax deduction to support local charities would be worth preserving, and doesn't even amount to a subsidy, because in this case, the return would be greater than the "investment".

Kevin Chappell. Hi, Kevin.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. A recent report found that as a result of the economic downturn, one in 50 children are now homeless in America. With shelters at full capacity, tent cities are sprouting up across the country. In passing your stimulus package, you said that help was on the way, but what would you say to these families, especially children, who are sleeping under bridges and in tents across the country?

Barry: George Bush. Bush. George did it. My predescessor put in programs to hurt people. Look over there. George? You still there? Oh, he left?. Okay. Next question.
Hypothetical Good President: Look Kevin, this is America. Anyone sleeping under a bridge is doing that because they have chosen to do so. Anyone willing to join productive society has ample opportunity to do just that. Anyone who wants to live off the land, in tents and bridges is also free to do that. If you bring me anyone living under a bridge who wants to be somewhere else, I'll tell them exactly how to accomplish their goal. Further, by letting the local governments keep more of the tax money that would otherwise be diverted to national boondoggles, problems like this would be handled at the local level, where they can be more effectively dealt with.

Ann Compton. Hey, Ann.

QUESTION: Yours is a rather historic presidency, and I’m just wondering whether in any of the policy debates that you’ve had within the White House, the issue of race has come up, or whether it has in the way you feel you’ve been perceived by other leaders or by the American people. Or have the last 64 days been a relatively color- blind time?

Barry: I owe a lot to racists of all colors who elected me. I hope to keep that advantage through the next election. So, color-blind is not in my best interest.
Hypothetical Good President: Historic? Because of my skin color? Gee, Ann, what color is it that you think that I am, and why should it matter? I would hate to think that this election is historic based on a physical attribute (handsome though I may be). I would much rather be known as the president who restored our freedoms, our pride, and our heritage as a nation.

Okay. Jon Ward, Washington Times. Where’s Jon?
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In your remarks on stem-cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. I’m just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic?

Barry: My goal is federal funding of everything, but I particularly like the idea of funding embryonic stuff because it makes people of faith extra angry.
Hypothetical Good President: I'm against federal funding of most things, but especially this, because it creates an unnecessary new market for dead babies. Why should the government subsidize this, when adult stem cells show much more promise, and it appears that no federal funding is even necessary to see the fruits of this effort. By getting out of the way of the medical industry, the effort will pay off by itself.

QUESTION: I meant to ask as a follow-up, though, do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?

Barry: A consensus of liberal quasi-scientists is what I'm focused on. Hopefully we can discredit enough of the real scientists by lies and distortions to get this done. Like we almost did with global warming.
Hypothetical Good President: The consensus is that adult stem cells show promise. I think federal funding of any medical processes is not warranted. Let the private market figure a way to finance and monetize it.

Okay. Stephen Collinson, AFP.
QUESTION: Mr. President, you came to office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How realistic do you think those are hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who’s not fully signed up to a two- state solution and a foreign minister who’s been accused of insulting Arabs?

Barry: I plan on being as effective as all the previous presidents at brokering peace in the Middle East. I plan on continuing to fund the conflict both directly and indirectly so that we play one side against the other. That way, when we can choose either side whenever we wish for whatever purpose.
Hypothetical Good President: Stephen, look. These people have been killing each other for tens of centuries. Peace is not in the cards simply because we want it to be. It has to happen because it is what they want. I can't bring a Hamas guy, and an Israeli here to Camp David, have the two of them sign a silly document, and presto everybody over there likes each other. Both sides play us for everything they can get, and still go on killing each other. My plan is to stay out of it. If they want to use their meager wealth to attack each other, then nobody wins, and they will -- I repeat -- They will find a better way on their own.


So there we have it. Some actual good questions finally being posed to this president, as they should be. The answers were so dense that none of them made news, however it appears that the questions are getting better.