CSPAN: President Barack Obama- 'At The 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner'

Source:CSPAN- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) speaking at the 2011 White House Correspondents dinner, in Washington.

Source:The FreeState MD

"President Obama at the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner. View the complete program here:CSPAN." 

Source:CSPAN- comedian Seth Meyers.

"Journalists, politicians and celebrities gathered for the White House Correspondents' Association Annual Dinner where journalism awards were presented. President Obama gave humorous remarks focusing on his potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates. His speech featured a fake trailer for “The President’s Speech,” a spoof sequel to the film “The King’s Speech.” He was followed by “Saturday Night Live” head writer Seth Meyers."

From CSPAN

Ever since the mid-term elections of 2010, the President has been in full reelection mode. Thinking that if Democrats can lose the House, he could lose the White House just as easily.

And every decision and policy position and speech President Obama has given, has been based on that. Only when President Obama has to take a stand on anything, it's after endless concentrated thought on every possible proposal and idea that's out there. Libya being a perfect example of this and then after finally taking a position on anything.

Watching Barack Obama make up his mind on anything, (from a distance, anyway) is like watching a midget try to tackle an elephant: it is really difficult and painful thing to see that you want it to end and for some resolution to the matter: "If we do this, than that will happen and that will be bad. But if we don't do this, then this could happen and that might be worst". Politicians who try to please everybody tend to be the most unpopular. Because they end up offending everyone. And that is sort of where President Obama is right now.

It's the weakest position possible designed to offend the very least. It's Independent voters that the President is targeting. Meaning that he can’t seem too strong on anything, because he might offend those who look for the middle ground on everything­.

Which means that President Obama ends up doing what he wants the least, which is looking weak. Because he can't figure out what the hell he should do. Right now President Obama who’ve I tended to agree with on foreign and economic policy, is the On the Other Hand President.

President Barack Obama: "Well, if we do this, it could work, but on the other hand if we do this instead, it might work better. And costing the country economically because we have a weak economy that needs strong action".

Sometimes you just got to say, screw it! And do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. That is what leadership is about and what being President of the United States is about. The On the Other Hand Presidency might turn out to be effective leadership in the long-term, but it's definitely weak leadership in the short-term. And costing President Obama popularity and the ability to lead a large divided country.

Fair Economy: David Morris- 'Why You Want Government Running Health, Education, and Defense'

Source:FreeState MD- good look at big government.

Source:FreeState MD 

"This article by David Morris of OnTheCommons.org supports the commonly made argument that privatization is not always the answer because certain services, such as health care, are more cost-effective and better managed by the government. It includes data, examples, and charts supporting this point." 

From Fair Economy 

“President Obama on why the private sector is more efficient than government” 

Source:U.S. Representative Jeff Duncan- President Barack Obama, talking about the government shutdown, in 2013.

From Jeff Duncan 

The title of this article from the AlterNet that I read is called: “Why You Want the Government Running Health, Education and Defense”. No, for real, just look up top incase you missed it. Yet the whole article is about comparing the American health care system with foreign health care systems.

This article had nothing about education and defense. Because I believe this writer understands that the American public education system isn’t very good right now. We’re ranked I believe by the United Nations, and organization that the Left especially the Far-Left puts a lot of faith in, 39th in the World. And no one is calling for privatizing the Defense Department. Except for perhaps Dick Cheney, Ron Paul and Libertarians in the Tea Party.

Another issue I have with the AlterNet article is some of its so-called facts: I know, why would the AlterNet care about fact or let them get in their way of a good ideological argument. But saying that in America the private sector runs our health care system and in the rest of the developed world the public sector runs their health care systems,  is purely false.

Holland, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, Taiwan and Japan (to use as examples) France, Germany, Italy and Japan all being large countries, all have private/ public health care systems. America has a private/public health care system. It’s just different and not nearly as effective as these other countries, with its health insurance.

Socialists like to say that government ownership or management of the economy and other key services, is the best way to go to have the best country possible. And they point to Sweden as their example of how well this system works. Not recognizing or realizing the fact that Sweden has a very large private sector and a lot of their economy is privatized.

What Sweden does have and why I call it a social democracy, well because that is exactly what it is. (Speaking of facts) But what they have is a very large welfare state (at least by American standards) with very generous benefits financed through high taxes. (Again, at least by American standards) In other words, the Swedish Government or Swedish Socialists tax most of their people’s money away, so they can give that money back to take care of them. Or another way of putting it, they tax people to death and them bring them back to life with their own money.

The economy’s that work best are the economy’s that privatize most of their economy, but regulate them well to prevent and punish abuses. That has unlimited fair and open competition and a substantial and affordable safety net for people who fall through the cracks. That empowers them to get on their feet.

America used to have an economy like this, but we moved away from it and look where we are now. What doesn’t work well in an economy are monopolies, whether they are public or private. Where Big Government, “my people are essentially if not officially, because my public school monopoly doesn’t teach them very well. So what I have to do is take most of their money from them to prevent them from spending it unwisely, to take care of them”. And you can just look at the former Soviet Union, or Cuba or North Korea today.

What also doesn’t work well is what I and others would call “cowboy capitalism”. Which is capitalism with essentially no rules or the rules aren’t enforced. Or the referees are paid off and essentially taking coffee breaks over at the closest Starbucks from the stadium the whole game and they allow whatever to happen to happen, the free market being everything that is. Except that it is not free when the government at taxpayers expense pays these companies for the hell of it, who play by no rules. And I give you the Bush Administration of 2001-2009 as the only example I need. And look at where we are today.

Government should let the people be free to live their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Thats the economy that works the best, freedom with responsibility.

I don’t and I imagine most Americans don’t want a Federal, or for that matter a state, country or municipal babysitter (meaning government) to take care of us, for us, at of course our expense. Big Government to its taxpayers: “Give me your money, so I can take care of you for you.” Uh no, just give the people the tools they need in life to be successful and allow for them to take care of themselves. Freedom and responsibility: reward good behavior and discourage bad behavior.