Romney slams Obama, reflects on elect...

Romney slams Obama, reflects on election loss

There are 491 comments on the USA Today story from Mar 3, 2013, titled Romney slams Obama, reflects on election loss. In it, USA Today reports that:

Mitt Romney criticized President Obama for playing politics on the automatic budget cuts known as the sequester, in his first post-election TV interview.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#256 Mar 8, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I used to listen to Howard Stern, but I couldn't put up with his leftist views any longer. I still have my satellite radio because I enjoy the political channels and music.
That being said, it's an eye-opener when a leftist like Howard actually does something like this. Now, if Bill O' or Hannity came out with this, I could understand your skepticism.
You are correct on one thing: we don't vote for a candidate because we like what he or she is about. We vote to keep the opposing candidate out.
I have a lot of trouble with 'entertainers' being taken as credible news sources. I care if they are left wing, or right wing like Limbaugh, who at one time called him self an 'entertainer'. Stern seems hard to place he could be more libertarian than left.
The theatrics that source uses in presenting information is usually in inverse proportional to the accuracy, and stern is a showman first

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#258 Mar 8, 2013
Sundown wrote:
<quoted text>For now we will but puke like you won't last so FO racist azzwipe.
Incoherent babble.

Get lost, junior.
hal

Maringouin, LA

#259 Mar 8, 2013
Marine Corp Pat wrote:
The best part of the 2012 Election is that we got the evangelicals to vote for a Mormon… and he still lost. You right-wing Christians are going to Hell for supporting a Mormon. I am still celebrating that great victory when ‘We the People’ re-elected President Obama in spite of high unemployment a stagnant economy. There was no way that you fools should have lost… but then again you should never bet against Black, LOL!
I truly believe that the moment President Obama single-handedly found and killed Osama bin Laden was the moment he sealed the deal for his re-election. How in the world could the American people not re-elect the President who brought Bin Laden to justice?
Game, Set, Match!
MARINE IMPOSTER-you are a coward that sucks odummy root!yes this ahole is trying to make you believe hes a marine when in fact hes a yellow dog that never served period!!!
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#260 Mar 8, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
I have a lot of trouble with 'entertainers' being taken as credible news sources. I care if they are left wing, or right wing like Limbaugh, who at one time called him self an 'entertainer'. Stern seems hard to place he could be more libertarian than left.
The theatrics that source uses in presenting information is usually in inverse proportional to the accuracy, and stern is a showman first
Rush is an entertainer, and yes, does have a bias. So does Howard Stern. If he were an entertainer first, he wouldn't have a bias because he would be more concerned about a larger audience than he would about his political views.

Stern is approaching retirement. He signed a five-year renewal contract with Serius. He doesn't care how many people listen to him anymore. That's why he's being so overt about his political views now. He wasn't like that on his way up the ladder. If he talked politics back then, it was pretty even for both sides.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#261 Mar 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he's not been a "huge success in life." He was staked by a rich and powerful father to an elite education and a start in business, much the same way George Bush Jr. was. They're typical of the kind of spoiled rich boy who, as the saying goes,'started life on third base and grew up believing they'd hit a triple.'
CEOs don't "perform" much of anything. At best they bring in good people who make most of the decisions, while they oversee said decisions. Their boards vote them huge, bloated compensation packages and they are set for life - even if fired, they usually have golden parachutes and get another CEO or similar job soon after. They are an overpaid privileged class who produce very little.
Mr. Obama worked his way to the top, had a decent first term, and was perceived as the better choice. While not ideal, I believe he was as well.
FWIW
ps - please don't make up stuff about the loss of our credit rating. It was entirely the fault of an obstructionist, Republican House.
Well factcheck.org disagrees with you:

‘Downgraded America’

Ryan faulted Obama for a credit downgrade for which Ryan’s own party shares equal responsibility. Ryan said that “a presidency that began with such anticipation now comes to such a disappointing close,” adding:

Ryan, Aug. 29:[Obama's presidency] began with a perfect AAA credit rating for the United States; it ends with the downgraded America.

Ryan refers to the decision of Standard & Poor’s, the credit rating agency, to downgrade its score for U.S. Treasury obligations from AAA to AA+ on Aug. 5, 2011. That took place just four days after Congress voted to raise the federal debt ceiling, following lengthy negotiations in which House Republicans sought to force concessions from Obama and Senate Democrats as the price for raising the ceiling and averting the first default on Treasury debt payments in U.S. history.

In its report, Standard & Poor’s blamed both Republicans and Democrats for failing to come to agreement on spending cuts or revenue increases sufficient to reduce U.S. deficits significantly. It said:

S&P, Aug. 5, 2011: The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.…

Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee [of Congress] decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spi...
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#262 Mar 8, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he's not been a "huge success in life." He was staked by a rich and powerful father to an elite education and a start in business, much the same way George Bush Jr. was. They're typical of the kind of spoiled rich boy who, as the saying goes,'started life on third base and grew up believing they'd hit a triple.'
CEOs don't "perform" much of anything. At best they bring in good people who make most of the decisions, while they oversee said decisions. Their boards vote them huge, bloated compensation packages and they are set for life - even if fired, they usually have golden parachutes and get another CEO or similar job soon after. They are an overpaid privileged class who produce very little.
Mr. Obama worked his way to the top, had a decent first term, and was perceived as the better choice. While not ideal, I believe he was as well.
Sorry for the double reply, but the last one was running out of characters.

CEO's are paid just like any other worker in a company.

If you operate a drill press for a living, and your boss is paying you $14.00 per hour plus benefits, it's because he can sell your work for $35.00 per hour. There is no other way he can justify paying you that kind of money simply for operating a drill press.

Romney may have had a head start, but what about all those other CEO's who didn't? You don't respect them for their work and consider their contributions not much of anything? No company pays a person to be not much of anything. That's only in movies that you watch on television where the balding uppity guy is practicing putts in his oversized office.

If a company is paying a person 5 million dollars a year, it's because he produced 7 million or more per year for the company. When that person is not so successful, he is still paid (as you stated) because he is not an hourly worker. That pay is part of his contract win, lose or draw.

So if your favorite baseball team agrees to pay a star pitcher 5 million dollars a year, and he's a lousy pitcher for the duration of his contract, he still gets his 5 million dollars a year. Same holds true of a rock-n-roll band who previously had hit releases, but can no longer produce music that sells to large amounts of people. Or perhaps you anxiously went to see a movie because of a star actress, and the movie ends up being a flop. She still gets paid the millions promised to her whether the movie is a hit or a flop.

Business is no different. You have to have a pretty outstanding business record to ask for that kind of money. And if you don't pay that CEO that kind of money, your competitor will be happy to, and put you under water.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#263 Mar 8, 2013
Mykro wrote:
<quoted text>Right on bro. Let's run the country just like Enron and have the financial institutions sell us all the derivatives they can. That's the way to run the country.
Now all they have to do is explain what derivatives really are.
I think what you need to do is get a copy of all the businesses that share stocks with the public. Circle all the failures, and then calculate the percentage of successful companies.

Now do the same thing, except instead of gathering all the companies in the stock market, create a list of all the social programs and government run operations. Then take a pen and circle all the successful ones, and calculate the percentage of all successful government entities.

Yeah, that is too much work. But based on what you read in the paper, how much you want to bet that government has more programs in jeopardy, more failures, and more waste of money than that of private businesses?

We elect to deal with Enron because it's an option. We have no choice but to contribute to government unless you're a lowlife living on the dole. Do you think that if government allowed public trading for the Post Office, Amtrack, Medicare or Social Security, many people would take a chance on such investments?
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#264 Mar 8, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry for the double reply, but the last one was running out of characters.
CEO's are paid just like any other worker in a company.
If you operate a drill press for a living, and your boss is paying you $14.00 per hour plus benefits, it's because he can sell your work for $35.00 per hour. There is no other way he can justify paying you that kind of money simply for operating a drill press.
Romney may have had a head start, but what about all those other CEO's who didn't? You don't respect them for their work and consider their contributions not much of anything? No company pays a person to be not much of anything. That's only in movies that you watch on television where the balding uppity guy is practicing putts in his oversized office.
If a company is paying a person 5 million dollars a year, it's because he produced 7 million or more per year for the company. When that person is not so successful, he is still paid (as you stated) because he is not an hourly worker. That pay is part of his contract win, lose or draw.
So if your favorite baseball team agrees to pay a star pitcher 5 million dollars a year, and he's a lousy pitcher for the duration of his contract, he still gets his 5 million dollars a year. Same holds true of a rock-n-roll band who previously had hit releases, but can no longer produce music that sells to large amounts of people. Or perhaps you anxiously went to see a movie because of a star actress, and the movie ends up being a flop. She still gets paid the millions promised to her whether the movie is a hit or a flop.
Business is no different. You have to have a pretty outstanding business record to ask for that kind of money. And if you don't pay that CEO that kind of money, your competitor will be happy to, and put you under water.
Damn straight!

Signed,

Bernie Madoff, Bernie Ebbers, Ken Lay, Andy Fastow, Jeff Skilling, Dennis Kozlowski, Angelo Mozilo, etal.....
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#265 Mar 8, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what you need to do is get a copy of all the businesses that share stocks with the public. Circle all the failures, and then calculate the percentage of successful companies.
Now do the same thing, except instead of gathering all the companies in the stock market, create a list of all the social programs and government run operations. Then take a pen and circle all the successful ones, and calculate the percentage of all successful government entities.
Yeah, that is too much work. But based on what you read in the paper, how much you want to bet that government has more programs in jeopardy, more failures, and more waste of money than that of private businesses?
We elect to deal with Enron because it's an option. We have no choice but to contribute to government unless you're a lowlife living on the dole. Do you think that if government allowed public trading for the Post Office, Amtrack, Medicare or Social Security, many people would take a chance on such investments?
One of bushie's plans was to privatize SS and put the money into the stock market son.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#266 Mar 8, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what you need to do is get a copy of all the businesses that share stocks with the public. Circle all the failures, and then calculate the percentage of successful companies.
Now do the same thing, except instead of gathering all the companies in the stock market, create a list of all the social programs and government run operations. Then take a pen and circle all the successful ones, and calculate the percentage of all successful government entities.
Yeah, that is too much work. But based on what you read in the paper, how much you want to bet that government has more programs in jeopardy, more failures, and more waste of money than that of private businesses?
We elect to deal with Enron because it's an option. We have no choice but to contribute to government unless you're a lowlife living on the dole. Do you think that if government allowed public trading for the Post Office, Amtrack, Medicare or Social Security, many people would take a chance on such investments?
Actually, you can can trade on Medicare. Not as a direct investment but close enough.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#267 Mar 8, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Well factcheck.org disagrees with you:
‘Downgraded America’
Ryan faulted Obama for a credit downgrade for which Ryan’s own party shares equal responsibility. Ryan said that “a presidency that began with such anticipation now comes to such a disappointing close,” adding:
Ryan, Aug. 29:[Obama's presidency] began with a perfect AAA credit rating for the United States; it ends with the downgraded America.
Ryan refers to the decision of Standard & Poor’s, the credit rating agency, to downgrade its score for U.S. Treasury obligations from AAA to AA+ on Aug. 5, 2011. That took place just four days after Congress voted to raise the federal debt ceiling, following lengthy negotiations in which House Republicans sought to force concessions from Obama and Senate Democrats as the price for raising the ceiling and averting the first default on Treasury debt payments in U.S. history.
In its report, Standard & Poor’s blamed both Republicans and Democrats for failing to come to agreement on spending cuts or revenue increases sufficient to reduce U.S. deficits significantly. It said:
S&P, Aug. 5, 2011: The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy.…
Republicans and Democrats have only been able to agree to relatively modest savings on discretionary spending while delegating to the Select Committee [of Congress] decisions on more comprehensive measures. It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spi...
It's interesting that you chose a section called "Ryan's VP Spin."

It's hilarious reading.....

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#268 Mar 9, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>One of bushie's plans was to privatize SS and put the money into the stock market son.
Investment accounts pookie.......but twisting in the wind is what you low invormation voters do.

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#270 Mar 9, 2013
Sundown wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, everything you post is useless babble much like your golfing incoherent Kenyan usurper. I agree you should get lost and stay lost but then again you voted for a loser so you already are lost.
Juvenile banter by a braindead neo-con...

Surprised? No.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#271 Mar 9, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Investment accounts pookie.......but twisting in the wind is what you low invormation voters do.
lol! Then it's a good thing we have more information that you, eh son?

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#272 Mar 9, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Rush is an entertainer, and yes, does have a bias. So does Howard Stern. If he were an entertainer first, he wouldn't have a bias because he would be more concerned about a larger audience than he would about his political views.
Stern is approaching retirement. He signed a five-year renewal contract with Serius. He doesn't care how many people listen to him anymore. That's why he's being so overt about his political views now. He wasn't like that on his way up the ladder. If he talked politics back then, it was pretty even for both sides.
no entertainer should be taken as a real news source. I don't give a damn what politics they are pushing.
When confronted with their inaccurate statements they hide behind statements like..."I am only and entertainer"...or...'Rode o clown'...
It seems the acceptance of entertainers as news sources has advanced hand in hand with the acceptance of conspiracy theory... What country was the President born in?.....
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#273 Mar 9, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>One of bushie's plans was to privatize SS and put the money into the stock market son.
No..... one of Bushie's plans was to allow the individual the option of putting a fraction of their SS contributions in their own growth fund be it the stock market or wherever. In other words, add that little bit of money to your personal IRA. After all, it will be the people with large IRA's that will allow them to live comfortably through their golden years. Those on SS alone will live in poverty.

You see, if I retire at 65, and in the process of blowing out my birthday candles at my party, die of a heart attack, my family gets what I worked for my entire life.

I have no children, so my niece and nephew will get the lions share. They will inherit my houses, my very expensive guitars, my car, my IRA, all the money in my bank accounts and so on. What they won't see a penny of is my SS contributions. All that money my employers and I contributed will be gone like a thief in the night.

Had the Democrats not fought Bush's SS plan, some of that money would be the property of my family instead of the property of the government. It was a great idea. The problem for the Democrats was that once people who took that option watched their money grow, they would demand that they allow us to take even a higher percentage out of SS for our own accounts. Eventually, SS would be a thing of the past within the next several generations.

As we both know, Democrats stay in power because of public dependency. Taking control over our own retirement weakens that dependency which is not good for the Democrats. After all, if we all took care of ourselves, who needs Democrats?

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#274 Mar 9, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>No..... one of Bushie's plans was to allow the individual the option of putting a fraction of their SS contributions in their own growth fund be it the stock market or wherever. In other words, add that little bit of money to your personal IRA. After all, it will be the people with large IRA's that will allow them to live comfortably through their golden years. Those on SS alone will live in poverty.

You see, if I retire at 65, and in the process of blowing out my birthday candles at my party, die of a heart attack, my family gets what I worked for my entire life.

I have no children, so my niece and nephew will get the lions share. They will inherit my houses, my very expensive guitars, my car, my IRA, all the money in my bank accounts and so on. What they won't see a penny of is my SS contributions. All that money my employers and I contributed will be gone like a thief in the night.

Had the Democrats not fought Bush's SS plan, some of that money would be the property of my family instead of the property of the government. It was a great idea. The problem for the Democrats was that once people who took that option watched their money grow, they would demand that they allow us to take even a higher percentage out of SS for our own accounts. Eventually, SS would be a thing of the past within the next several generations.

As we both know, Democrats stay in power because of public dependency. Taking control over our own retirement weakens that dependency which is not good for the Democrats. After all, if we all took care of ourselves, who needs Democrats?
Privatizing social security and depending on the fkn stock market to fund your future????

Are you fkn kidding me??!!?!?

You are just not using your brain, if you had one.
Bush didn't give two shits about social security...He's a fkn oil tycoon. But little old lady across the street does care.

Give it up. You're too dumb for words.
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

#275 Mar 9, 2013
Black Rhino wrote:
<quoted text>
Privatizing social security and depending on the fkn stock market to fund your future????
Are you fkn kidding me??!!?!?
You are just not using your brain, if you had one.
Bush didn't give two shits about social security...He's a fkn oil tycoon. But little old lady across the street does care.
Give it up. You're too dumb for words.
I have bad news for you, and that is SS is going broke in it's current form. Laugh that I depend on my own investments for my retirement, but you want to depend on government? The same government where most of their programs have failed or are about to fail?

Let me ask: if you needed serious surgery; surgery that would affect the rest of your life, would you look for the worst possible surgeon for your operation? If not, then why depend on government to handle your personal affairs such as retirement?
Brad

Manchester, CT

#276 Mar 9, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I have bad news for you, and that is SS is going broke in it's current form. Laugh that I depend on my own investments for my retirement, but you want to depend on government? The same government where most of their programs have failed or are about to fail?
Let me ask: if you needed serious surgery; surgery that would affect the rest of your life, would you look for the worst possible surgeon for your operation? If not, then why depend on government to handle your personal affairs such as retirement?
Exactly.
You don't take your pet to the vet with the lowest success rate,even if they're the cheapest.

“Bullsh*% Detector Enabled”

Since: Dec 08

Brooklyn, New York

#277 Mar 9, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>I have bad news for you, and that is SS is going broke in it's current form. Laugh that I depend on my own investments for my retirement, but you want to depend on government? The same government where most of their programs have failed or are about to fail?

Let me ask: if you needed serious surgery; surgery that would affect the rest of your life, would you look for the worst possible surgeon for your operation? If not, then why depend on government to handle your personal affairs such as retirement?
Your neo-con babble is entertaining but hardly factual.

CDs, some off shore accounts are going to insure my retirement so I'm all set, champ...

Social security has always been a target for republicans because they don't want to have to pay hard working Americans when we get old, nothing more...Cheap ass misers is all that adds up to.

You go ahead and depend on those "smart investments" in the stock market...That's like betting on horses... LOL!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Kerry Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kerry cancels plan to return to US to stay at I... May 31 Guest 6
News Government officials issue warning to military ... May 7 Tazo 1
News Pope Francis acknowledges State of Palestine (May '14) Apr '15 swedenforever 169
News Business Leaders See Progress Amid Uncertainty ... (Dec '09) Apr '15 Long Darby 31
News US Congress concerned over Turkey's drift from ... Apr '15 SpaceBlues 37
News Report claims Valerie Jarrett leaked Clinton's ... Mar '15 Cordwainer Trout 2
News Hillary Clinton emails: Did she do anything wro... Mar '15 Le Duped 92
More from around the web