world

Romney considering 3rd run for White House

40 Comments
By STEVE PEOPLES and PHILIP ELLIOTT

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

40 Comments
Login to comment

I imagine running to become the Republican presidential candidate would be an absolute minefield. Trying to balance the full range of views from moderate Republicans to the more extreme tea party end of things - not easy, especially in a game where if you make one mistake or annoy one group of people, your opponents will use it to mercilessly attack you. How can anyone appeal to different elements within a party that have opposing views (this applies to all parties)? No wonder politicians these days seem to talk a lot, but avoid actually saying anything. It can be very frustrating.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Mitt is a good man. I imagine many Americans are regretting re-electing the current president. The economy remains the biggest issue to most people. I can't understand why they elected and re-elected a man who has no experience running or managing so much as a lemonade stand.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

Doners for GOP candidate are looking for a person who can be elected and they are not interested in competing Obama as Obama is done now. Hilary hasn't declared but either Bush or Ron Paul. Then Mitt came out. Who will be their running mate will change their fate. Bush has more chance as this is new and he has no record of disappointing big doners. Ditto with Ron Paul. I an sure big doners do not waste their money this time.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Mitt Romney would have been a FAR better president than the present and previous buffoons. But, I don't think he should run again. If he does decide to run, I hope he wins.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

The only problem is that they all look good under the bright lights, it is only afterwards that reality hits and we are all left drowning in voter regret.

I'd have to say that Obama has been a bit (well more than a bit) of a disappointment. Too much the jellyfish on some issues, totally ignorant on others. Then again, the other side of the aisle have an equal number of buffoons.

Should Mitt run again? Third time lucky? Does that happen in politics? Perhaps his desire to run is a form of perverted addition? Is he a spotlight junkie or just another media whore like some many of our leaders?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Oh, please: Bring. It. On. Mitt was wrong for 2012 and is wrong for 2016. Aside from all of his past baggage, not only will the answer to the question "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" be a resounding "Yes!", but so will it be to the question, "Is America performing superiorly to the European economies that adopted the austerity policies that Romney and the GOP supported then and still support?"

6 ( +8 / -2 )

@toshiko--don't you mean Donner? Is it legal for Santa to tell his employees how to vote?

On Donor, and (Hans) Blixen, and Vixen, and Nixon...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ralph Nader is the only one.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I can't understand why they elected and re-elected a man who has no experience running or managing so much as a lemonade stand.

As president running for re-election, you have several years' experience as president. Are you so shy and retiring that you wouldn't count the most senior position you'd ever held as something that belongs on your resume?

It could just be that Romney was unpalatable to a lot of people - his comment about the 47% certainly wasn't well received, and he didn't do much to limit the damage. Even he acknowledged later that it was disastrous: "That hurt. There's no question that hurt and did real damage to my campaign"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"- his comment about the 47% certainly wasn't well received, and he didn't do much to limit the damage."

It was, however, the truth.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Aside from not paying income tax (in most cases - and this ignores the myriad other taxes this group DOES pay) - and that Romney viewed average working people as below his purview - John Gault, what veracity do you find in this statement?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Glad we dodged that bullet twice. Romney would have made for a disastrous presidency but still better than any of the other GOP @ssh@ats.. Ryan, Rubio, Paul and Cruz.

Might like to see Jindal or Bush run.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna

John Gault, what veracity do you find in this statement?

Our Randian friend believes that those who do not achieve wealth are lazy slobs who do not 'take personal responsibility and care for their lives'. Apparently, such people should live in shame. Poverty is a self-inflicted wound exacerbated by government intervention. This is the libertarian justification for the haves to screw the have nots. The sad thing is that a lot of working class and underemployed (especially white males) fall for this rotten macho fantasy.

Romney would be a disaster for the country, but probably less of a disaster than some of the other GOP clowns in the upcoming circus. That's the reality of today's political climate in the US.

Besides tax cuts for the uber wealthy, what other proposals do these people have? Increased military spending? The magical Keystone pipeline? Taking away affordable health insurance? Abolishing the IRS, the Department of Education, and the EPA? Defunding NPR?

That said, I am not a Hillary fan, and I hope someone steps up to push for responsible liberal, progressive government that can be a catalyst for working people's investment and participation in a just societal growth.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

if it were not for Obama being a bad as he is, Mitt wouldn't even think about running again. As much as it must pain American liberals, Obama is the BEST thing that has happened for Mitt and every other Republican.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

As a Chai Latte slurping, Birkenstock clad, Dirty F. Hippie I'd rather see Mitt as Prez that Madame AIPAC, the Wicked Witch of Wall Street. Better a genuine Republican than one who mouths leftish values while ramming home the Corporate elitists agenda.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"I'm not familiar precisely with what I said, but I'll stand by what I said, whatever it was." - Mitt Romney, May 17, 2012.......As always Mitt R is clear as a bell.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Do run, Rom Rom. Do run Rom. And tell us what planet Jesus lives on.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This is awesome. I hope he runs.

Mick Huckabee is running a presidential exploratory campaign that will suck the air out of Rick Santorum's campaign if he runs.

They all suck, and will suck the air out of each others' campaigns.

The GOP field in 2012 was nothing more than a standup clown comedy lineup.

I heard some people mistakenly thought they were presidential candidates, haha :-)

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

WTH ? OMG ! And I thought R money was done ! Wonder what sort of gaffes he will come up with this time around ? Oh, well . . . Madame President, get used to it guys !

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"I'm not familiar precisely with what I said, but I'll stand by what I said, whatever it was." - Mitt Romney"

Yeah, that was in response to a question asking him if he stood by what he said concerning the awful Rev Jeremiah Wright who was Obama's pastor for 20 years. Romney didn't remember precisely what he said in that particular interview, but he was apparently fairly confident that he didn't say anything he wouldn't stand by.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

€€SenseNotSoCommonJAN. 10, 2015 - 07:38PM JST Do run, Rom Rom. Do run Rom. And tell us what planet Jesus lives on.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Sounds like current Hillary supporter telling now.They never said like that for Jeb.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Romeny ran a pretty good campaign. He said everything the right wanted to hear during the primary, then flip-flopped on everything during the election to gain moderates. I'm not exactly sure where he stands on anything, and that's the blueprint for a Republican to get elected.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh, please: Bring. It. On. Mitt was wrong for 2012 and is wrong for 2016.

Lol! Obama was wrong 2008 and 2011 and we still have

Aside from all of his past baggage, not only will the answer to the question "Are you better off than you were eight years ago?" be a resounding "Yes!", but so will it be to the question, "Is America performing superiorly to the European economies that adopted the austerity policies that Romney and the GOP supported then and still support?"

That depends on who you ask. For people like me, I'm doing very well, but for the person that is making less than $30,000 then probably the answer changes quite significantly. Hmmm, still NO sign of High skill paying jobs yet.

Aside from not paying income tax (in most cases - and this ignores the myriad other taxes this group DOES pay) - and that Romney viewed average working people as below his purview - John Gault, what veracity do you find in this statement?

You seriously want to dabble into that water about his taxes. As I recall Mr. Tim "tax cheat" Geitner, Tom Daschle, Charlie Rangel, Claire McCaskill, the Clinton's at times have been a little questionable and then there is my absolute favorite: Al Sharpton. So before you go throwing the Saint act of Liberal Dems, please be sure to tell the whole truth, but then again, Dems and liberals can point and wave the finger all day at Conservatives, but have a complete tizzy fit when the finger is pointed right back at them? As far as the average working people, tell me how are Blacks and Hispanics doing financially these days in the Obama economy?

Romney would be a disaster for the country, but probably less of a disaster than some of the other GOP clowns in the upcoming circus. That's the reality of today's political climate in the US.

There is NO way on God's green Earth that Romney would be worse than Obama. ROFL At least Romney HAS a resume for CREATING jobs and a long one. What is Obama's resume besides racking up debt, being the largest TAX president in US history?

Romeny ran a pretty good campaign. He said everything the right wanted to hear during the primary, then flip-flopped on everything during the election to gain moderates. I'm not exactly sure where he stands on anything, and that's the blueprint for a Republican to get elected.

Flip Flop? You are joking right? Libs sure have very, very short memories.

All I have to say on that issue is this:

http://youtu.be/FvVR3FjyoR8

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The US and the world would be a much better place had Romney won the last election instead of Obama. Obama will go down in history as one of the worst US presidents ever. He is out of his depth.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@a realist

Definitely.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Obama is already one of the best presidents in history, and still has two years in which he will only improve his legacy. If you guys didn't live in a bubble, you would realize that.

For people like me, I'm doing very well, but for the person that is making less than $30,000 then probably the answer changes quite significantly.

According to you, you live in Japan. So your financial standing is irrelevant, as it's not the product of Obama's policies.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama is already one of the best presidents in history, and still has two years in which he will only improve his legacy. If you guys didn't live in a bubble, you would realize that.

How so? Living in a bubble, more like some people desperately need to get out of the partisan bubble. Where and what makes Obama the greatest president? Because he's Black? Because he got a Nobel peace prize? Because he got OBL, because he created low income jobs, because of his fantastic...ahem foreign policy...yipes! Because the economy got better partially because of States run by powerful governors? Perry, Kasich, Walker? Maybe...

According to you, you live in Japan.

6 months out of the year, correct.

So your financial standing is irrelevant, as it's not the product of Obama's policies.

Yeah, it is, but I'm financially in the upper class bracket and in my line of work, I have always done well, but for many people that live in States like California and Nevada over 7% and how about Black unemployment rate 13.8% and for Whites 4.8% his policies have been anything BUT productive overall.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

How so?

A quick google gave me 276 accomplishments: http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/. I won't bother posting them all here. You would just deny them all anyways, as you do every time you are faced with a list of his awesomeness. As I said, you live in a bubble.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Imagine, for a second, that as governor of Massachusetts back in 2006 you had signed into law a bill that mandated universal health insurance for the first time ever in a mainland US state. Wouldn't you brag about such an accomplishment every day? Wouldn't you want the whole world to know what you made possible?

Mitt Romney, the guy who actually did that, would prefer to think that it never happened. This was a tremendous, history-making, positive achievement--right up there with Saskatchewan Premier Tommy Douglas and his pioneering efforts to introduce universal health care in that Canadian province back in the 1960s. There was resistance to Douglas and his policies--doctors in Saskatchewan actually went on strike in 1962. But eventually the system was accepted and went national in Canada by the early 1970s. A few years ago, Douglas (the grandfather of actor Kiefer Sutherland) was chosen as the greatest Canadian of the 20th century in a poll of Canadian respondents--ahead of Wayne Gretzky.

This is why Romney is going nowhere. Thinking that intolerant, red-meat, right win Republicans will regard his own "Romneycare" as something toxic and evil rather than actually good, he's let other people decide how he should feel about his OWN accomplishments as a politician. Highlighting his role as a pioneering agent of "creative destruction" in the world of private equity vulture funds sure seems like a weird thing to emphasize rather than helping uninsured sick people in a US state.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

bass

the largest TAX president in US history

Please support that assertion. Except for a few new taxes on people refusing to get health insurance, on medicare for the rich, and on tanning salons, Obama's record on taxes is not particularly different from his nearest predecessors. Here are the income tax rates for someone making $373,650 (in today's money):

Eisenhower -- 72%

Reagan's first 7 years -- 70% / 50% / 38.5%

Clinton -- 39.6% (the boom years!)

GW Bush -- 38.6% / 35% (lowest job creation in decades, then crash!)

Current rate under Obama -- 35% / 39.6% (growth increasing post raise)

Please explain how you have concluded that Obama is 'the largest TAX president in US history'? As a journalist, you should be able to give some facts to back up your claims. And try doing so without using the word 'liberal' in your next post. Liberalism and conservatism are two sides of the same coin -- both are necessary for mature thinking. I've never used the word 'conservative' as a pejorative, as you do with the word 'liberal'.

I am not one to assign full credit or blame to any president or governor for economic success or failure. Economists will tell you it's much more complicated than that. But since you want to blame all the world's problems on one bogeyman, I'll blow some holes in your 'reasoning'.

What is Obama's resume

--64 straight months of economic expansion

--achieved a 5.6% unemployment rate in his sixth year. During Reagan's sixth year, the US had 7.1% unemployment. It did not get down to the mid-low 6% range until a year later. I understand that most of these jobs are low paying, but since when has the current GOP been interested in paying employees a fair wage anyway?

--investor growth has been 220% during Obama's tenure. This is unprecedented for any president in history.

--manufacturing in the US has significantly increased

--10 million more people have health insurance. Health insurance lowers health care costs, despite what some pundits might tell you. Health insurance is good. Health insurance is your friend.

I have some other facts for you if you like. But then again, you're not too fond of facts as they get in the way of your dedication to hating all things Obama.

the economy got better partially because of States run by powerful governors? Perry, Kasich, Walker?

But when it gets worse it's the president's fault. Sam Brownback anyone?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It would be interesting if the more conservative members on this board would point to some concrete policy proposals rather than simply piling on Obama. For example, the stagnation of worker wages (particularly when compared to worker share of productivity gains and in terms of corporate and upper-class income) is a foremost problem of our generation. Do you conservatives support the GOP in its opposition to bringing the minimum wage back to historical levels, thus helping the poorest? Do you agree with Walker's "right to work" law and other GOP proposals that would cripple unions, damaging middle-class income growth?

Romney would probably be straight with the GOP on both of these points. If you conservatives think essentially eliminating the minimum wage and destroying unions is the best way to increase worker incomes, good luck defending that argument in 2016.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I understand that most of these jobs are low paying, but since when has the current GOP been interested in paying employees a fair wage anyway?

You mean, the GOP should just forget about the budget costs,vent worry about taxes or anything and just people whatever they want and maybe pass the increase taxes to the consumer, in the example for food, you are ok paying $10 for a burger at Mc Donald's? How about earning a trade or skill, get some expierence, after graduating high school, if you don't have the cash or your parents can't help you, wait a few years, earn and save money, once you have Aquired a valuable skill, make money, save it and then go college or university, get your degree, now you be more valuable as an employee, so you are on your way to getting a HIGH paying job and making more, a lot more money. Congratulations, you just learned how to fish for life instead of someone giving you a fish everyday.

At the same time spending and NOT personal spending by the administration is up and from what I've been reading: $791 billion over 10 years, according to the Senate and House Budget Committee Republican analysis. It would add $8.3 trillion to the debt over 10 years. It would never balance. In other words, we are printing more money. So short term result, it looks good. Long term- it's very bad for the economy. When you have an economy where a vast majority of people don't feel like it's flowing well, you have a problem.

The federal government drove $789,473,350,613.20 deeper into debt in calendar year 2014, an increase that equaled $6,875 per household, $7,458 per full-time year-round worker, and $8,853 per full-time year-round private-sector worker. According to the Treasury, the debt started calendar year 2014 at $17,351,970,784,950.10 and ended it at $18,141,444,135,563.30.

When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since then, it has increased $7,514,567,086,650.22–which is $65,443 per household, $70,985 per full-time worker and $84,266 per full-time private-sector worker.

In 2013, according to the Census Bureau there were 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States. The $789,473,350,613.20 increase in the federal debt during 2014 worked out to $7,457.57 for each of those full-time year-round workers.

Those 105,862,000 full-time year-round workers included 16,685,000 federal, state and local government workers and 89,177,000 private-sector workers. The $789,473,350,613.20 in new federal debt in 2014 equaled $8,852.88 for each of the 89,177,000 full-time private-sector workers in the country.

As of December 2013, there were 114,826,000 households in the country, according to the Census Bureau. The $789,473,350,613.20 in new debt equaled $6,875.39 per household.

Ten years ago, at the end of 2004, the federal debt was $7,596,142,802,424.14. Since then, it has grown by $10,545,301,333,139.16—an average pace of $1,054,530,133,313.92 per year.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bass

You mean, the GOP should just forget about the budget costs,vent worry about taxes or anything and just people whatever they want and maybe pass the increase taxes to the consumer, in the example for food, you are ok paying $10 for a burger at Mc Donald's?

I'm sorry. Please translate. I'm guessing you mean higher wages means higher costs to the consumer. But a larger trend in higher wages also means consumers can afford to pay more. That's called economic health. Not just rich people buying more yachts. If people can't afford to eat at McDonalds, then there's some serious problems going on.

How about earning a trade or skill, get some expierence, after graduating high school, if you don't have the cash or your parents can't help you, wait a few years, earn and save money, once you have Aquired a valuable skill, make money, save it and then go college or university, get your degree, now you be more valuable as an employee, so you are on your way to getting a HIGH paying job and making more, a lot more money. Congratulations, you just learned how to fish for life instead of someone giving you a fish everyday.

Right. But you you were complaining that most of the new job recently created were low paying. And now you're saying these people should forget about the low wages and work themselves up the ladder.

When you have an economy where a vast majority of people don't feel like it's flowing well, you have a problem.

Feelings about how things are going. Brought to you by Fox.

I thought you think people shouldn't depend on the government for their economic health. So why are you whining about Obama all the time? In the Republican view, are high paying jobs doled out by the President of the United States? I look forward to your answer.

As for your debt rant, I understand. Debt is up and seems to be in need of addressing. But:

1) according to my humble awareness, that is not the cause of any economic malaise. Please explain to me if I am wrong. I am not an economist or journalist, so I would appreciate your insight.

2) do you think military spending on useless wars is part of the equation? Again, please explain.

One more thing. You have consistently ranked Obama as the worst president in American history. From your historical expertise, who are the five worst presidents in American history?

Then we can move on to the GOP's grand vision for the future of America and how it aligns with our flawless founding fathers' design.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

--investor growth has been 220% during Obama's tenure. This is unprecedented for any president in history.

Ok, so now the real truth.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-obama-care/122914-732483-obamacare-rings-in-new-year-with-gloom-for-small-business.htm

--manufacturing in the US has significantly increased Many people in oil industry need jobs, creating parts and other tools, high paying jobs in partial thanks to the Republican governors for their contribution towards helping revive the economy and for increasing the output in the manufacturing industry.

--10 million more people have health insurance. Health insurance lowers health care costs, despite what some pundits might tell you. Health insurance is good. Health insurance is your friend.

Despite the government's push to get Americans enrolled in health-care plans, a significant number remain uninsured. About 13.4 percent of U.S. adults lacked health insurance in April, according to a Gallup poll. For lower-income households earning less than $36,000, the rate was much higher, with one out of four lacking insurance.

Yeah, right. Ok, some now some facts, yet again...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/23/obamacare-problems_n_5611423.html

And this is coming from the Ariana Huffington! Whoa!!!

I have some other facts for you if you like. But then again, you're not too fond of facts as they get in the way of your dedication to hating all things Obama.

No, I just don't like to hear ONLY liberal partisan talking points from his majesty and the people that follow him.

the economy got better partially because of States run by powerful governors? Perry, Kasich, Walker?

But when it gets worse it's the president's fault. Sam Brownback anyone?

Gee, when did Obama take the blame on anything in the last 6 years? NOT one liberal every came out and said anything, but now all of a sudden, every lib wants to scream at the mountain tops his majesty just performed an economical miracle?? I'd have a lot more respect for libs if they take the good with the bad, but they just want the good

That's called economic health. Not just rich people buying more yachts. If people can't afford to eat at McDonalds, then there's some serious problems going on.

If you take all the top 5% out of the market and rely on the middleclass and the underclass, the country would turn into a third world abyss very quickly.

Right. But you you were complaining that most of the new job recently created were low paying. And now you're saying these people should forget about the low wages and work themselves up the ladder

No, I'm saying, if the people don't like their financial situation and cannot make good money, but need to work, but college on hold for awhile, learn a trade, better yourself so that you are better qualified and try to find something better. It's always better to have a skill than NO skill at all.

Feelings about how things are going. Brought to you by Fox.

No, reality. Also you really to stop with your Fox tirade, it's just as bad as the Dems usuing the race card, it really doesn't work, really.

I thought you think people shouldn't depend on the government for their economic health.

You shouldn't

So why are you whining about Obama all the time? In the Republican view, are high paying jobs doled out by the President of the United States? I look forward to your answer.

Obama hasn't created any HIGH paying jobs and as for the GOP, again they haven't been on the job a week and you guys are expecting miracles. Remember, unlike Obama they're mortals.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

bass

Despite the government's push to get Americans enrolled in health-care plans, a significant number remain uninsured

So that's why you want to repeal the ACA?

liberal partisan talking points from his majesty and the people that follow him.

FYI, I'm not an Obama disciple. I'm rather disappointed in the man. Nonetheless, I find his detractors far more noxious. His majesty? Please grow up.

Gee, when did Obama take the blame on anything in the last 6 years?

Obama: "whenever -- as the head of the party -- it doesn't do well, I've got to take responsibility for it." -- November 10, 2014

every lib wants to scream at the mountain tops his majesty just performed an economical miracle??

No, but plenty of rational people want to stuff a sock in the mouths of those who won't shut up about Obama as the worst this or that.

If you take all the top 5% out of the market and rely on the middleclass and the underclass, the country would turn into a third world abyss very quickly.

So raising wages will eliminate the top 5%? Or stop them from eating at McDonalds?

if the people don't like their financial situation and cannot make good money, but need to work, but college on hold for awhile, learn a trade, better yourself so that you are better qualified and try to find something better.

OK. Then stop blaming Obama for not providing higher paying jobs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Romney is pro-corporation, but anti-small business.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"a list of his ( Barack Obama's ) awesomeness"

Would that include the $17 trillion + debt?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

1) according to my humble awareness, that is not the cause of any economic malaise. Please explain to me if I am wrong. I am not an economist or journalist, so I would appreciate your insight.

According to my humble awareness all you need to do is look at the National Debt.

Without belaboring and rehashing the point here is a hard look at where we are at and for the life of me, I have no idea why his majesty never, ever talks about and addresses the debt.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

2) do you think military spending on useless wars is part of the equation?

To a point, but I seriously believe we are in a serious war with radical Islam and with questionable countries like China, North Korea and Pakistan, I prefer and hope to have a very strong military, I didn't think the war was useless at all, I think in some areas we need to improve on better and more exact Intel. But for China to build up their military and space program and this president dismantles decommissions everything that NASA and the military have built up over the years.

One more thing. You have consistently ranked Obama as the worst president in American history. From your historical expertise, who are the five worst presidents in American history?

Obama, Carter, Hoover, Wilson, Coolidge

So that's why you want to repeal the ACA?

Or at least seriously amended. Obama could have legislated a law to give the 11 million people that didn't have health insurance, there wasn't ANY reason for Obama to change the entire system, especially when it worked well for the people that had it.

FYI, I'm not an Obama disciple. I'm rather disappointed in the man. Nonetheless, I find his detractors far more noxious. His majesty? Please grow up.

Hey, the way he acts, sure seems like it. But if anyone needs to grow up, it's him instead of being an indecisive leader and I am talking about in tough times and internationally.

Obama: "whenever -- as the head of the party -- it doesn't do well, I've got to take responsibility for it." -- November 10, 2014

Seriously, let's look at this in broader detail.

Benghazi?NO! The National debt? NO! Taking responsibility for allowing the creation of ISIS. Securing the border?NO! The IRS scandal targeting conservatives? NO! Lying about Obamacare? NO!

But wait, there's still more....

So raising wages will eliminate the top 5%? Or stop them from eating at McDonalds?

Nonsense.

OK. Then stop blaming Obama for not providing higher paying jobs.

Ahh, let's go back to NOT taking responsibility for anything, most noticeably High paying jobs. Again, if his majesty can take credit for a more stable economy then he can and should take responsibility for all the negatives and there are a lot of them.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

According to my humble awareness all you need to do is look at the National Debt.

Avoiding my question. Because you can't answer it.

Obama, Carter, Hoover, Wilson, Coolidge

Wow. Apparently your knowledge of history only goes back 100 years. In your mind Obama is worse than James Buchanan, the man who facilitated the Civil War?

Your demonization of Wilson is predictable. He's the usual target of hatred by Glenn Beck, tea partiers, and other people who have little regard for historical accuracy or nuance.

being an indecisive leader

So the stimulus bill (that saved the crashed economy), new financial regulations and bank restructuring, standards-based education reform, the ACA (that gave affordable insurance to millions), action on immigration -- all of which you detest -- is being indecisive? I can understand if you disagree with what Obama has done or how he has done it, but I cannot understand how you can call him indecisive or (as you have in the past) lazy.

let's go back to NOT taking responsibility for anything, most noticeably High paying jobs.

Please explain how a president should create high paying jobs. I would like to hear some positive suggestions from you rather than incessant whining.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Avoiding my question. Because you can't answer it.

I already told you.

Wow. Apparently your knowledge of history only goes back 100 years. In your mind Obama is worse than James Buchanan, the man who facilitated the Civil War?

You asked 5, it was a toss up between him and Obama.

Your demonization of Wilson is predictable. He's the usual target of hatred by Glenn Beck, tea partiers, and other people who have little regard for historical accuracy or nuance.

The man was a flat-out racist, I wonder why?

So the stimulus bill (that saved the crashed economy), new financial regulations and bank restructuring, standards-based education reform, the ACA (that gave affordable insurance to millions),

To the 11 million that needed it, fine. Again, after the lies of Gruber in trying to pass it and overhaul the entire system, there was NO reason for it, I had a great healthcare plan at the time and Obama had to screw it up for millions of other Americans? Plastic, come on now...

action on immigration -- all of which you detest -- is being indecisive?

So jumping ahead of law-abiding citizens that paid thousands of dollars that followed all the rules they get a back seat because of Obama hoping, wanting and praying that legalizing 5 million people could bring in potential..again potential democratic votes being the party for FREE stuff, not to mention, he never addressed or is serious about closing our borders?! Yeah, I detest the guy.

I can understand if you disagree with what Obama has done or how he has done it, but I cannot understand how you can call him indecisive or (as you have in the past) lazy.

I just outlined and gave you the reason.

Please explain how a president should create high paying jobs. I would like to hear some positive suggestions from you rather than incessant whining.

1) Bring in the Keystone XL pipeline

2) Cut the corporate tax rate. It's 40% the highest in the world bring it to a low or competitive level

3) Cut taxes/Cut spending

4) Put more emphasis on jobs that offer valuable trade skills in Blue collar jobs.

5) Cut back unemployment benefits from 99 weeks which is ridiculous, not to mention draining the system to 90 days, which how it used to be. Limit the time for receiving unemployment benefits and that will be a huge incentive to get people off their butts and look for employment.

There you go to the point.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites