jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (5 posts)

One state has had Romney leadership, he left with 37% approval

  1. Josak profile image60
    Josakposted 5 years ago

    Obama leads in that state by 24% according to recent polling. Why does the only state to have had Romney leadership reject him entirely at both state and federal levels?

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      People don't often appreciate the hard choices.

      Romney went into the governorship facing a deficit for the previous budget, and the upcoming budget. State law required him to balance it.

      There are two ways to balance budgets, increase revenues, and decrease spending. If you increase revenues, through fees or taxes, people aren't going to like it. If you decrease spending, people aren't going to like it.

      Romney did what had to be done. He balanced not only his 4 budgets, but the budget previous to his. He took the state from 50th to 27th in job creation. He left the state with a $2 billion 'rainy day fund'.

      The electorate generally doesn't like it when leaders make the tough decisions that have to be made.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Actually his support collapsed after he had taken the major steps to balance the budget which was supported, one of the things people disagreed with was the way he focused so much of that revenue on the poor and middle income.

        More to the point a leader is the servant of the people not the other way round, if his approval rate was that low he is obviously not getting that.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I see, you care more about approval than getting the job done.

          Romney tied fees to inflation. That's not really an unreasonable thing to do. Romney hit the banks hard by closing tax loopholes(meh, who cares about that).

          A leader is more than just a servant of the people. If the people wanted to legalize murder, should the leader push for that legislation?

          The fact is, Romney balanced budgets that weren't balanced, he saved emergency money for the state, and he improved the state in job creation dramatically.

          Oh, and he also pushed for lowering taxes for the middle class and the poor, but the legislature wouldn't let him. But again, that doesn't matter, because it doesn't make good ammo against him.

          You're crystal clear in your post... the only way Romney could have done things right would have been to balance the budget entirely by raising taxes on the wealthy and the evil corporations... anything else is a burden on the middle class and the poor.

          I have news for you. We could tax the wealthy and corporations, at a federal level, at 100%, and we wouldn't have a balanced budget. You need to learn that balanced approaches are what is needed.

    2. Aficionada profile image89
      Aficionadaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I guess another approach for voters - instead of checking out a candidate's record and figuring out why they have done what they did - would be just to vote in someone who has no real record to check out, and whose greatest asset is the ability to sway a crowd with rhetoric that tells them what they want to hear. But surely an American electorate would never be so naive.