Challenge to those who don't like Romney.

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   I have a challenge... there are a few rules to the challenge.
   
   1 - For each point made, please explain whether it is an example of good or poor leadership.
   2 - If a point is an example of poor leadership, please explain why.
   3 - Do not bring up any other subject than the points described here. In other words, stay on topic.
   
   
   Point A - Education
   
   In 2003, Massachusetts was ranked by the NAEP(NCES) as follows:
   
   4th Grade Math: 6th
   4th Grade Science: 6th
   4th Grade Reading: 3rd
   
   In 2007, Massachusetts was ranked as follows:
   
   4th Grade Math: 1st
   4th Grade Science: 1st
   4th Grade Reading: 1st
   
   A similar story is found across subjects and grades, but these are the only three subjects with full data for their grade level available. All of this, even while cutting spending on education from $7.8 million in 2003 to $7.4 million in 2007.
   
   
   Point B - Budget
   
   In 2003, Massachusetts had a budget deficit of $650 million for the current year. Romney retroactively balanced that budget.
   
   For the 2003-2006 budgets, Romney balanced every budget. For the 2006 budget, Romney had to line-item veto about 250 expenditures, and the legislature overturned all of his vetoes. He then used his executive emergency power to cut that spending anyway, as MA law requires a balanced budget. Romney fought against a legislature that was breaking state law.
   
   In 2003, Massachusetts' 'Rainy-Day Fund' had a balance of $641 million. In 2007, it had a balance of $2.3 billion.
   
   
   Point C - Unemployment/Job Creation
   
   In early 2003, state unemployment was at 6%. In 2007, unemployment was at 4.6%.
   
   In 2003, Massachussets was ranked 50th in job creation. In 2007, it was 28th.

   replyreport
2. 68

   innersmiffposted 12 years ago

   I'm going to ignore rule three because you're narrowing the debate to a restricted data set and applying it to vague 'leadership'. Hitler and Stalin sure had great leadership too.There's one thing agreeing about something, but we have to establish whether the question is relevant or not.
   
   A - Impressive, and proof that lowering spending does not equal poorer results (which should be helpful on another thread). However, Romney is not proposing any significant cuts to the education budget, has said very little about giving parents more choice, and is definitely not considering repealing compulsory schooling. From what we've seen so far it looks like you guys are going to keep the bureaucratic mess of Department of Education for a long time, and continue the agenda of mass indoctrination.
   
   B - it might be signs of good leadership, but since there is no law requiring a balanced Federal budget, there is nothing to stop him continuing the policy of over-spending and over-borrowing, which he looks set to do.
   
   C - Again, impressive, but the whole country is another ball-park altogether. Where is the evidence in his campaign that he's actually going to achieve this on a country-wide scale? He's as much a Keynesian as Obama is, loves the false hopes of bail-outs and stimulus packages, loves corporate subsidies and loves regulation to the point where I think he may be a Marxist in a Republican's clothes. The only lasting way to reduce unemployment is to provide a balanced budget, relieve the market from draconian legislation and get rid of that blasted Federal Reserve before it bleeds us dry. Where is the evidence?

   replyreport