Setting aside the fact that he's a tool... I've been reading about his time as governor and it looks like he balanced a $2 billion deficit successfully... at the expense of education, emergency services, and several fee hikes. Still, a balanced budget is a balanced budget, and a lot of people are voting for Romney JUST because of that fact. Would you put Romney in charge of the economy? Not necessarily as president, since he probably won't win. Just in a position where he could enact budget changes along with Obama, who seems likely to win. Or hell, if he did win, do you trust him with the economy more than the other candidates?
Yeah, damn him for not continuing to run a deficit just to make the unions happy. Have you been in a cocoon the last week? This race is neck and neck. The only other candidate on the ballot running for President who has a chance of being elected is Obama. And yes, I trust Mitt more. I've already experienced an Obama economy and I don't feel like repeating it for another four years.
That could very well change with the next debate. I thought most people were predicting Obama would wipe the floor with him next, based on previous races where things have gone as they have so far.
As governor, he was required by law to balance the budget. There is nothing special about what he did, it happens every year in Massachusetts -- the legislature passes a budget that has a deficit, the governor cleans it up by line-item veto. The federal government does not have a balanced budget law (for good reason in my opinion) so I wouldn't expect something magical. Also, $2 billion sounds like a lot, but it isn't, it's only about 5% of the budget.
What gul said. From what I know of Mittens' tenure as MA governor, the only thing he did worth a damn was Romneycare. And we all know how he feels about that.
He was a competent governor, who governed from the center. The pathological liar we've seen over the past few years is a different guy.
Even if it was something where balancing the budget wasn't something Romney was required to do (and even if the president had the line-item veto, which was held unconstitutional IIRC), I would say balancing any state budget is inherently easier than balancing the federal budget. There are no equivalents of national defense, Medicare and Social Security that by definition will probably put anyone trying to balance a federal budget in the hole from jump-street. You don't have as sophisticated or well-funded a lobbying force in whatever state capitol you could name as those who hit up D.C., trying to get you and your legislators to spend money you don't have. You don't have the same lack of control over your legislators as happens in the federal system. And you aren't talking about inheriting the same level of debt from predecessors as you must in the federal system.
That's something else I've noticed. His ideas changed from 1996-2004 but they weren't radical changes. All of a sudden you don't know what he's gonna say next.
He realized that the only way to get the GOP nomination was to get the crazies on board. I really believe he IS a moderate, but if he were still acting like one, he'd never have been nominated. Mittens will say anything and be anyone to get the radical wing of the GOP on board with him. Is that really a quality we want in a president?
Obama said he'd fix the economy and get all our soldiers out of the Middle East. How's that working out? Not saying Romney is my choice at all (he isn't, not with that stance on gay marriage and his foreign affairs buffoonery), but it looks like pre-election lies are the norm and he'll do whatever the fuck he wants if he's elected. I guess my other question is, should I even be concerned with what they say, or should I just look at their record when voting? I'm thinking record.
There is a difference from enunciating a goal and then failing to make it, compared to saying completely contradictory things depending on the audience.
Romney's record is mostly that he really wants to be President. Like W. he has daddy issues. He has a record of not really caring about or understanding difficult policy issues. What his record suggests is that he will sign any legislation sent to him by a radical Republican Congress and that he will essentially reassemble the George W. Bush foreign policy team.
Romney's stated economic policies (which he may or may not implement, admittedly) are borderline suicidal. So, it's got to be a big fat NO.
In order to have a proper rebuttal, I would have to know which set of Romney's economic policies you are referring to. Honestly this whole election amazes me, people called McCain a flip flopper and he only changed on a couple issues over the course of years. Meanwhile Romney is so all over the place that he could have a debate all by himself, yet I don't see it being a huge issue to voters.
That is why I would not trust him to fix any budget. Whoever he was as Governor is not who he is now. Now, he seems far more willing to pander to the extreme, as well as outright scoff at fact checking. If he won't even check for reasonable accuracy, why would I trust him with an accounts ledger?
