"...going from pledging his support for more teachers to downplaying the necessity of hiring them"

[babylonsister]

Difficult to post what his opinion actually is as it changes it appears several times daily. I can imagine why he might be hard to debate; he's got tape on a host of 'opinions'; does that mean he can pick any one he wants at any given time?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/mitt-romney-teachers_n_1955447.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Mitt Romney Criticizes Obama For Proposing Money To Hire Teachers
Sam Stein
Posted: 10/10/2012 3:12 pm EDT
Updated: 10/10/2012 4:19 pm EDT


WASHINGTON -- Days after he declared that he wants to put "more teachers" in schools, Mitt Romney criticized President Barack Obama's plan to do just that.

The Republican presidential nominee didn't technically contradict his comments, made during the first presidential debate last week, in his interview with The Des Moines Register. But he did cast a proposal to hire more teachers as a waste of taxpayer money.

snip//

Romney's belief that state and local governments should decide whether or not to hire teachers has remained consistent. During both the debate and his interview with the Register, he voiced his opposition toward the Obama administration's proposal to send $30 billion in federal dollars to states for the explicit purpose of teacher retention and hiring. In fact, months before the debate, Romney mocked the president for proposing funding to keep teachers on the job.

What's different is the rhetorical approach Romney has taken to the issue, going from pledging his support for more teachers to downplaying the necessity of hiring them. There are also questions over the idea that hiring teachers does not produce any economic benefit, as studies have shown that the layoffs of teachers and other government workers has had an economic impact.

The Romney campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.

[Angry Dragon]

1. Months ago Willard thought there were too many teachers