Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
What happens in our area if Obama loses in 2012?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I am really worried.
The three wealthiest counties in the US (Loudoun, Fairfax and the City of Falls Church) are all located in the DC area including four more counties such as Arlington and Montgomery county that are in the top 16. The unemployment rate in Loudoun and Fairfax County is only a little bit over 4%. If the Tea Bagger’s are successful and someone like Perry gets elected and the Republicans really do cut back on all the essential and valuable federal government services that we are providing, what will happen to the local economy in our area? I have been out in fly-over country things are pretty bad out there. I shudder to think how much worse things would have been if Obama had lost in 2008. I hope that the new job bill passes soon… |
Anonymous
| Well, one thing that is sure to happen is that I throw a giant.effing.party! |
Anonymous
|
Wow, what an incredibly biased and offensive way to ask this question: teabaggers, fly over country, etc.
But the answer is that not much is likely to change immediately, there will still be a lot of federal contracts in the area. But hopefully some government austerity will result in a stronger economy overall. |
Anonymous
|
This is actually a funny one.
Yes, don't you know that unemployment is really low? I mean the front page of the Post yesterday had that great story about all the families slipping into poverty but by golly them tea baggers are to blame!! |
Anonymous
You're laboring under a misconception that a lot of people share. That is that "If the GOP gets elected then government service will be cut back". This is not going to happen. It hasn't happened under any GOP president yet. That's because the GOP understands that it has two constituencies: yes there's the resentful rural poor and the mean-spirited elderly. But these folks don't give a fig about deficits, or making the size of government smaller, other than in some abstract sense. What they do care about is cultural resentments. IOW, they want to make sure that decedent urban ethnic-types aren't getting any money. If the GOP takes over, we're likely to see an *increase* in government spending--just as we do every time they get in power--along with tax cuts for the wealthy and upper middle class. Any cuts that take place will be relegated to programs like WIC, LIHEAP, or scientific funding. The military, the "Homeland" Security apparatus, and the massive subsidies to suburban America will continue apace. |
Anonymous
More austerity! After all, aside from a few feeble attempts at stimulating demand--mostly via ineffectual tax cuts to the wealthy--that's what we've been doing for the past few years, and it's worked wonders! |
Anonymous
| Well, if Rick Perry or Michele Bachman wins then my house will be for sale as I will be moving out of the country!!!!!! |
Anonymous
|
No because the President doesn't control the appropriations process. Congress does. And Congress will always be divided government (as it was intended). So any changes will be slow and incremental.
|
Anonymous
is that a promise? I know a lot of people who said that about George W. Bush, and not a single one left. |
Anonymous
I think that the issue here is a lot of Americans take GOP candidates at their word, and believe that they'll act on all the blithering stupidity they promise on the campaign trail. Instead, they act like the worst of the Democratic politicians once the get into power. Now granted Bush was a fuckup of epic proportions, and destroyed American military credibility, and squandered out solvency on two intractable wars of choice, but it's unlikely Perry will be as bad, if only because he appears quite a bit dumber than W, and most of the GOP establishment don't have any stomach for listening to the various neo-con war criminals. I mean, you'd have to be pretty dumb to believe we'd be "greeted in Baghdad with flowers" but I don't think it's biologically possible to be dumb enough to embroil America in two consecutive Vietnams immediately after the *last* GOP president did it. |
Anonymous
| Things will get better! Don't fear change, embrace it. |
Anonymous
Yeah, how is that hopey changey thing treating you? (And considering Obama hasn't really changed any of Bush's controversial military issues, that point is quite moot. I won't even go into "two consecutive Vietnams." Not even comparable.) |
Anonymous
| what a dumb question. first of all, nobody is really talking about slashing government spending. what they really mean, and what the left fails to grasp, is that all we need is to slow the incredible rate of increase. |
Anonymous
Pretty well, thanks. Given the extent of damage that Bush was able to inflict, it's clear to anyone who's not a naked partisan that things could've been much, much worse, and that it wasn't going to be easy to turn the ship around. Given that the GOP and conservative Democrats in Congress have prevented much of Obama's preferred policy from going into effect, I think he's done a pretty good job. In short, it's always easier to shit the bed (in the case of the Republicans), than un-shit it. |
Anonymous
It's almost charming to see folks like yourself who actually believe that whomever is elected will address that issue. Never have, never will. In fact, what the right fails to grasp is that the "incredible rate of increase" to which you refer is largely a function of long-term health expenditures. Your solution? Let everyone fend for themselves, and add "tort reform" like a cherry on top. It's pure fantasy. The fact that Paul Ryan is considered something of the House GOP "authority" on these issues tells you all you need to know. |