What happens in our area if Obama loses in 2012?

[Anonymous]

If Obama loses, we win. Be happy!

[Anonymous]

The masses will start sharpening their pikes after the first two years under Perry & a Teabag lead Congress. The middle class has almost died under G.W. Bush, but they keep voting against their interest anyway. In the end, we get the government we deserve.

[Anonymous]

The masses will start sharpening their pikes after the first two years under Perry & a Teabag lead Congress. The middle class has almost died under G.W. Bush, but they keep voting against their interest anyway. In the end, we get the government we deserve.

Exactly right. Think about everything that Obama has already done for us and how much worse shape the country would be in right now if he had lost in 2008! The middle class is in much better shape now than it was under 8 crushing years of Bush !!!

[Anonymous]

the average life expectancy has gone from 68 to 78 just since 1950, so yes we are all living longer. We = the average. And almost all of those people contributed to social security and will be benefiting for a longer period as a result.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You're right by history, of course, but I don't think that history is a great indicator anymore. I'm very worried (b/c of my personal interest, like the OP's question) that whoever wins, the federal government will be significantly dismantled in the next few years. Taxes won't be raised (except possibly on the poor), so the pressure to cut will be overwhelming.

The Dems give the Reps everything they want as is, so I don't think a new president will make that much difference. What will they give up in the next fight, say over the budget? It's not like Obama will ever veto anything. Things could well be safer with a Rep president, b/c Congress won't be so rabid.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You fail to grasp something far more basic. If government spending doesn't increase with inflation, then the net effect is a cut in real dollars. To the point of this thread, the economy in this area will suffer b/c gov't workers will have less spending ability.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You fail to grasp something far more basic. If government spending doesn't increase with inflation, then the net effect is a cut in real dollars. To the point of this thread, the economy in this area will suffer b/c gov't workers will have less spending ability.

Govt spending has increased much higher than the rate of inflation, or have you not been paying attention the last 30 years? And govt spending certainly does NOT have to keep up with the population or the GDP. If anything, with a larger country and more powerful economy, you should have some economies of scale and be able to proportionately SHRINK the size of spending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You fail to grasp something far more basic. If government spending doesn't increase with inflation, then the net effect is a cut in real dollars. To the point of this thread, the economy in this area will suffer b/c gov't workers will have less spending ability.

Govt spending has increased much higher than the rate of inflation, or have you not been paying attention the last 30 years? And govt spending certainly does NOT have to keep up with the population or the GDP. If anything, with a larger country and more powerful economy, you should have some economies of scale and be able to proportionately SHRINK the size of spending.

You don't get it. Our government costs are not due to overhead. The lion's share is Medicare and Social Security. And the population of people who qualify is GROWING.

You can shrink the cost of the BLS or EPA. Big deal, it's peanuts compared to the above entitlements.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Govt spending has increased much higher than the rate of inflation, or have you not been paying attention the last 30 years? And govt spending certainly does NOT have to keep up with the population or the GDP. If anything, with a larger country and more powerful economy, you should have some economies of scale and be able to proportionately SHRINK the size of spending.

Again, to the point of this thread, if gov't spending is curtailed relative to inflation, there will be a significant hit to the economy of this area. None of your points are relevant to the question posed in this thread, which is a purely factual matter.

[Anonymous]

Again, to the point of this thread, if gov't spending is curtailed relative to inflation, there will be a significant hit to the economy of this area. None of your points are relevant to the question posed in this thread, which is a purely factual matter.

Speaking of factual matters, has anyone other than me noticed that for all the talk of income redistribution, fairness and creating jobs just about the only place in the entire country where any of this is happening is in the counties surrounding DC?

Perhaps, if some of you really do care about spreading the wealth, Obama should lose in 2012 and be replaced by a Republican who does what they are all promising to do and cuts back federal spending. Maybe then there will be a few more counties outside of DC that are considered among the wealthiest in the country and that have an unemployment rate of around 4 %. Think about it, show some compassion for the rest of the country. Why do we get all the money? How does the rest of the country benefit by the fact that DC is the wealthiest area in the nation?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Think about it, show some compassion for the rest of the country. Why do we get all the money? How does the rest of the country benefit by the fact that DC is the wealthiest area in the nation?

We should all be as compassionate as Perry and Paul.

[Anonymous]

We should all be as compassionate as Perry and Paul.

I think that the poster's point is that being as compassionate as Perry and Paul would probably would be better than being as compassionate as Obama unless you happen to live in the DC area

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

We should all be as compassionate as Perry and Paul.

I think that the poster's point is that being as compassionate as Perry and Paul would probably would be better than being as compassionate as Obama unless you happen to live in the DC area

Perry's record of redistribution in Texas is not anything to brag about. Texas has one of the highest poverty rates in the US. It has one of the greatest, if not the greatest, number of uninsured in the US. In fact, what is happening in Texas is not that different than what is happening in the DC area. Those who are well educated and/or skilled can get good jobs. The rest have a really hard time. While parts of DC and some suburbs may be doing quite well, the folks in Ward 8 would love to see some redistribution.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

We should all be as compassionate as Perry and Paul.

I think that the poster's point is that being as compassionate as Perry and Paul would probably would be better than being as compassionate as Obama unless you happen to live in the DC area

It's not clear to me that PP considered that, which is why I mentioned them. If PP thinks so, I think that's funny. One might support them for all kinds of reasons, but their compassion would be a strange one.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

You fail to grasp something far more basic. If government spending doesn't increase with inflation, then the net effect is a cut in real dollars. To the point of this thread, the economy in this area will suffer b/c gov't workers will have less spending ability.

AND, private sector AND NGOs AND non-profits--they're all connected and they all suffer cuts along with federal government. My husband's former company is a federal contracter that decided to downsize earlier this year. Our household is now contributing to the state of Maryland's debt. Our daycare provider--one of those sacred small businesses we keep hearing about--is also at risk. She might lose us and potentially several families in the federal workforce. Another small business owner, the woman who runs a neighborhood restaurant, is losing customers. We can't afford to hang out there anymore. We won't be paying local contracters to do the home maintenance work we had been planning for this fall. Won't be buying the new storm windows and gutters--lost business to those suppliers. We'd been excited about a new hardware store opening in our neighborhood--but now it's another small business that won't be getting our dollars. It may be silly to mourn the loss of hair and spa appointments, but those are yet more small business that will get dragged down. The drycleaner, the tailor, the shoe-repair guy--all of them now luxuries we can't afford, and if they go out of business they'll be laying off more workers, all of whom will join the unemployment rolls in MD, DC and VA.

Oh, but it's necessary to "fix" the economy, you say? Greaaaaaat. Fucking brilliant.