Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have to differentiate the necessary GOP applause-line rhetoric to get elected (small government, slash budgets, etc.) with the reality every time the modern GOP has actually gotten elected: government has expanded and deficits have risen significantly. Talking just of presidents, Reagan and W. Bush both brought significant wealth to the DC area with expanded federal programs. Clinton actually had the most impact on reducing the role of federal government, mostly through defense cuts.
It's hard to say with Romney. In the past week, Romney has again distanced himself from his prior stated positions and is now running as a liberal like he was when governing Massachusetts, with almost identical policy goals as Obama (dismantling Obamacare, except the many parts that are popular, but not paying for it). So whatever he would actually pursue and realistically get congressionally approved while in office would most likely bring no significant changes except perhaps more federal spending on military operations than Obama would spend.
The overall smaller government vote is probably with Obama this year.
You have to differentiate the necessary GOP applause-line rhetoric to get elected (small government, slash budgets, etc.) with the reality every time the modern GOP has actually gotten elected: government has expanded and deficits have risen significantly. Talking just of presidents, Reagan and W. Bush both brought significant wealth to the DC area with expanded federal programs. Clinton actually had the most impact on reducing the role of federal government, mostly through defense cuts.
Agree. Both will spend like crazy. The American people have no concept of fiscal responsibility, and the ones that do are subject to the loud yells and bellyaching of those looking to protect special interests. DC is safe even in a drought (which is not right).
You have to differentiate the necessary GOP applause-line rhetoric to get elected (small government, slash budgets, etc.) with the reality every time the modern GOP has actually gotten elected: government has expanded and deficits have risen significantly. Talking just of presidents, Reagan and W. Bush both brought significant wealth to the DC area with expanded federal programs. Clinton actually had the most impact on reducing the role of federal government, mostly through defense cuts.
It's hard to say with Romney. In the past week, Romney has again distanced himself from his prior stated positions and is now running as a liberal like he was when governing Massachusetts, with almost identical policy goals as Obama (dismantling Obamacare, except the many parts that are popular, but not paying for it). So whatever he would actually pursue and realistically get congressionally approved while in office would most likely bring no significant changes except perhaps more federal spending on military operations than Obama would spend.
The overall smaller government vote is probably with Obama this year.
Don't be partisan: neither party actually cares about or will reduce the deficit by any significant amount. The amount of cuts are equivalent to around only 1% of outstanding debt, in the grand scheme of things next to nothing.
Regardless of who wins, DC probably won't be significantly affected. Bureaucracy is not easily dismantled, so most of those federal jobs are likely to be intact or only see a small decline, while the private sector based around supplementary government services will continue to thrive due to "outsourcing" of those services away from the government. I do, however, think that the rapid sprawl and expansion of DC the area is likely to stop or even contract for other, non-political reasons, and DC itself will fare better than its surrounding suburbs apart from Arlington and inner Montgomery County.
^
I actually wasn't being partisan. I was saying that, given the two choices, the marginal differences between the two in regard to size of government will probably end up being Obama shrinks it more because Romney has been wishy-washy about social programs but firmly committed to expanding the military as well as suggesting large-scale military operations. That combo is how a lot of wealth came to this area during the Bush era.
For all the hype about health care reform, for example, it doesn't really expand government as much as expand insurance companies and Obama's talking about trillions more in reductions to get the budget deficit under control on top of shrinking the military. I just don't think either one will gut DC or anything like that.
So you're for a federal government that cannot provide stable employment?
I am for a Federal Government that provides balanced employment and deficit reduction.
Dems will expand social programs and say millionaires dont pay taxes
Repubs will expand Defense and say that poor people suck
Both will point at the other side and say that they suck
So in the end, it doesnt matter who wins, the deficit will grow, and inflation will press on until something gives (question is when does something give....).
I am for a Federal Government that provides balanced employment and deficit reduction.
What is your definition of balanced employment? Be specific, not generalities and one-liners please.
Given your previous comment you seemed to be explicitly saying that federal employment should not be safe during times of economic uncertainty. Are you backing off of that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cut the nonsense..
