fiscal policy

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by Buckeye86

1- if the local politicians were anywhere close to the approval ratings that Congress as a whole has I highly doubt that name recognition would carry incumbents to victory

you cant beat the money that the incumbents have. going back to name recognition. you cant beat the parties, thus why you have few if any indie politicians in DC.

2- this doesn't address why other candidates from the same party don't rise up and replace the current ones

cash is king, you cant win an election with $100 dollars.

so once again, I think it goes back to the hypocricy of supporting your local politician for bringing money into the area but disaproving of Congress as a whole for doing the exact same thing for their own districts

if people actually gave a damn about pork spending why don't politicians win elections by promising to not participate in the practice (aka not bringing any money to their districts)

see the revolving door of money?

bold

[jlb1705]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

bold

Great stuff, jimotis4heisman. But instead of bolding points of emphasis, consider using italics.

[OSUsushichic]

Originally Posted by jlb1705

Great stuff, jimotis4heisman. But instead of bolding points of emphasis, consider using italics.

[Buckeye86]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

bold

I agree on all your points as it applies to elections, but you still aren't addressing my main point about the hypocrisy of railing against pork spending as a whole while still gladly accepting it in ones own area

Exhibit A
Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - GOP Govs at Odds | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by Buckeye86

I agree on all your points as it applies to elections, but you still aren't addressing my main point about the hypocrisy of railing against pork spending as a whole while still gladly accepting it in ones own area

Exhibit A
Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - GOP Govs at Odds | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

its not a left/right r/d issue. they both do it. the omnibus bill is 60-40 in favor of Ds, that means Rs are 40%ish of the problem.

i started a face of the two parties for a reason. many southern "blue dogs" are against earmarks. personally i thouhgt theyd be the most powerful group on the hill. to this point not, theyve driven party lines. i feel that obamas success lies in their hands to moderate them out. and doing it faster/sooner than clinton did.

[Buckeye86]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

its not a left/right r/d issue. they both do it. the omnibus bill is 60-40 in favor of Ds, that means Rs are 40%ish of the problem.

i started a face of the two parties for a reason. many southern "blue dogs" are against earmarks. personally i thouhgt theyd be the most powerful group on the hill. to this point not, theyve driven party lines. i feel that obamas success lies in their hands to moderate them out. and doing it faster/sooner than clinton did.

I wasn't attempting to make this an issue of left or right, Democrat or Republican, I think all sides are equally hypocritical when they demonize earmarks while at the same time overwhelmingly supporting their own politicians who are successful at bringing dollars into their local area

show me a blue dog that doesn't fund projects in their district with federal money and I will be shocked

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by Buckeye86

I wasn't attempting to make this an issue of left or right, Democrat or Republican, I think all sides are equally hypocritical when they demonize earmarks while at the same time overwhelmingly supporting their own politicians who are successful at bringing dollars into their local area

show me a blue dog that doesn't fund projects in their district with federal money and I will be shocked

childers-ms
driehaus-oh
tanner-tn
peterson-mn
minnick-az
kravoli-md
kind-wi
giffords-az
cardoza-ca


for 2008. i didnt check them all, just some of the more fiscally conservative Ds



Earmarks

[jimotis4heisman]

Rosy Assumptions Hold Down Deficit - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- The White House is relying on a set of optimistic economic assumptions in its budget that allows the Obama administration to claim a steeper drop in the deficit in coming years than many mainstream forecasters expect.
The budget forecast assumes that U.S. gross domestic product -- the nation's total economic output -- will decline about 1.2% this year, while private forecasts -- measured by the Blue Chip survey -- show a 1.9% decline. Next year the Obama team forecasts 3.2% growth, while professional forecasters expect a 2.1% gain.
Associated Press


Economic assumptions are vital to the budget forecasts. Stronger growth translates into more profits for businesses and greater income for individuals. That means higher tax receipts, which can reduce the nation's annual deficit and total debt.
The Obama budget puts the deficit at less than $600 billion starting in 2012 from $1.75 trillion this year. Getting to that point requires GDP to rise more than 4% a year by then -- meaning the U.S. would quickly return to growth rates similar to the boom years of the 1990s -- after the worst financial shock since the Great Depression. Such growth is more than a full percentage point above private-sector growth estimates for 2011 and 2012.
continued...

even with obamas aggresively roser forecasts....

[calibuck]

Just a couple of musings in this thread.......after spending a couple of decades in Corporate Amerika in various strategic planning positions, let me just say this about that......we call it the 'hockey stick' projection. "The next year will be down, but after that we'll climb". That takes the pressure off of early performance. If presume to go up immediately, and don't, there's a black spot on the record. But if predict to go down, and you don't go down as much, then you've done 'better' than projections. So hence the 'hockey stick'.

Republicans, Democrats, Green Party, etc. doesn't matter. The color is green. People don't get reelected if their area is out of jobs and people aren't working. So everyone wants money to flow to their district. "See what my leadeship accomplished? The new air force base will employ, blah blah blah" showing that they have 'pull' in Congress and you, the voters should keep me in office. If the economy is self-sustaining or above average in any one state, then the Rep/Senator can afford to be more 'pristine' and rant and rail against 'pork' trailer bills.....

Happy Friday, but here's some gray-haired wisdom (or experience) on this fine day.

[CookyPuss]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

childers-ms
driehaus-oh
tanner-tn
peterson-mn
minnick-az
kravoli-md
kind-wi
giffords-az
cardoza-ca


for 2008. i didnt check them all, just some of the more fiscally conservative Ds



Earmarks

Just a quick glance at your list, but I know the first 2 on that list Driehaus (my rep) and Childers were just elected... give them time.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by jimotis4heisman

childers-ms
driehaus-oh
tanner-tn
peterson-mn
minnick-az
kravoli-md
kind-wi
giffords-az
cardoza-ca
Earmarks

Couple of corrections - it is Kratovil not Kravoli. Like Driehaus he is a Freshman - so has no voting record to speak of.
Minnick is a representative for ID-01, not AZ. Though a Freshman rep he has aligned himself with the Blue Dog Coalition. Good idea for him, he won by a whisker in November.

Giffords is worthy of note on several scores (I know this next has nothing to do with fiscal policy) as she is married to an honest to god Astronaut, or space cadet if you prefer.

[fourteenandoh]

cool fact. they could raise taxes on the top 5pct earners (388k i believe) to 100pct and still not cover the budget that was just proposed!

[jimotis4heisman]

Originally Posted by fourteenandoh

cool fact. they could raise taxes on the top 5pct earners (388k i believe) to 100pct and still not cover the budget that was just proposed!

read the wsj much? the article is a couple days old. its called the 2% illusion.

[jimotis4heisman]

Geithner Defends Budget, Warns on Deficits - WSJ.com

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Tuesday it is imperative for the government to reduce over time the debt that is piling up as a result of the government's response to recession and financial market turmoil.
"We have set an ambitious, but economically crucial goal for bringing our deficits down dramatically once the recovery is firmly established and financial stability has returned," Mr. Geithner said in prepared remarks to the House Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Geithner testified at the committee on President Barack Obama's budget blueprint for the next 10 years.
The plan envisions reducing the annual federal deficit to $533 billion by 2013. Mr. Geithner said that would cut in half the $1.3 trillion portion of the deficit for 2009 that he said the administration has "inherited," or budgetary factors that were in place as a result of decisions made during the previous administration.
The Obama administration estimates that the total deficit for 2009 is $1.75 trillion, taking into account the cost of economic stimulus legislation signed by the president last month.
Mr. Geithner warned of consequences if Congress and the administration fail to get the deficit down to about the $533 billion level, which is roughly 3% of GDP.
"Failure to reduce deficits to this level would result in higher interest rates as government borrowing crowds out private investment, leading to slower growth and lower living standards for Americans," he said.

continued...

announce 200b TALF this morning, warn of deficits in the afternoon. say failure to reduce deficits to 3% level will crowd out private investment in lie of higher interest from govt borrowing.

am i the only one confused/shaking my head?

[jimotis4heisman]

DispatchPolitics : Spending bill's 8,500 earmarks stay put Columbus Dispatch Politics

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted overwhelmingly to preserve thousands of earmarks in a $410 billion spending bill yesterday, brushing aside Sen. John McCain's assertion that President Barack Obama and Congress are merely conducting business as usual in a time of economic hardship.

McCain's attempt to strip out an estimated 8,500 earmarks failed on a vote of 63-32. The Arizona senator's proposal also would have cut roughly $32 billion from the measure and kept spending at last year's levels in several federal agencies.
Last year's Republican presidential nominee said he and Obama pledged during the campaign to "stop business as usual in Washington," and he quoted the president as having said he would go line by line to make sure money was spent wisely.
The White House has said that Obama intends to sign the legislation, casting it as leftover business from 2008. Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that the White House will issue guidelines covering earmarks for future bills.
McCain's proposal drew the support of 30 Republicans and two Democrats, and the outcome reflected the value of earmarks to lawmakers.

...

"How does anyone justify some of these earmarks: $1.7 million for pig-odor research in Iowa; $2 million 'for the promotion of astronomy' in Hawaii; $6.6 million for termite research in New Orleans; $2.1 million for the Center for Grape Genetics in New York," McCain said.
He also noted that the bill includes 14 earmarks requested by lawmakers for projects sought by PMA Group, a lobbying company at the center of a federal corruption probe.
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he would seek to have them removed.
Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, estimates that the bill con-tains 8,570 disclosed ear-marks worth $7.7 billion. House Democrats declined to provide an estimate of the number of pet projects in the bill and put their cost at $3.8 billion.

continued...