. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

"Chuck Norris doesn't read books; he stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them."
- ChuckNorrisFactsdotcom

Thursday, July 17, 2003
God damned mother fucking
sons of bitches!
"Senate Democrats succeeded today in blocking White House-supported legislation to limit damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, although Republicans vowed to continue pushing for the measure, either in Congress or as a key issue in next year's elections.

The vote was 49-48 in favor of taking up the bill, 11 votes short of the 60 needed to cut off a Democratic filibuster against the bill. No Democrats voted to take up the bill, while two Republicans -- Sens. Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) -- broke party ranks to join the Democrats in killing the measure.

The proposal was approved by the House earlier this year and has been a centerpiece of President Bush's effort to overhaul the civil litigation system, with limits on the size of damage awards.

The legislation was supported by business, insurance and physician groups, which tend to support Republicans, but strongly opposed by trial lawyers aligned with Democrats."

posted by Rachel 7/17/2003
. . .
Ok we've got the reservation for the chapel. (slight hyperventilation.) It's less than a month away!

posted by Rachel 7/17/2003
. . .
sound advice for the DNC. Will any of the candidates be able to get over hating Bush for long enough to take it?

Of course the problem is that many of the hard-core democratic voters hate Bush too. It plays really well with them to go on about how "Bush Lied!" and "tax cuts for the wealthy".
[side note: If you get a 20% discount coupon for Target and buy a $100 stereo you get $20 off. If you buy a $10 walkman you get $2 off. This is not an injustice. This is not unfair to the guy who buys a walkman. This is simple math. The government is not Robin Hood. The purpose of taxes is not wealth predistribution no matter how much some people want it to be.]

However, those issues won't play well with the majority of voters, most especially the swing voters.

posted by Rachel 7/17/2003
. . .
Hmmm. Well I suppose
it means that we've been spoiled by a decade of a fantastic economy. Though it is nice to see that Greenspan thinks we'll be ok.
"Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan took a generally upbeat economic forecast to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, citing improved household income, but he said the Fed was prepared to hold interest rates low "for as long as needed" to stimulate further growth.
But in testimony that echoed the optimism of the White House, Greenspan presented several indicators that the economy might be returning to the vigor of the previous decade. Industrial production finally has stopped falling, he said, and the housing market remains strong. Investors are more willing to confront risk, he said, improving the credit market. And he sounded positively cheery about the rise in household wealth, which he said was aided by mortgage refinancing and President Bush's tax cuts.

"The recently passed tax legislation will provide a considerable lift to disposable incomes of households in the second half of the year, even after accounting for some state and local offsets," he said.

"Most mainstream economic models predict that such tax-induced increases in disposable income should produce a prompt and appreciable pickup in consumer spending," Greenspan said.

The next few months, he said, will provide an important test of the administration's theory that its tax cuts will fuel a recovery.
He acknowledged, in advance of highly critical comments from several Democrats on the committee, that unemployment keeps moving up and that the tax cuts have exacerbated the federal budget deficit, all arguments for keeping interest rates low. But he said that in many cases, unemployment has resulted from improved business productivity that has enabled employers to cut workforces. And the deficit is not necessarily a problem, he said, unless it persists for many years, which he said could be prevented by spending cuts that match the reductions in taxes.
"I have nothing against cutting taxes," Greenspan said. "I would just like to be sure that a constituency arises eventually for cutting spending as well, and that has not been the case."

In other words, asked Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., tax cuts are good if they are followed up by spending cuts or the imposition of limits on spending?

"Correct," Greenspan replied, eliciting a nod of satisfaction from several on the Republican side."
Good. Now follow thorugh and cut spending.

posted by Rachel 7/17/2003
. . .

. . .


web site traffic statistics