"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
. com...
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
. com...
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote:

A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests

As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August,
President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio
address
Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed
many
key
priorities." The only problem is, this administration's
priorities
are
different from your priorities. Every major legislative
initiative
signed by the president this year has been a boon to special
interests,
but ignored the real needs of the American people.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent
to
President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was
overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million
"Bridge
to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined
population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a
highway
in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a
widening
that
the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for
15
to
20
years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and
a
commission charged with developing major road projects." And
thanks
to
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his
willingness
to
spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also
includes
$200
million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with
Gravina
Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they
reach
Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million
for
a
single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final
passage
of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the
House
"has acted to advance America's economic and national security
interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined
economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New
Haven,
Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The
biggest
winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and
telecommunications industries, not the American worker.
Meanwhile,
"the
Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and
unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help
workers retrain and compete on the international stage."
Furthermore,
President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for
[the
Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even
the
modest resources available under that program," "pursued
policies
that
leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access
to
this
program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under
real
workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy
legislation
that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in
new
subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas
producers
for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing
orphaned
wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the
energy
bill
in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of
$88.9
billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill."
Despite

these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in
the
short
term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or
significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil."
A
2004
analysis by the administration's Energy Information
Administration
found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas
prices
and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the
"bankruptcy
reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average
Americans
suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The
credit
card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year
and
doled
out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election
cycle,
lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that
bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in
bill
sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety
percent
of
all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high
medical
bills
or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have
shot
to
record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health
insurance
coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make
it
harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such
episodes,
while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq
supplemental
spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though
the
bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House
accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal
with
the
equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major
cash
for
questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations.
At
the
same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the
wars."
Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George
Washington
University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and
operating
tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining
facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around
paying
for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not
paying
soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that
do
not
even exist.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the
so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who
claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice
cases
was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their
practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look
at
the
reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The
legislation
has
no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for
less
than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical
malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a
measly
one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would
"disproportionately
affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes.
According
to
the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while
at
the
same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate
but
difficult claims to find legal representation."

Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed
projects,
right?

I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort
reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of
overall
healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the
countless
unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is
overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once
again...."it's
for the children" YAWN


Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all
together -
are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards.

--
Peter Aitken
Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives.


A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to
the
doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not
counted.

It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice,
keep
records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice
insurance.

Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself


You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or
not
be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and
all
you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among
right-wing nitwits.


--
Peter Aitken



Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also.

Note how he didn't include his sig line on the last
post............typical
liebral......whining about others doing what they themselves are guilty
of.



Hmmm - you quote my post with sig line while claiming I did not include it.
Perhaps you can go to the morgue and get a used brain.

Who ties your shoes for you?

--
Peter Aitken

"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
. com...
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
. com...
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"John H." wrote in message
...
On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote:

A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests

As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August,
President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio
address
Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed
many
key
priorities." The only problem is, this administration's
priorities
are
different from your priorities. Every major legislative
initiative
signed by the president this year has been a boon to special
interests,
but ignored the real needs of the American people.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent
to
President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was
overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million
"Bridge
to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a
combined
population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a
highway
in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a
widening
that
the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for
15
to
20
years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and
a
commission charged with developing major road projects." And
thanks
to
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his
willingness
to
spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also
includes
$200
million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with
Gravina
Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they
reach
Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5
million
for
a
single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final
passage
of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the
House
"has acted to advance America's economic and national security
interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined
economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of
New
Haven,
Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The
biggest
winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and
telecommunications industries, not the American worker.
Meanwhile,
"the
Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and
unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to
help
workers retrain and compete on the international stage."
Furthermore,
President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for
[the
Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even
the
modest resources available under that program," "pursued
policies
that
leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access
to
this
program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under
real
workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy
legislation
that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in
new
subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas
producers
for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing
orphaned
wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the
energy
bill
in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of
$88.9
billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill."
Despite

these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in
the
short
term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or
significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign
oil."
A
2004
analysis by the administration's Energy Information
Administration
found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas
prices
and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the
"bankruptcy
reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average
Americans
suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The
credit
card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year
and
doled
out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election
cycle,
lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that
bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in
bill
sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety
percent
of
all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high
medical
bills
or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have
shot
to
record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health
insurance
coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make
it
harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such
episodes,
while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq
supplemental
spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though
the
bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White
House
accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal
with
the
equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major
cash
for
questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent
corporations.
At
the
same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for
the
wars."
Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George
Washington
University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and
operating
tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining
facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around
paying
for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not
paying
soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that
do
not
even exist.

FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was
the
so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives
who
claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice
cases
was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon
their
practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look
at
the
reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The
legislation
has
no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan
Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for
less
than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping
medical
malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a
measly
one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would
"disproportionately
affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes.
According
to
the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while
at
the
same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate
but
difficult claims to find legal representation."

Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed
projects,
right?

I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt
tort
reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of
overall
healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the
countless
unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is
overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once
again...."it's
for the children" YAWN


Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all
together -
are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards.

--
Peter Aitken
Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives.


A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to
the
doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not
counted.

It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice,
keep
records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice
insurance.

Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like
himself


You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or
not
be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and
all
you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among
right-wing nitwits.


--
Peter Aitken



Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also.

Note how he didn't include his sig line on the last
post............typical
liebral......whining about others doing what they themselves are guilty
of.


Yep.

For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here
it is:
-------------------
Peter Aitken
Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives.
----------------------

How nice of you Peter.

BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero
and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand.


Guilty as charged - but by god they sure deserve it!


--
Peter Aitken

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:


For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it),
here it is:
-------------------
Peter Aitken
Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives.
----------------------

How nice of you Peter.

BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero
and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand.

I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins,
et al, start speaking out on "name calling."

We learned it from you. Oh Master of the inane.

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:


For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it),
here it is:
-------------------
Peter Aitken
Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives.
----------------------

How nice of you Peter.

BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero
and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand.

I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins,
et al, start speaking out on "name calling."


Except for me calling you an asshole, which you are, what other name calling
do I do Krause?

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:


For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it),
here it is:
-------------------
Peter Aitken
Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives.
----------------------

How nice of you Peter.

BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero
and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand.

I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins,
et al, start speaking out on "name calling."



When was the last time you actually contributed an *On* topic post to this
NG?

Your petty insults and name calling..............getting old. But that is
all you seem to do here.

Hmmm - you quote my post with sig line while claiming I did not include
it.
Perhaps you can go to the morgue and get a used brain.

Who ties your shoes for you?

--
Peter Aitken



Why the need for personal insults in your replies Peter? By doing so you
are showing you cannot keep up with the debate/discussion at hand.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:03:47 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote:

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
. com...


snipped

It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep
records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice
insurance.

Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself


You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not
be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all
you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among
right-wing nitwits.


--
Peter Aitken


Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also.


Are you serious? Is this the most intelligent response you could come up
with? Are you interested in the issues or in high-school "gotcha?"

Jesus H. Christ, and these people are allowed to vote.


But meanwhile Peter wrote:

Who ties your shoes for you?

--
Peter Aitken

Are you serious, Peter? Is that what passes for "intelligent" for
you?

On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Every major legislative initiative
signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests,
but ignored the real needs of the American people.

Name one 20th President who has not catered to "special" interests?

Betcha can't.

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:16:14 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote:

On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

Every major legislative initiative
signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests,
but ignored the real needs of the American people.

Name one 20th President who has not catered to "special" interests?

Betcha can't.

make that 20th Century President - sorry. :)

Harry,
Don't you hate it when others play the game better than you do?


"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
*JimH* wrote:

For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it),
here it is:
-------------------
Peter Aitken
Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives.
----------------------

How nice of you Peter.

BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero
and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at
hand.
I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins,
et al, start speaking out on "name calling."

We learned it from you. Oh Master of the inane.

Doubt it; none of you seem even slightly trainable.