Rubin gets an earful from fellow Dems

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DanS
Zkrib, you're just looking for a free lunch.

What I want for my money is value. Why should Americans pay more for their healthcare than anyone else in the Industrialized World, yet have a shorter life span? Why should we have the highest rate of people not covered by healthcare?

Another shocking fact: Although it's common knowledge that the majority of bankruptcies in the U.S. arise because of health problems, what is not generally known is that the majority of healthcare-caused bankruptcies happen to people with health insurance -- just not enough.

It seems to me to be a good thing to: (a) cut unnecessary bureaucracy; (b) provide health coverage all Americans, (c) cut costs to employers; and (d) put more money in the pockets of consumers.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whoha
trade simply wasn't an issue in the election, so I very much doubt the democrats will lose by imposing whatever minor and largely pointless restrictions on trade they have planned.

Both parties have been split pretty much down the middle on trade issues. The Free Trade agreements with Peru and Equador didn't get passed largely because nervous Republican Congressmen wouldn't sign on the dotted line.

That said free trade is a good thing and it makes everyone better off though I do like the EU style free trade where they place membership requirements on countries instead of the lawless anything goes stance the US has. That said, I can easily see politicians placing huge and unreasonable burdens on trade partners just to act protectionist without seeming to be protectionist.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Odin
Sane people are fed up with the Cult of Free Trade.

Free trade is like democracy.

It's terrible in practice, with lots of flaws and can easily be manipulated the wrong way.

But it's the best we got--everything else is worse.

[Dinner]

BTW, reports which don't have source links are worthless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Seriously though on a national level how far have demographics shifted? Are Repugs in the minority again as far as registration goes? Everyone know the last election was an anyone but the Repugs message but have the Dems picked up registrations to the point where they are the majority?

Huh? Did the Republicans somehow take advantage of shifting demographics to win in 1994? The majority party is the one which has more seats. Dems have more seats = majority party. The power of incumbancy usually keeps the majority party in power for at least a few terms unless the majority is very small or something goes to Hell in the meanwhile.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Huh? Did the Republicans somehow take advantage of shifting demographics to win in 1994? The majority party is the one which has more seats. Dems have more seats = majority party. The power of incumbancy usually keeps the majority party in power for at least a few terms unless the majority is very small or something goes to Hell in the meanwhile.

Duh. But that doesn't adequately describe the electorate. Anyone have any recent polling data to describe the most recetn affiliation of the electorate.

By 2000 or a tthe very least 2004 the Repugs had established themsleves as more numerous than Dems in terms of registered voters. The 1994 election notwithstanding, the rolls of voters continued to tip towards the GOP until 2004. I simply want to understand if that trend has now reversed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Registration matters not if registered voters don't go to the polls.

[Dinner]

Still no source for the OP? Dan, are you quoting rightwing news sites again? Last time you refused to post the link to an OP it was because the article was from some raving lunatic fringe website. Where'd this article come from so that we can judge the moadivation for this article and decide if the source is creditible?

[Imran Siddiqui]

As he states, Oerdin, right before the article, it's from the WSJ. Quick searching leads you to:

http://users1.wsj.com/lmda/do/checkLogin?mg=wsj-users1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB116649334625854094.html%3Fmod%3Dtodays_us_nonsub_page_one

The full article is for subscribers and I ain't one of them.

Read the OP before you critique it, will you?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Read the OP before you critique it, will you?

Dammit Imran, this is Apolyton! Do you really expect us to read?!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As he states, Oerdin, right before the article, it's from the WSJ.

So Oerdin was right.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Dan, are you quoting rightwing news sites again?

[chequita guevara]

So, do you think we should have free trade with China, who overvalues their currency by 40%? Do you think that goods produced by slave or child labor should be allowed to be sold in the US? What about products that are produced in ways that are environmentally abhorrent to us?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes to all.

That was easy .

[chequita guevara]

Why do you hate America?

[Imran Siddiqui]

My parents are Muslim, I'm already suspect .