BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:32 PM

In the U.S. (trying to stick this the subject of this thread) Obama if he succeeds will have a very short honeymoon, he will eventually get run over by the machine ... remembering what happened in the mid-term elections last year .... the U.S. is in such a serious mess the only one of the canditates who 'gets it' and has the stature, backbone to make any kind of difference is Ron Paul.

My 2 cents worth.

BTW I agree with Peace especially with Romeo Dallaire.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:38 PM

Yes, I agree with Peace on that also.

Your thoughts about Ron Paul are interesting. You might be right.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:41 PM

Yeah, I think Ron Paul "gets it." But when they had the Republican debates, everytime he said anything, all the other candidates laughed at him. All of which tells you that he gets it and they don't. The problem going forward is, there are probably only a handfull of people in Congress and in various departments that also get it, so he'd have to go through a massive education process.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:48 PM

That is one reason Paul might make a good VEEP. He doesn't have a whore's chance in Paradise of making the Primaries, but he could provide back-to-back defense against the slimers and swiftboaters who will come out of the woodwork with their sneering innuendos.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:50 PM

I agree Riginslinger ... but Ron Paul has the stamina and independance to pull it off.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 02:52 PM

Good point Amos ... one can only hope.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:16 PM

Amos - That is a good point. If a bunch of Swift Boaters went after Ron Paul, he turn around and hand them there collecive heads.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 04:44 PM

Do all those other Republican candidates who laugh at Ron Paul every time he states a simple, uncomfortable truth really not "get it"? Or are they being deliberately disingenuous? Ridicule is a common technique of shutting down the unpleasant truth when it is spoken in a public forum. I think they are consciously, deliberately trying to shut him down in that fashion, and I think that the Democrats are consciously, deliberately trying to shut down Dennis Kucinich for the same reason...by keeping him out of the televised debates.

They don't want people to hear the real alternatives to the standard propaganda line.

In Kucinich's case, they simply shut him out of the debates. In Ron Paul's case, they all cover over whatever he says with a bunch of nervous laughter.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 05:01 PM

Yeah, I suppose that's right. If they were all as dumb as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, you could just assume that they just didn't "get it." But McCain and Huckabee seem a little smarter than that, and I didn't get the impression that Thompson was actually leading the laughter.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:03 PM

Here's another possibility for last night's count in New Hampshire:

voting fraud.

Did anyone see the riding by riding results coming in steadily through the night for the Democrats, as with the Republicans? The people on CNN seemed very surprised that Hillary Clinton was ahead of Obama, and quite reluctant to confirm her win, although it had been announced early on another media outlet (United Press?).

I think there is a genuine possibility that the voting results were tampered with on the Democratic side of the ticket, that the result was "cooked".

Why? Because the main machine that runs the Democratic Party decided as much as a year ago that Hillary Clinton is going to be their candidate, and they figured it couldn't go wrong if enough money was funneled into her campaign. Now it appears it might go wrong, so they might be pulling a few strings to get the train back on track, as it were...

Just a possibility. I'm not saying I know. I'm saying that I am suspicious. When all the polls a day or so before show that Obama is ahead, and WELL ahead, then he gets less votes on the actual day...I tend to suspect that something is not right in Denmark.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

Personally I envisioned a simpler explanation:

"Ma'a'm, you are one of several thousand women who switched their decision and voted for Hillary at the last moment, is that correct?"

"Yes, I am."

"May I ask, ma'am, why you changed your mind?"

"I just did, all right!!!!?????"

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 06:21 PM

Yes, that is possible too. A number of things are possible.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: curmudgeon
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 08:42 PM

Posted on 7 January:

The short time lapse since Iowa means that polls will not be that reflective of the true intent of the voters until tomorrow morning.

Many Granite Staters take a perverse delight in lying to pollsters.

30% of the electorate is still favoring "Undecided."

I told you so - Tom

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:47 PM

"The Republicans would eat him (Obama) for breakfast..."

Little problem with facts and logic there: i.e. absolutely none.

Obviously, it's not a question of Obama's problems with Republicans (specifically McCain--anybody else would be a comparative pushover)--in a vacuum. It's either Obama or somebody else against McCain. The other likely possibility is clearly Hillary. So the comparison is particularly apt.

1) As I said earlier, Obama has neither the 1960's legacy nor the 1990's legacy to weigh him down. Hillary has both--and will never be able to shed either.

1960's: Hillary's funding request for funding for a Woodstock concert museum. McCain's classic--and pitch-perfect--response. "I wasn't there. I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time".

How could Hillary have been so stupid?

Brings up the old generation and political '60's gap--try yawning divide--with all its bitter heritage, which played a huge role in sinking Kerry.

1990's: a grab-bag of scandals, some well-known, some not so. Some already seared into the American consciousness.


2) Obama's strong suit is "change". For people who believe strongly in this, Republican attacks would have very little impact--might even make them stronger Obama supporters.

Hillary has no strong suit, especially against McCain.

3) Obama has an army of young enthusiasts--willing to stuff envelopes, ring bells, etc. forever. Hillary--not so much.

4) It's clearly Hillary, not Obama, who has the big problem. Her top quality is supposedly experience. Pathetic compared to McCain's.

5) Obama's appeal is across the board--including independents and some Republicans. Hillary's support is very narrow--look even at her Mudcat support--not impressive, to put it mildly.

6) Hillary has such huge negatives that she will unify a fractious Republican party--against her. Obama--not likely--he will even get Republican votes.

If anybody cares to debate any of this--with facts and logic, not innuendo, please feel free.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:51 PM

I urge you to look up Obama--Coming in Second in New Hampshire on YouTube -- his speech acknowledging Hillary in New Hampshire.

It is one awesome piece of political rhetoric and leadership.



A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:55 PM

Ron and Amos, I am with you 100%. PERIOD.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 09:55 PM

Re: Ron Paul:

Do any of you so enthralled by Ron Paul ever look at what he actually stands for?

1) withdrawal from NATO, UN
2) ending of federal income tax
3) abolishing of many (most?) government agencies--in practice that will mean non-defense agencies: i.e. lots of social programs. What do you think will substitute for them?
4) against gun control
5) overturning Roe v Wade--he is "pro-life"

He's a Republican Congressman who advocates withdrawal from Iraq--fine. But, sorry to say, he's a package deal. Including all the above--and probably more. Why do I think you may possibly not be quite so enthusiastic about some of his non-Iraq positions?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:00 PM

I think something we could easily be missing is that for the first time in decades younger voters will have a person who represents many of their ideals and hopes. That is Obama. In some ways he reminds me of McCarthy back in the day. He offers hope. IMO, Hillary is more of the old monied same-same. Elect me because I want to be in the White House because that's where I want to be.

Obama is a class act, and as far as I am concerned he's gonna be the next President of the United States of America. I hope some BIG states see it that way, too. I think the USA is in for one helluva shock come election day. It's about time, because since I can remember, it has been SSDD. GO, OBAMA!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:03 PM

"Obama's strong suit is "change""

I feel his heart is in it but it's just rhetoric ... ignites the emotions, nice package design but there is nothing of substance to indcate what he's going to change or more importantly how he is going to make the change .... how is he going to stand up to the 'machine' and the machine doesn't pertain just to the Republicans. In fact I feel some of those Republican candidates would be run over by the 'machine' ( Huckabee and McCain).

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:10 PM

Rig: "I would happily vote for Hillary."

So you would happily vote for somebody who still, over 4 years later, refuses to admit she was wrong in voting to authorize Bush for an unnecessary war of choice he duped the US public into supporting. A war which has caused tens of thousands of deaths, and for which we are all still paying, in innumerable ways.

Interesting.

But suppose she were willing to consider illegal immigrants to be actual people, not the cause of all US economic problems? And didn't believe in stupid rumors like the terrible danger of Hispanic groups giving back parts of the US to Mexico?

And don't forget, she has a strong faith. You would be voting to put in office somebody who-- (gasp)-- is in favor of religion, the source of all evil in the world. How could you ever sleep at night knowing what you'd done?

And if you don't believe me, just wait a little while--not very long. You'll hear a lot about from her about how important religion is in American life, and in her own life.

You mean to tell us you don't put your vote where your mouth is---that all your ranting against religion is just so much hot air? --(which it must be if you're willing to "happily" vote for somebody who has confessed to the crime of being strongly religious.)

Why am I not surprised?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:17 PM

No details on "change"?

1) Wait a bit, there will be some details. Campaign has just started.

2) Do you feel the same about JFK?--after all, some of the details he gave were in fact false. Yet he is considered the inspiration to much of a generation.

3) The main change, as I understand it, is to change the adversarial culture which has existed for quite a while--and which Hillary embodies.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:18 PM

Ron...

I am pleased about what Ron Paul is saying...NOT because I want to see him or his party elected, not because I am unaware of certain policies of his that I don't agree with, but because he is bringing forth some vitally important stuff that embarrasses the other Republican candidates and sheds a bright light on the hypocrisy of the foreign policy they are supporting. It's stuff that Republicans need to hear.

Is that okay with you?

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:21 PM

Just be aware he is a package--not a slogan. Especially if anybody is thinking of pushing him for VP, etc.

"... hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:32 PM

I value him as a spoiler, Ron, not as a candidate to realistically be elected. He is speaking some truths about Iraq and the so-called "War on Terror" that have been almost unspeakable in the USA political mainstream since 911. Good for him.

And so is Kucinich, who will also serve as a spoiler, because there is no way the ruling system will give him any chance of being elected.

I am pleased that Ron Paul is pulling some votes away from the other Republican and still hanging in there to say what he's saying.

Now you want bizarre policies to get upset about? Try out Huckabee's idea of replacing all income and payroll taxes with a flat 23% sales tax to everyone on everything they buy, no matter how rich or poor they are. That would be a disaster for the poorest people in society. It's a scheme that would accelerate the movement of money from the poorest people toward the richest. It's about the most unprogressive notion I've heard of yet....though it sounds superficially egalitarian if you don't give it much thought.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:33 PM

Obama is doing wonderfully well what a President should be doing -- creating the vision, direction and values of the nation. He is uniting people with honesty and enthusiasm.

He also has some strong policies in mind.

A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: TRUBRIT
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 10:49 PM

Amos -- in a serious thread I loved you .......I JUST DID -- ALRIGHT?????

Heard myself saying something similar in the past......

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:27 PM

Ron - None of these candidates are perfect. I would rather the front running Democrats recognize the environmental impact of continued immigration. But they're in corporate pockets too. Actually, Obama seems to have more of that problem than Hillary does.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 09 Jan 08 - 11:43 PM

Ron ... "Wait a bit, there will be some details. Campaign has just started." ... fer Gawd's sake he's been campaigning for a year !

LH .. I certainly agree with you regarding Ron Paul and Kucinich. But I have to disagree with you regarding Huckleberry's Tax plan ... I think it makes sense ... certainly is radical. More fair to be taxed on what you spend than what you earn ... of course questions on what should be taxed on spending will be required.

Amos ... I agree. Obama has integrity and certainly provides much needed inspiration, but as soon as he steps into the ring he'll be flattened. The 'unity' will soon disinigrate. His opponets are mean and bad, and the country needs someone who can not only outmanouver, and has a solid game plan but also take a hard punch with out going down. This is what is required to keep the country unified.

again, my 2 cents worth. At this rate I'll be broke by Friday.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 12:14 AM

"He also has some strong policies in mind." - Amos

What are those policies?

All I've seen so far is a smooth talking, charmer.

Thats probably what it will take to get elected.

Did anyone believe Hillary's tears? I just about gagged. Thats what I don't like about her. She's willing to play the game any which way to become the first woman president. Her every move is carefully calculated.   

This is going to be very close.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:33 AM

Then there's this from last night's PBS News Hour:


AMY WALTER, The National Journal: Well, we've heard so much about the woman factor. And the fact was that it was a considerable number of women who turned out to vote, even a little bit higher than in 2004.

Fifty-four percent of voters in the Democratic primary last time around, 2004, women, this time, 57 percent, and she won almost half of them. She won across the board, too, working women, you know, married women. She really did much better, certainly than she did in Iowa, but much better than I think anybody had expected.

The real story, though, I think is -- the divide here is on the socioeconomic issues between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. And, quite frankly, even though John Edwards running as a populist, he was never really part of the debate for many of these voters, who really thought, if you made less than $50,000, you supported Hillary Clinton.

If you did not have a college degree, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought the economy was worsening, you supported Hillary Clinton. If you thought things were going well, you had a postgraduate degree, you were making more than $100,000 a year, you voted for Barack Obama.

And it really almost went exactly down the line as that.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: GUEST,Here ya go.
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:18 AM

Obama's positions.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 10:27 AM

From the Dem's viewpoint, it's a pity that Paul isn't running as an independent, where he could counterbalance Nader's votes.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 11:42 AM

I don't think it would take a whole lot to get Ron Paul to do that, given the way he's been treated by his own party.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 01:05 PM

An interesting column in the NY Times today (2008-01-10) by the head of the PEW Research Center, Andrew Kohut, one of the polls that predicted Obama over Clinton.
The polls get minimal response from poor, white citizens. Polls traditionally overestimate the support a black candidate will get from the white community because most of the respondants are better-educated, more affluent. Blacks are mistrusted by poorer whites. When voting takes place, the vote of these poorer whites, largely absent in poll-taking, becomes apparent.
Mr. Kohut points to a similar polling miscue in the Dinkins-Giuliani race in NY in 1989.
This column appeared in the OpEd section of the NY Times online today. Not sure if this link will work but if not, putting NY Times in google should start to get you there.
Getting It Wrong

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:12 PM

Number 6, here's why I am not impressed by Huckabee's 23% sales tax idea....read the Jan 9/08 article by Gwynne Dyer:

************

Gwynne Dyer:

After Iowa


Gwynne Dyer
Tuesday, January 08, 2008

The best news from Iowa is that Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, is still in the race. He will never win the Republican presidential nomination, because his policies would throw about half of the federal government's bureaucrats and three-quarters of the US armed forces out of work, but he is a national treasure.

"They don't hate us because we're free; they hate us because we're over there," Paul says, and advocates the immediate withdrawal of all US troops from overseas. Who else in American politics has the courage to say that? And ten percent of Iowa Republicans supported him.

The second-best news is that Hillary Clinton came third in the Democratic race, far behind Barack Obama and just behind John Edwards. She is the "Washington consensus" candidate, the candidate with the biggest, richest machine, and even if she is still likely to win the nomination eventually -- the biggest machine usually wins in the end -- it is heartening that Iowans backed candidates less addicted to triangulation.

The truly puzzling news is that Mike Huckabee led the Republican pack, by a margin even wider than Obama's lead over his Democratic rivals.
Not only that, but Huckabee achieved this result even though the alleged front-runner in the Republican race, Mitt Romney, outspent him in Iowa by twenty-to-one. Even allowing for the fact that Iowans are relatively conservative and include large numbers of evangelical Christians, this is a strange result.

Huckabee believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago and rejects the theory of evolution, which would make him unelectable in most other countries, but it is no great handicap on the right of American politics. He promises energy independence for the United States in ten years -- "We don't need (Saudi Arabia's oil) any more than we need their sand" -- which is pretty implausible, but clearly has appeal to an American audience. But his tax proposals are astonishingly radical.

Huckabee would simply eliminate all income and payroll taxes -- "and I do mean all," he says on his website, "personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment." He would replace all this with a flat 23 percent national sales tax. Millionaires would pay 23 percent tax on everything they bought, and so would widowed mothers of three.

A few post-Communist regimes in Eastern Europe went to this sort of "flat tax" in a desperate attempt to jump-start their moribund economies, but at least they still had social services of a kind that scarcely exist in the United States, so there was some protection for the poor. No developed country has such a tax, because it is so brutally unfair to those living on lower incomes.

Like George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee is a congenial man with a folksy manner, and like Bush his major domestic project is to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. There are rational justifications for this in the more extreme forms of free-market ideology, but Bush's handlers would never have advocated such a brazen assault on the poor. Subtler is always better.
So how could the leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008 promote such a plan?

Huckabee may not remain the leading candidate past the New Hampshire primary on 8 January, but his rapid rise demonstrates the degree to which the Republican coalition that was first forged in Ronald Reagan's time, and kept the Republicans in power for 20 of the past 28 years, is now disintegrating.

An important part of the Republican "base" consists of people who are poor enough (though not actually poor) to be badly hurt by Huckabee's flat tax. They vote Republican because they share the party's views on other issues, and they can ignore the fact that it does not serve their economic interests because they still believe the American myth of "equality of opportunity." (Almost all Americans still believe it, although in fact the United States now has the lowest social mobility of any developed country.) But Mike Huckabee's policies are so extreme that middle- and lower-income Republican voters are almost bound to realise that they would suffer. In a more pragmatic time, the party elders would never have let such a divisive character gain such prominence, but now they can't or won't control it.

It was always hard to keep the richest 20 percent of the population, the "family values" crowd, the evangelicals (not necessarily the same thing), and the "angry white men" all harnessed to the same wagon, but the Republican Party managed it for almost thirty years. Now the coalition is unravelling.

Mitt Romney is the photo-fit candidate who best embodies the old coalition in this race -- he even changed a number of his opinions to conform to the profile -- but the formula doesn't seem to be working this time. And none of the other leading candidates can appeal to all the different elements of that coalition. Not Huckabee, not John McCain, and certainly not Rudy Giuliani

What this may mean is that after two terms of George Bush, the Republican Party's elders don't really have much hope of winning this election. Let the lunatic fringe have its day, and we'll do better next time.

*******************


You see, there is no justification for making the poor people in any society pay a 23% tax (which they simply cannot afford) on all their essential items such as food, clothing, and the various other staples that a person needs to survive day to day. If it were a 23% tax on luxury consumer items that are not essentials...okay. But not if it's a tax on everything.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:29 PM

I think it would be wiser to scrap the tax code and provide a flat tax with no exemptions (including churches and foundations) for any entity grossing more than, say, $45,000 (current dollars) per annum.

Kill the loopholes, make a tax threshold that spares the seriosuly disadvantaged, but thereafter, make the ratio uniform all the way up. Plenty of incentive to improve one's condition, although the incentive lags briefly between 45K and around 50K.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 02:35 PM

I agree 100%, Amos. Once I am making above $45,000 annually (as I was 2 years ago) I am perfectly happy to pay an equal share of the taxes. I do not mind sharing the load.

This past year was not that good, however, due entirely to the collapse in the international value of the US dollar. Nothing else has changed...but the US dollar has sunk like a stone.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 03:48 PM

"Huckabee believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago and rejects the theory of evolution,..."


                   He got that information directly from John McCain, who was there to witness the whole thing in person.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 04:31 PM

LOL!!!

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:24 PM

No sane person believes in flat rate tax. The rich have more spare money. They should pay a greater proportion of it in tax. They can afford it. The poor can't.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: mg
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:41 PM

Flat tax at way below 45K....no heavy sales tax...perhaps some on luxury or avoidable items...mg

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 05:52 PM

No one should pay tax on what they earn whether they make $10k a year or $500k and no one should lose their home and belonging for failure to pay income tax ... when you eliminate the income tax and apply a higher rate on sales tax everyone pays. The hard reality in eliminating income tax is just the thought of not having it ... there was a time and not that long ago there wasn't an income tax .... income tax was brought in the pay for the wars ... Big Government created the monster that it is today ... Hell you could probably feed social/medicare in collecting taxes on gambling, booze if you managed it right.

My 2 cents worth ... I got paid today and I have just a few more pennies left after income tax.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:09 PM

"...a higher rate on sales tax everyone pays." Only if you spend your money locally (eg in the USA, in this case) and legally.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

Yeah, that's another problem. A whole lot of commerce is done under the radar screen and avoids getting taxed, so all the straight players end up paying for those guys.

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: number 6
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:37 PM

A whole lot of commerce is done under the radar screen ... you are correct Rigin. It has and always will .... in income tax it's the straight players who get whacked (bigtime) also ... the rich get the most benefits out of the loopholes ... so let's eliminate it across the board ... the rich will be the ones spending the money and believe most of their big purchases will be above the radar screen the and they will be paying their share of the taxes. Having a higher sales tax will also mean that the illegal drug dealers, con artists who have not been paying their share of income taxes will with a higher sales tax.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:54 PM

Richard:

In case you haven't noticed, it takes a lot more money to pay ten percent of a million bucks than it does to pay ten percent of 50,000 bucks.



A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 06:55 PM

Well, biLL, there is one big ol' major problem with yer national sales tax... What happens to folks living on fixed incomes???

The next major problem is that what it would do is create a massive untaxable black market and alot of borderline tax evasive bartering...

Now when we look at Huckabee's idea of writing checks back to those folks who have lesser incomes to help them pay the new flat tax you're going to create a system that is unamageable...

Yeah, where these tax schemes that the rich regularially float as being "revoltionary" are looked at from all angles, these ideas just don't work in the real world...

Yeah, I can see at least some possibilities in what Amos has offered up but I'd really have top see how mush revenue it would actually provide and who would be paying what share... Plus, even Amos's plan is going to create the black markets and the bartering which will take money out of the US Treasury...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:14 PM

Democrats- 22 delegates available through primary vote in New Hampshire, of a total of 30-
Clinton won 9
Obama won 9
Edwards won 4

There are 8 superdelegates who are not bound by the primary vote.
Rumor has it that 2 favor Clinton, 3 favor Obama, 3 unknown.
Come the convention, the 22 are bound for the 1st ballot only, I believe. The 8 superdelegates vote at the will of state party chiefs.

Who won New Hampshire? Only the shadow knows for sure.

Republicans- 12 statewide delegates (no superdelegates)
McCain won 7
Romney won 4
Huckabee won 1

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:22 PM

Thanks for the numbers, Q; What is amazing that no-one in the mass media was ready to quantize the claim of Hillary's Big Win. The absurdity of commercial reporting made manifest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: So, Who Will Win New Hampshire?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jan 08 - 07:28 PM

News reporting is usually crafted to convey a specific impression...rather than to provide "the facts". The people in charge are in charge of what impression gets created, and that is determined by how they choose to cover the story.

Very Orwellian.