Re: ELECTION: more

From: Ross A. Finlayson (
Date: Tue Nov 14 2000 - 10:47:45 MST

Brian D Williams wrote:

> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> >However, because NH's population is only 1.2 million, in a
> >relatively small but variable geographic area (~80 miles wide by
> >~250 tall), with only a handful of TV stations, any candidate with
> >a few hundred thousand bucks can gain significant exposure early
> >on (and because many other areas of the country are watching via
> >TV news, those candidates get lots of free exposure nationwide,
> >rather than having to pay for it). Failing to do this limits your
> >choices in Illinois as well as ours, because having primaries all
> >the same day guarrantees that only one or two candidates could
> >cough up the funds to compete at that level, at most. If that
> >system had been in place last year, there would have been no need
> >of a primary, as only Bush would have had the funds to get
> >exposure in every state. Starting in smaller states first allows
> >candidates that are not bought and paid for by the multinationals
> >to gain exposure and gives people real choice.
> As I already pointed out, here in Illinois we did NOT get a choice,
> or at least a very poor one.
> There is no reason that all the candidates can't be allowed to
> participate in a debate or question or answer type session under
> Universal access requirements.
> Then the Borda style primary, followed by the conventions, then
> whatever.
> The current system is okay for New Hampshire, it seriously degrades
> every day after that. In other words it sucks for the rest of us.
> Brian
> Member:
> Extropy Institute,
> Adler Planetarium
> Life Extension Foundation,
> National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
> Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

How about this, all the campaign promises are collated and delivered to
the winner on inauguration. Then, if they're not in place at the end of
the year, the other guy gets the office, or we just put in a notary.

I was just thinking that in most states more than %5 over every sales
transaction is an appended tax. That must be quite a chunk of change.
It is a very regressive tax, as are taxes on gasoline, alcohol, and
tobacco. I believe the other descriptions of taxes in those terms are
proportional and progressive.

The federal government makes most of its money off of income taxes.
Both candidates have offered income tax cuts, yet the executive doesn't
have the power to make tax cuts. Programs that are costing large
amounts of money could probably be streamlined in terms of efficiency
and thrift, if we knew where the money went. The budget is on the CBO
web page or something, but it doesn't say where the money goes.

The government should take a one time balance sheet charge to pay off
the debt, although that might slam its stock.

After that, then, we can start charging all the other countries that use
our military. Also, international intellectual property that belongs to
the people of the U.S. should be heartily protected, although technology
transfer is a good thing overall, what with R&D being the predictor of
growth. Defense spending can still be quite high after being cut by a
third, which would be a third of twenty-five percent of the government
budget. Growth is about R & D, which means bigs planes, lasers,
supercolliders, and space, as well as small science, even very small


Have a nice day,


Ross Andrew Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting
Ross at Tiki-Lounge:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT