Montenegro anuncia redução de IRS nas rendas, isenção de mais-valias e maior dedução à coleta

[Keyser Soze]

IOWA RESULTS

DEMOCRATS (official)
Barack Obama - 37.6%
John Edwards - 29.7%
Hillary Clinton - 29.5%
Bill Richardson - 2.1%

REPUBLICANS (96% complete)
Mike Huckabee - 34.3%
Mitt Romney - 25.3%
Fred Thomson - 13.4%
John McCain - 13.1%
Ron Paul - 10.0%
Rudy Giuliani - 3.5%


January 4, 2008
Obama Takes Iowa in a Big Turnout as Clinton Falters; Huckabee Victor
By ADAM NAGOURNEY

DES MOINES — Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a first-term Democratic senator trying to become the nation’s first African-American president, rolled to victory in the Iowa caucuses on Thursday night, lifted by a record turnout of voters who embraced his promise of change.

The victory by Mr. Obama, 46, amounted to a startling setback for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 60, of New York, who just months ago presented herself as the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. The result left uncertain the prospects for John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, who had staked his second bid for the White House on winning Iowa.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, who edged her out for second place by less than a percentage point, both vowed to stay in the race.

“They said this day would never come,” Mr. Obama said as he claimed his victory at a packed rally in downtown Des Moines.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas who was barely a blip on the national scene just two months ago, defeated Mitt Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, delivering a serious setback to Mr. Romney’s high-spending campaign and putting pressure on Mr. Romney to win in New Hampshire next Tuesday.

Mr. Huckabee, a Baptist minister, was carried in large part by evangelical voters, who helped him withstand extensive spending by Mr. Romney on television advertising and a get-out-the-vote effort.

“Tonight we proved that American politics is still in the hands of ordinary folks like you,” said Mr. Huckabee, who ran on a platform that combined economic populism with an appeal to social conservatives.

Mr. Huckabee won with 34.4 percent of the delegate support, after 86 percent of precincts had reported. Mr. Romney had 25.4 percent, former Senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee had 13.4 percent and Senator John McCain of Arizona had 13.2 percent.

On the Democratic side, with 100 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Obama had 37.6 percent of the delegate support, Mr. Edwards 29.8 percent and Mrs. Clinton had 29.5 percent. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico was fourth, at 2.11 percent.

Two Democrats, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, dropped out of the race after winning only tiny percentages of the vote.

A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus — more than 239,000, compared with fewer than 125,0000 in 2004 — producing scenes of overcrowded firehouses and schools and long lines of people waiting to register their preferences.

The images stood as evidence of the success of Mr. Obama’s effort to reach out to thousands of first-time caucusgoers, including many independent voters and younger voters. The huge turn-out — by contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday — demonstrated the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats, and served as another warning to Republicans about the problems they face this November in swing states like this.

Mr. Obama’s victory in this overwhelmingly white state was a powerful answer to the question of whether America was prepared to vote for a black person for president. What was remarkable was the extent to which race was not a factor in this contest. Surveys of voters entering the caucuses also indicated that he had won the support of many independents, a development that his aides used to rebut suggestions from rivals that he could not win a general election. In addition, voters clearly rejected the argument that Mr. Obama does not have sufficient experience to take over the White House, a central point pressed by Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama took the stage, smiling broadly and clapping his hands in response to the roar of cheers that greeted him.

“They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose,” Mr. Obama said. “But on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do.”

The result sent tremors of apprehension through Mrs. Clinton’s camp, and she promptly turned her attention to New Hampshire, flying there on a plane that left at midnight. Aides said that former President Bill Clinton would go there immediately and spend the next five days campaigning in a state where he has always been strong. Mrs. Clinton, in her concession speech, sought again to embrace the mantle of change that has served Mr. Obama so well, even as she was flanked on the stage by Mr. Clinton, his face frozen in a smile, and Madeleine K. Albright, who was Mr. Clinton’s secretary of state.

“What is most important now is that, as we go on with this contest, that we keep focused on the two big issues, that we answer correctly the questions that each of us has posed,” Mrs. Clinton said. “How will we win in November 2008 by nominating a candidate who will be able to go the distance and who will be the best president on Day One.”

Mr. Edwards in his speech suggested that he had benefited from the same electoral forces that lifted Mr. Obama to victory. “Continue on,” Mr. Edwards shouted at supporters from the stage, his voice sounding hoarse. “Thank you for second place.”

In fact, he drew 29.8 percent of the delegates awarded, to Mrs. Clinton’s 29.4 percent.

Mr. Huckabee declared victory at a boisterous rally in which he rejoiced in his ability to overcome his better-financed opponent, who had spent much of the past year building up for a victory and had hammered Mr. Huckabee with negative advertisements over the past month here.

“We’ve learned that people really are more important then the purse,” he said.

Mr. Romney will now make a stand in New Hampshire, where he has also invested heavily.

“Congratulations on the first round to Mike,” Mr. Romney said on Fox News.

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, had campaigned intermittently here over the past month, at one point hoping to take advantage of the unsettled field here to come in third. Instead, he came in sixth place, garnering just 3 percent.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Huckabee face very different circumstances heading into New Hampshire and the states beyond. Polling suggested that a once overwhelming lead enjoyed by Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire was vanishing even before the results of Thursday’s vote. Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have long worried that a loss here would weaken her even more going into New Hampshire, stripping her both of claims to inevitability and to electability.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama — as well as Mr. Edwards — face a rigorous and expensive run of nearly 25 contests between now and Feb. 5. Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton appear far better-positioned, in terms of organization and money, to compete through that period, than Mr. Edwards. Though Mr. Edwards presented second place as a victory, he fell far short of winning — as he had once sought to do — and might find it difficult now to raise more money or find new supporters.

Compared to Mr. Obama Mr. Huckabee’s situation is much more tenuous, and his victory on Thursday did little to clarify the state of the Republican field. In New Hampshire, polls have shown Mr. McCain on the rise and little support for Mr. Huckabee. Mr. Giuliani has invested much of his time and money in Florida. And, as Mr. Romney’s advisers noted tonight, he has more a foundation of money and support in many of the coming states.

Iowa seemed particularly fertile ground for Mr. Huckabee. Polls of Republicans entering the caucus sites found that 60 percent described themselves as evangelical, and by overwhelming numbers they said they intended to vote for Mr. Huckabee.

The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the National Election Pool of television networks and The Associated Press, also left little doubt about the reasons for Mr. Obama’s convincing victory here. He did much better among young voters.

Voters here were far more interested in a candidate promising change — as Mr. Obama was — than one citing experience, the heart of Mrs. Clinton’s appeal. Half of Democrats said their top factor in choosing a candidate was someone who could bring about change. Just 20 percent said the right experience, Mrs. Clinton’s key argument, was the main factor.

For all the talk about electability, barely one in 10 respondents said it was the main factor in their decision.

There was a sharp generational break in support of the two candidates. Mr. Obama was backed by 60 percent of voters under 25 while Mrs. Clinton was supported by about 45 percent of voters over 65.

The survey of Democrats entering the caucus sites found that more than half said they were attending their first caucus — and they divided with about 40 percent for Mr. Obama and about 30 percent for Mrs. Clinton.

[Keyser Soze]

[Keyser Soze]

Novo Candidato:

<embed FlashVars="videoId=118597" src='http://www.indecision2008.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

[Keyser Soze]

No lado Republicano, Fred Thompson desiludiu nos primeiros debates em que participou (já não me parece que vão conseguir a nomeação), Giulinani continua á frente




No lado Democrata, a Hillary afirma-se cada vez mais como a grande favorita, a dúvida seria Al Gore...será que entra no corrida, ou não? numa recente entrevista ele disse que não tem interesse em concorrer, e acredita-se agora que dará o seu apoio a Hillary




Actualmente, ainda a 12 meses das eleições, tudo aponta para um duelo entre Giuliani e Hillary, uma sondagem recente da CNN dava um empate técnico entre os dois.

[afonsinho]

É o único candidato republicano que admite que a guerra foi um erro (até votou inicialmente contra ela no congresso) e é o único que apoia a retirada faseada do Iraq.
Um bocado trapalhão, mas até fala bem. Só não percebo bem o que ele pretende em acabar com certas organizações federais... reestrutura-las vá lá... mas acabar com elas? Ele quer criar uma sociedade diferente de tudo o que existe no mundo desenvolvido. Acabar com o IRS? Não pagar impostos? Não descontar para o estado?

Não tem hipóteses de ganhar o GOP republicano... embora tenha ganho muito mediatismo com este debate e serve para criar algum equilibrio nestes debates republicanos. Se ele não estivesse lá, a Fox News tinha feito o debate mesmo à medida dos defensores das políticas do Bush.



P.S. E mais uma vez a Fox News mostra o que vale... muito pouco. Mesmo depois do debate tentaram vender o que eles acham sobre os assuntos que ali foram discutidos. Uma vergonha de canal.


<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXkleE1ttD4"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vXkleE1ttD4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>

[Keyser Soze]

Ron Paul no debate dos Candidatos Republicanos na FOX News


<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/herUw6FX4MI"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/herUw6FX4MI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>

[afonsinho]

Isso é verdade... o Bush ou o gabinete dele é neo-conservador, o Guliani por exemplo é muito mais moderado. É a favor do aborto, os direitos dos homosexuais e por aí fora...

Mas sinceramente, preferia que lá tivessem os democratas... era bom uma mudança mais radical.

[Branc0]

E se o Obama ganhar vamos ter 5 anos de Democratas? Se o Obama ganha então tenho a certeza que vamos ter 5 anos Republicanos.

Lá por ele dizer que foi sempre contra o a guerra no Iraque e que a Clinton votou a favor da invasão. Ele não estava no Senado na altura, falar de fora é muito bonito. Ela na camapanha dela fala de coisas muito concretas e boas medidas. O Obama é muito fogo de vista e é típico político... fala, fala e muitas vezes não diz nada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRZ_AJRQHNc Ele nem reune consenso entre o voto negro como uma forma de "afirmative action".

Ela fala do que da votos, quando for preciso tomar decisões dificeis vamos ver. De qualquer das formas não me importo nada de ter republicanos na casa branca.

O Bush é mau, mas não é concerteza o molde pelo qual todos os Republicanos se regem.

[afonsinho]

E se o Obama ganhar vamos ter 5 anos de Democratas? Se o Obama ganha então tenho a certeza que vamos ter 5 anos Republicanos.

Lá por ele dizer que foi sempre contra o a guerra no Iraque e que a Clinton votou a favor da invasão. Ele não estava no Senado na altura, falar de fora é muito bonito. Ela na camapanha dela fala de coisas muito concretas e boas medidas. O Obama é muito fogo de vista e é típico político... fala, fala e muitas vezes não diz nada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRZ_AJRQHNc Ele nem reune consenso entre o voto negro como uma forma de "afirmative action".

[Branc0]

Se ela ganhar a nomeação democratica o mais provavel é termos mais 5 anos de administração republicana.

Faltam-lhe convicções.

[afonsinho]

Pode ser que me engane mas não me parece. No lado democrático é que não sei mas iria com o Obama.

Não vejo porque dizes isso. A Clinton é claramente a favorita e quem os repúblicanos mais temem. O Obama é inexperiente e demasiado Hollywodesco... as pessoas que querem ser "cool" dizem que vão votar nele, mas nem todos os políticos de raça negra estão do lado dele nesta corrida. A Clinton tem tudo para ser uma grande presidente e tem um "first gentelman" que abona muito em favor dela. Acho que aqui não ha hipóteses.

[Keyser Soze]

Para mim, o Giulianni tem a nomeação no papo, por mais razão nenhuma a não ser "estar lá" no 11 de Setembro e os americanos tiveram em boa conta as acções que ele tomou nesse dia.

discordo...ele está-se a colar demasiado ao "11 de Setembro" e isso pode jogar contral ele

ele já foi criticado oficialmente pelos Bombeiros (FDNY) por causa disso

além disso, há muitas coisas que correram mal naquele dia por erros e más decisões no passado:

o departamente reponsavel por coordenar todos os departamentos em caso de um grande acidente/ataque estava localizado junto ao World Trade Center e ficou inutilizado no ataque

foi uma asneira colocar um departamento estratégico num local que seria sempre um alvo terrorista preferencial ( já tinha sido atacado nos inicio dos anos 90 - o 1º ataque ao WTC)

outra coisa muito ccriticavel foram os sistemas de comunicações diferentes, bombeiros e policias não conseguiam comunicar uns com os outros, dificultou em muitos a coordenação nos esforços de socorro e terá sido responsavel por muitas mortes aquando da queda das torres pq muitos dos bombeiros q estavam lá dentro nunca receberam ordens para recuar


mas o mais importante, é que a base de Partido Republicano é conservadora, os religiosos cristãos tem muita influência (foram instrumentais na vitória do Bush)e como é natural dão muita importáncia aos valores conservadores e familiares...o Rudy Giuliani já vai no 3º casamento (praticou vários adultérios), tem posições favoráveis ao aborto, casamentos gay..

[Branc0]

Para mim, o Giulianni tem a nomeação no papo, por mais razão nenhuma a não ser "estar lá" no 11 de Setembro e os americanos tiveram em boa conta as acções que ele tomou nesse dia.

Aliado ao facto de que muitos gostaram de o ver à frente de Nova York é quase certo (assim uma espécie de Santana Lopes quando veio da Figueira para Lisboa, todos tinham boa opinião da gestão dele na Figueira).

Pode ser que me engane mas não me parece. No lado democrático é que não sei mas iria com o Obama.

[Keyser Soze]

[Keyser Soze]

Republican Fred Thompson to announce his candidacy for president Sept. 6

The Associated Press
Thursday, August 30, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa: Republican Fred Thompson, whose entry into the 2008 presidential race has been long anticipated, will officially launch his candidacy Sept. 6 in a webcast on his campaign site, followed by a five-day tour of early primary states, the Associated Press has learned.

The campaign of the former Tennessee senator and "Law & Order" actor is to disclose details about how he will formally enter the race in an afternoon conference call with supporters.

A tour of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina will quickly follow the Internet announcement, with stops in Florida as well, and a homecoming event in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee on Sept. 15.

Thompson brings to the eight-man Republican field a right-leaning Senate voting record with a few digressions from the Republican Party orthodoxy and a healthy dose of Hollywood star power. He is hoping to attract conservatives who are lukewarm about the current crop of candidates.

Earlier this year, Thompson watched his popularity soar in polls when he acknowledged he was considering a run. Since then, he has consistently ranked among the top Republicans in national polls and surveys in key states alike.

He has spent months "testing the waters" of a presidential campaign, playing coy with the public about his intentions even as he opened campaign offices, started raising money, and hired a campaign staff. But his preliminary campaign stumbled this summer, fueling doubts that Thompson has what it takes to mount a challenge to contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Organizationally, Thompson underwent a series of staffing changes — including the replacement of his manager-in-waiting — and other aide departures amid consternation inside the operation about the active role of Thompson's wife, Jeri. At the same time, little progress was made setting up organizations in key states.

Thompson also failed on the fundraising front to reach the $5 million (€3.67 million) goal his backers had set for the first month he sought to bring in cash, and he dramatically lags his top rivals in money.

At the same time, a delayed entrance into the race — which at one point was to occur in July — has prompted rumblings in Washington and early primary states that he may have missed his window.

cá para mim, este é que vai ser o candidado escolhido pelo Partido Republicano

Frederick Dalton "Fred" Thompson (born August 19, 1942) is an American politician, lawyer, lobbyist, and character actor. He represented Tennessee as a Republican in the U.S. Senate from 1994 through 2003.

Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in national security and intelligence.[1][2] He resides in McLean, Virginia near Washington, D.C.[3]

As an actor, Thompson has performed in film and on television. He has frequently portrayed governmental figures.[4] In the final months of his U.S. Senate term in 2002, Thompson joined the cast of the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, playing New York City District Attorney Arthur Branch.

On May 30, 2007, Fred Thompson asked to be released from his television duties, potentially in preparation for a presidential bid.[5] Then on June 1, 2007 he formed a presidential exploratory committee regarding his possible 2008 campaign for President. On August 30 his aides revealed that he will enter the presidential race on September 6th.[6]

[Branc0]

Ja tinha colocado no post dos Baby Boomers parte deste artigo mas fica aqui um update e o link para um outro artigo onde está um mapa dos EUA a representar os estados onde há mais problemas com o subprime.

[Keyser Soze]

Presidential candidates and the economy

MUCH attention will fall next month on Fred Thompson’s official entry into the Republican race for the presidency and General David Petraeus’s report on Iraq. These two events will undoubtedly have an effect on presidential campaigning. But the recent turmoil in the markets which, in part, owes its origins to rising mortgage defaults in America has shaken the confidence of voters who will decide who is the next occupant of the White House.

According to a Gallup poll 72% of respondents think that economic conditions are getting worse, the highest proportion during the Bush presidency (see chart). The number is even higher than in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001. A recent “consumer-comfort index” conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News recorded its biggest one-week fall since the survey began in 1985.

Bad loans may well underpin the financial pandemonium of past weeks but away from the money markets the housing slowdown is alarming voters more directly. The financial woes of America’s biggest private mortgage-lender, Countrywide Financial, are one indication that all is not well. Another is that filings for foreclosure were 93% higher in July compared with a year ago according to RealtyTrac, an online property-firm.

Last week, Bill Gross, who manages the world’s biggest bond-fund at Pimco, raised eyebrows when he called on the White House to create a “reconstruction mortgage corporation” to rescue overstretched homeowners. Mr Gross likened the troubles in financial markets to a game of “Where’s Waldo?”, with investors trying to guess where the next round of bad loans and mortgage defaults are hidden. This raises a “fundamental question” about what to do about the housing market according to Mr Gross. Some economists reckon that 2m homeowners will default on their mortgages in the current cycle. Mr Gross wants the Bush administration to respond with policies of “Rooseveltian proportions” to address the concerns of a new constituency: “almost-homeless homeowners”.



Whatever the merits of Mr Gross’s recommendations, almost-homeless homeowners will probably have a marked impact on next year’s presidential election. RealtyTrac’s report showed that five states accounted for more than half of total foreclosures in July. California and Georgia are solidly Democratic and Republican respectively but the other three—Florida, Michigan and Ohio—are election battlegrounds. Some of the highest foreclosure rates are in the potentially competitive south-west. The national foreclosure-rate in July was 1 filing for every 693 households. But in Nevada it was 1 in 199 (the highest in America), Colorado 1 in 347, and Arizona 1 in 433.

The Democrats scent an opportunity. Turning up the populist rhetoric, Hillary Clinton has promised to clamp down on “unscrupulous brokers” and wants to give $1 billion to states to help homeowners avoid losing the roof over their heads. John Edwards would produce legislation to regulate “predatory” mortgage lenders and ensure borrowers only receive loans they can afford. Earlier this year Barack Obama called for a “homeowners preservation summit”.

Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and also a candidate, has put the issue to the forefront of his campaign. He had a cosy chat (albeit in front of the world’s press) with Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Hank Paulson, the treasury secretary, about what steps they were taking to stabilise markets and help homeowners. A hearing on the commotion in the mortgage markets is scheduled in the House of Representatives shortly after it reconvenes in early September. It should be feisty.

The Republican candidates have not said much. And the Democrats will gain the upper hand if they successfully link housing woes to the broader economy. The Republicans might do well to recall the election in 1992. The reputation of the first President Bush on the economy was sealed by anaemic growth and job losses. However America’s growth rate in the first three quarters of 1992, the election year, was actually almost double that of the last three quarters of 1991. It was too late. Bill Clinton took the advice of his campaign strategist. He hammered home a message of Republican economic mismanagement and ensured that the electorate took care of his housing needs for the next four years.