Bob

This is THE IDEAL TIME TO BUY, if you don't need your money in the next couple of years. Most people buy when the market is doing well and sell in a panic during a downturn. That results in a net loss. This is a 'bargain' market as Buffet stated earlier in the week. Unless you are a senior citizen or someone who expects to be paying large amounts of medical costs (that would sap your paycheck and insurance), this is the time to invest (buy low, sell high). It's also very advantageous for quick sellers since beta (volatility) is high. If you can time right, you can make strong profits in relatively short time (it's also quite risky).

I don't think McCain's plan will be helpful to you in the long term or the short term... it will only be helpful for as long as the 7.5% rate is in effect. The key here is that regardless of the 7.5% rate or the 15% rate, you'll be buying and selling stock any way. The 7.5% rate isn't going to convince you to buy more stock, it's just going to make you more money. This will be the same for a lot of other investors. YES. But a higher rate of 28% would create a prohibitive nature to buying stocks, as you will need more money to gain the same profit. Thus, it limits the small time investor, like a 20 some year old, from investing.

Wait...wait. So every person voting for Obama because he/she wants a tax cut or a healthcare plan is self-serving? Are you voting for the candidate who will best help you? Or are you voting against your own self-interest?

It would be advantageous for people like me, who are 20 years old and can invest with little tax on long term investments. I disagree volatility would increase with an increase in liquidity. Liquidity would ease credit worries, and thus free up the rates at which banks loan to each other.

Obama even admitted right now is not the time to increase taxes even on the wealthy. I'm not talking as someone who, or who's family, makes anywhere near the 250k. I do know that yes, in the long run, those tax hikes on wealthy CEOs will be beneficial. But we're talking short term to stabilize the economy. Oh, and the BIG TAX that everyone kinda shuts up about...Capital Gains tax. Regardless of your income levels, if you make a profit on the market, you would be taxed anywhere around 23 to 28 percent by Obama. McCain said he'd keep the level at 15% and actually temporarily reduce the tax to 7.5% for one year. That is crucial and something that influences me greatly, being that I will be working on trading floors and expecting much of my income to be through the market. I can understand an income tax, but the idea of taxing people who offer liquidity and monetary funds for companies to create products is absurd to me.

I'm voting for McCain because half of Reaganomics is true: If you raise taxes on the rich CEO, you do lead to short term stunts in economic growth (CEO hedges against losing profits so they lower incomes of the small guy, reduce jobs etc). That is the last thing we need right now. Long term, it is better for us, but short term, it shoots us in the foot when we are already hopping on only one. I'm voting for McCain because he was the Senator that pushed through the two Supreme Court Justices who respect life. I'm voting for McCain because he has fought his own party, and the Democrats. Obama has never gone against his own party. Neither party is wholely correct....and thus anyone wanting to be my president should have shown independence from both parties at times. Regarding Palin, she would do wonders in the fight against abortion. Beyond that, yes she is a concern, but quite frankly, when you see abortion as the ending of innocent human life, it really does trump everything else. I

Well I think McCain has been done for some time now. I still will vote for him, as anything can happen, but Powell basically made his announcement after Obama had made so great advances that it proves little to help Obama's already strong momentum. It's in the same category as John Edwards endorsing Obama after he clearly could not lose the Democratic primary. And when has Rush Limbaugh ever been on the side of McCain? I think Obama and his supporters have distorted the record to show Rush and John as friends. Rush said he'd vote Hillary if McCain was the nominee. To lump those two together and to tag Rush's comments to the McCain camp is the same swift-boat tactics people abhore.

Ok this is random, but this is the most sports-oriented topic on the board right now...so I'm on the front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer....

lol cant believe what are you talking about : Kanye worse than the fake gangsta s### ?!? nahh .. i like "Good Morning "ppl :wiggle: ;) so just easy mathematic- one good song > 50's album :)) phah ;) Believe me, i'm not talking his previous efforts. This current incarnation of Mr. West has completely alienated me.

Wow, Kanye full-out sucks. ^I never thought I could say such things. And AJ is right, 50 cent even sounds more appealing.

I sympathize with what you say. Why? Because when T.O. blew up in San Fran, we thought he changed. He hasn't. He's the same guy, and his attitude is only a tempered notch down because your owner loves jerks. What does that mean? It only takes time for your owner to get over T.O. and bring in some new 'prize' and that will only lead to T.O. imploding.

If win means cash a paycheck, then sure. History reminder: 2005 Eagles go to Super Bowl and lose. T.0 want's contract renegotiation. He goes public and makes training camp a live rendition of Jerry Springer. Fast-forward to the season, Eagles start hot, even with T.0 mad about his contract. Under your mindset, T.O would be fine with the wins. Except he wasn't. We were blowing out teams, and T.O was going on National TV questioning his quarterback's loyalty and his team. So no, T.O could care less about winning if he doesn't have 80% of the throws in his direction and a paycheck the size of Texas.

Oh yeah, because T.O is a man of his word and such a selfless teammate....

You are way off, especially since you got beat last night! We are up 2-0 (not saying we'll sweep LA, but we definitely have the advantage).

I'm hoping (and will not be comfortable until) the Phils are in the Series and then we can bring back the "BOSTON IS DEAD" chants! GO PHILS!

As you all know, I am all Philly, all the time. So, you know where I stand. I was at Game 1 of the NLDS vs the Brewers and last night I was at Game 2 NLCS vs the Dodgers... Of course, I'm gearing up to buy some World Series tickets... So who's your pick for the Series and the winner?

WHY IS THIS TOPIC STILL GOING?

It's a lost cause dealing with :ignore: Oh well, I tried. :shrug:

FUNNY. they shoulda kept it in the film.

You see it as futile because I gave you a whole history, with 3 separate instances where Jesus affirms Peter as the rock. You agree to the concept, and then have a blatant disconnect in recognizing the connection. We affirm the rock of the Church as Peter and then every successive heir to St. Peter's throne. It's straightforward, it's backed by biblical quotes, and it's frustrating to hear you heave old, worn, broken accusations against credibility in text.

And the first Pope, in St. Peter, is defined in the Bible. The concept of the Pope is not a result, directly or indirectly of the Paganism present. The concept of the physical living Church was present before the Bible was compiled. The system was set by Jesus, as I previously quoted. The Church Magesterium was pivotal in defining many of the things upon which Protestants and Catholics to this day agree. For instance, the Nicene Creed spells out the concept of the Trinity, a word/term never spoken in the Bible. Yet only the Jehova Witnesses and Church of Latter Day Saints refute the perfect trinity concept.

Well first to the Pope vs Peter, it really is the Heir of St. Peter's Throne, or the Vicar of Christ, so in best ways understood, the man form of Jesus' voice on earth. The concept of the Pope, the leader of the Church, the head Apostle, the man to be consulted on issues of faith and morality, is first defined in the Bible. The word specifically "Pope" or its direct translation, no, the very definition: yes. I concede the word "Pope" comes from "father" as St. Peter became the representative in man form after Jesus died. And we consider Jesus/God/Holy Spirit as father. The reason for Rome rather than any other place is due to Peter and Paul being martyred in Rome. For Schnazz: The idea is this: Jesus of course is the leader in totality. He came to Earth and had a finite time here in human form. So, while on earth, he is the leader, the rock. Since Jesus eventually ascended into heaven, and since he established Peter as the head of the Church, then what happens next? If he went out of his way to establish Peter as the foundation of the visible, physical living Church, and Peter will eventually die, what happens? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans (known as Episcopalians in the U.S), etc all claim "Apostolic Succession" to the original Apostles. So we believe, along with many other forms of Christianity, that we have elected individuals to the role of Peter since Jesus left this earth. The Pope as a father of values, morals and leader of the Church represents the same role Peter took as the lead Apostle. We have counted 265 Popes, including Peter (one Pope died 3 days into the papacy), and we claim to have the succession correctly from the original apostles. The reason why we have succession is we believe that Jesus left, as he said, a Church to be visible atop a mountain (Church in the sense of the people, not neccessarily, but including the actual structures). And he gave a human the role of leading the Church since Jesus would leave Earth. So we see the precedence to elect a leader of the Church in the human form.

happy (belated) bday!

The first picture has Will looking like a cartoon. And yes, Jada got some interesting hair. Ha.

Letter to the King Game, Nas