Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help.  So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?

[quote=babbling looney]Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help.  So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?

[quote]Deep down, I suspect McCain knows that Obama isn't really a socialist. Why? Because he once sounded a lot like his rival on taxes. During the 2000 campaign, for example, a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.”  "Look, here's what I really believe," he added. "That when you are--when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." He soon backed up his words with action. After Bush was elected, McCain told Congress that he was disappointed by the president's plan to "cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent." When it came time for a vote, the Arizonan stood on the Senate floor and announced that "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." Unless McCain was a socialist in 2000 and 2001, Obama isn't a socialist now.[/quote]

Oh and I would also like to know how a $700b plan to “rescue” banks isn’t socialism (aside from the hope that profits could theoritically be made later on) and how an economic “stimulis plan” isn’t socialist either considering both were signed by the leader of the republican party and one was even pushed heavily and then denied by the GOP.

Anabuh-

Please don’t take this the wrong way, I am just curious as I think you said you were not born in the U.S.   

Are you U.S. citizen?  If so, How long from the time you arrived in the U.S. did it take you to become a U.S. citizen?  Also, how many U.S. Presidential elections have you voted in.  Have you ever voted in other countries?  Which ones?

“We’re not just gonna concede to three big oil companies of this monopoly—Exxon, B.P., ConocoPhillips—and beg them to do this for Alaska,” Palin told me last month in Juneau. “We’re gonna say, ‘O.K., this is so economic that we don’t have to incentivize you to build this. In fact, this has got to be a mutually beneficial partnership here as we build it. We’re gonna lay out Alaska’s must-haves. Parameters are gonna be set, rules are gonna be laid out, a law will encompass what it is that Alaska needs to protect our sovereignty, to insure it’s jobs first for Alaskans, and in-state use of gas’ ”—her list went on. In the past, she said, “Alaska was conceding too much, and chipping away at our sovereignty. And Alaska—we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.” And she said, “Our state constitution—it lays it out for me, how I’m to conduct business with resource development here as the state C.E.O. It’s to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company, not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans.”

Alaska is sometimes described as America’s socialist state, because of its collective ownership of resources—an arrangement that allows permanent residents to collect a dividend on the state’s oil royalties. It has been Palin’s good fortune to govern the state at a time of record oil prices, which means record dividend checks: two thousand dollars for every Alaskan. And because high oil prices also mean staggering heating bills in such a cold place—and because it’s always good politics to give money to voters—Palin got the legislature this year to send an extra twelve hundred dollars to every Alaskan man, woman, and child.

Just so we’re all clear:

Historical Marginal Tax Rates

Thanks gvf. Things were tough when we had 39.6, yeah? Man the 90s, who would want to relive those days :’(

Indy - Your clients, are they giving that money to a church?

Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.

[quote=anabuhabkuss][quote=babbling looney]Many people helped me along the way. They did so out of goodness, not for a paycheck. I"m at a point in my career where I’m that person who can help.  So i do help people who ask. Tough concept for you primo, isn’t it?

[quote]Deep down, I suspect McCain knows that Obama isn't really a socialist. Why? Because he once sounded a lot like his rival on taxes. During the 2000 campaign, for example, a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be “penalized” by being “in a huge tax bracket.” McCain replied that “wealthy people can afford more” and that “the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don’t pay nearly as much as you think they do.”  "Look, here's what I really believe," he added. "That when you are--when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more." He soon backed up his words with action. After Bush was elected, McCain told Congress that he was disappointed by the president's plan to "cut the top tax rate of 39.6 percent to 36 percent." When it came time for a vote, the Arizonan stood on the Senate floor and announced that "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." Unless McCain was a socialist in 2000 and 2001, Obama isn't a socialist now.[/quote] Osama is being called a socialist because he said on camera "we need to spread the wealth around."  That is a socialistic comment.  Also, have you listened to his 2001 radio interview where he says the Warren court "WAS NOT RADICAL ENOUGH!!!"  He then laid out a plan for reparation to minorities.  He is not saying this now.  Wonder why?  May not be convenient until after he gets into office.

Just listened to the Eaton Vance election conference call today, speaker was Stan Collender, Managing Director, Qorvis Communications, expert on
congressional budget processes and federal initiatives.

Main points:
Tax hikes aren’t coming before the economy comes back.  Late 2009 is a real possibility.  Probably won’t be above the previous 39.6%.  Republicans won’t want to go higher, and if a democratic congress votes for a compromise, say 38%, the president won’t veto it for obvious reasons.  A democratic president is in the same position; a likely compromise. 

If not in 2009, by 2010 we’ll have some serious problems with our debt, and the fear of interest rates surging based on international demand drop for US Debt will likely force us into higher rates (remember when a lowly Korean official made the off-hand comment that they wanted to diversify their debt?).  They have in the past, applied higher rates retroactively (changed the law in October of 2008, to apply since January, for example). 

Also, look for a $100 billion cut in the federal budget, democrat or republican.

Look for increases in cap gains, and modification of the estate tax in 2009.  They won’t let it go back to 0. 

SS is expected to go boom in 2041, so no changes expected until 2040

Medicare goes bust in 2019, but very small chance of getting taken care of unless Obama can really reform the whole health care system, again, not likely. 

Pelosi’s 401k proposed changes won’t happen - it just won’t.  Repeat: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Before taxes get addressed, look out for a Sarbanes-Oxley like bill that will address financial services.   

Thanks gvf. Things were tough when we had 39.6, yeah? Man the 90s, who would want to relive those days

Pelosi’s 401k proposed changes won’t happen - it just won’t.  Repeat: ABSOLUTELY NOT.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.

Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit.

[quote=Primo][quote=anabuhabkuss]Primo, you’re question was downright stupid and unrealistic to begin with. You took my response too literally and for face value and ignored my point. I wouldn’t be throwing big words like “slow” around.

[quote=primo]Clinton enjoyed the success started by Reagan and was more than happy to take credit.

Wasting time here with a bunch of baffoons voting for, who I believe, to be the right person to become the next president of the United States by distorting facts and choosing delusional reasons to justify their reason to do so.

Indy - Your clients, are they giving that money to a church?

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

Wasting time here with a bunch of baffoons voting for, who I believe, to be the right person to become the next president of the United States by distorting facts and choosing delusional reasons to justify their reason to do so.