One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080626funding.html
The Bush White House has been clinging to user fees, and has
threatened to veto any bill that doesn’t give the airlines more
control over the air traffic control system and doesn’t include
user fees for everyone talking to ATC.



http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080430funding.html
The president’s top advisors made it very clear on April 29 that
if Congress sends him a bill that does not include user fees, and
does not give the airlines greater control over the air traffic
control system, they want him to veto the FAA funding legislation.

The White House once again cited its failed FAA funding bill as
the model, and said the legislation currently under consideration
by Congress does not align “FAA’s revenues with its costs through
fair fees linked to usage of the system,” nor does it include “a
broader set of aviation stakeholders in the oversight and
management” of the air traffic control system. (Administration
proposals would give the majority users of air traffic control—the
airlines—also majority say in ATC management.)



https://www.aopa.org/faafundingdebate/petition_form.cfm
AOPA Petition Against User Fees

Get involved! Help prevent user fees and avgas tax hikes by adding
your name to this petition.

I, as a pilot and aviation enthusiast, hereby endorse the
following principles in consideration of how the FAA is to be
financed in the future:

* Federal airport funding should be sustained at no less than
current levels ($3.7 billion).
* Excise taxes are the best way for all aviation users to
support the system.
* Congress must maintain its oversight of the FAA.
* The General Fund must continue to provide at least 21.5% of
the FAA’s budget.
* There is no place for user fees in the world’s largest,
safest, most efficient air transportation system.

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:

No one wonders what Obama's position is?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:57:53 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:
>
>No one wonders what Obama's position is?


Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

On Jun 30, 11:16*am, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> Bush's?

I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> > Bush's?
>
> I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
> Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
> social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for aviation.
The only question is who that someone is going to be.

McCain heavily supports user fees, period.

As far as taxes in general goes, NOT paying taxes is more crippling. Almost
8 years of failed supply-side, borrow-and-spend policies have without
question crippled this nation.

On Jun 30, 12:19*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
> As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for aviation.
> The only question is who that someone is going to be.

We're paying for it now (including an aviation fund surplus) so I
guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

>
> McCain heavily supports user fees, period.
>
> As far as taxes in general goes, NOT paying taxes is more crippling. *Almost
> 8 years of failed supply-side, borrow-and-spend policies have without
> question crippled this nation.

Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
economics.

-Robert, MBA

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>
>>Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
>>Bush's?
>
>
> I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
> Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
> social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.

-c

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:19:30 GMT, "Mike" > wrote
in <6laak.144$Ae3.138@trnddc05>:

>As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for aviation.
>The only question is who that someone is going to be.


It would seem to me, that if the tax to fund ATC were based _solely_
on aviation fuel purchases, only those who fly or ship freight would
be paying it (with the possible exceptions of the military, gliders,
airships, balloons, and aircraft with a MoGas STC). The tax could be
collected from the producer/refiner, so that there are far fewer bills
to manage than if it were levied on a per-ATC-use basis. What could
be more equitable? The ATC tax would be levied against those who use
ATC services commensurate with their usage. Air carrier ticket tax is
not equitable, for example, because a dead-heading airline flight pays
no tax but still uses ATC services.

In any event, I'm happy to hear that Bush's advisors want to apply
user fees to military ATC usage, for that is what is intimated in the
phrase "everyone talking to ATC."

gatt > wrote in news:208405.vk4.17.3
@integratelecom.com:

> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
>>>Bush's?
>>
>>
>> I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
>> Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
>> social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.
>
> Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
> been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.
>
> -c
>

Really? I'll collect on it and I don;t even pay SS!

Thanks, man!




Bertie

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
> economics.
>
> -Robert, MBA

Aw, Christ. Not only a Calfornian, but an MBA. They know EVERYTHING.

"The criticism we hear most has to do with arrogance," says Bill
Boulding, associate dean for the daytime MBA Program at Duke
University's Fuqua School of Business, "essentially that students leave
MBA programs thinking they should be CEO and tell everyone what to do
when in fact they may not even be prepared to do the job they've taken.""

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_227/ai_n21067809



:P


-c

On Jun 30, 1:08*pm, gatt > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> >>Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> >>Bush's?
>
> > I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
> > Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
> > social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.
>
> Won't hit me. *By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
> been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.

Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
tax we are paying will increase.

-Robert

On Jun 30, 1:19*pm, gatt > wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
> > economics.
>
> > -Robert, MBA
>
> Aw, Christ. *Not only a Calfornian, but an MBA. *They know EVERYTHING.
>
> "The criticism we hear most has to do with arrogance," says Bill
> Boulding, associate dean for the daytime MBA Program at Duke
> University's Fuqua School of Business, "essentially that students leave
> MBA programs thinking they should be CEO and tell everyone what to do
> when in fact they may not even be prepared to do the job they've taken.""
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_227/ai_n21067809
>
> :P

Oh good. You didn't have a response so you came back with a non-
sequitur argument.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> > ...
> > As far as the user fees debate goes, someone is going to pay for
> > aviation.
> > The only question is who that someone is going to be.
>
> We're paying for it now (including an aviation fund surplus) so I
> guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

That would be a poor guess.

But since you care to guess my views on the subject, I'll take a crack at
yours. You apparently support McCain. McCain supports user fees. So I
guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

Furthermore, your attempts at twisting your political views towards the
subject of aviation are truly pathetic. McCain heavily supports user fees,
period. His record and statements are quite clear on the subject.

> > McCain heavily supports user fees, period.
> >
> > As far as taxes in general goes, NOT paying taxes is more crippling.
> > Almost
> > 8 years of failed supply-side, borrow-and-spend policies have without
> > question crippled this nation.
>
> Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
> economics.
>
> -Robert, MBA

What's more conservative than balancing the budget?

I should have known you're a fake conservative with a limited knowledge of
economics, regardless of whatever unverifiable credentials you care to
flaunt.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 1:19 pm, gatt > wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 12:19 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > > Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
> > > economics.
> >
> > > -Robert, MBA
> >
> > Aw, Christ. Not only a Calfornian, but an MBA. They know EVERYTHING.
> >
> > "The criticism we hear most has to do with arrogance," says Bill
> > Boulding, associate dean for the daytime MBA Program at Duke
> > University's Fuqua School of Business, "essentially that students leave
> > MBA programs thinking they should be CEO and tell everyone what to do
> > when in fact they may not even be prepared to do the job they've
> > taken.""
> >
> > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_227/ai_n21067809
> >
> > :P
>
> Oh good. You didn't have a response so you came back with a non-
> sequitur argument.

He just followed your lead.

On Jun 30, 1:39*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> > We're paying for it now (including an aviation fund surplus) so I
> > guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.
>
> That would be a poor guess.

You really need to educate yourself on the subject of GA funding. If
you did you would realize that GA pays more in tax than we get from
the system. Those that say we are not don't realize that a Cessna uses
less services than a 747. In anycase, fuel tax is easier and cheaper
to collect than reading credit card numbers over the air. Not sure if
you are actually interested in facts though, its not clear from your
post.

> But since you care to guess my views on the subject, I'll take a crack at
> yours. *You apparently support McCain. *McCain supports user fees. *So I
> guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.

I don't recall saying that. I'm voting for John Galt.


-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 1:08 pm, gatt > wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> > >>Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> > >>Bush's?
> >
> > > I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
> > > Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
> > > social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.
> >
> > Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
> > been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.
>
> Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
> tax we are paying will increase.

For a self-described economic expert, you sure have some weak points.

First, Obama said no such thing. Next, SS can't possibly be "gone" because
you will always have people paying into the system. The only thing that has
a potential to be "gone" is the SS trust fund, which was a bad idea given to
us by Reagan in the first place. Even if the SS trust fund is "gone", FICA
will still cover at least 75% of SS payouts, even if all the doom-and-gloom
predictions about SS come true decades from now.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 1:39 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > We're paying for it now (including an aviation fund surplus) so I
> > > guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.
> >
> > That would be a poor guess.
>
> You really need to educate yourself on the subject of GA funding. If
> you did you would realize that GA pays more in tax than we get from
> the system. Those that say we are not don't realize that a Cessna uses
> less services than a 747. In anycase, fuel tax is easier and cheaper
> to collect than reading credit card numbers over the air. Not sure if
> you are actually interested in facts though, its not clear from your
> post.

Why do you continue to go down the road of pretending I support user fees?

Is silly strawman rhetoric the best you have?

> > But since you care to guess my views on the subject, I'll take a crack
> > at
> > yours. You apparently support McCain. McCain supports user fees. So I
> > guess your point is that we should pay for it twice.
>
> I don't recall saying that. I'm voting for John Galt.

Funny, I don't either. I guess sarcasm is not your strong suit, eh?

On Jun 30, 1:49*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 1:08 pm, gatt > wrote:
> > > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > > On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > > >>Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> > > >>Bush's?
>
> > > > I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
> > > > Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
> > > > social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.
>
> > > Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
> > > been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.
>
> > Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
> > tax we are paying will increase.
>
> For a self-described economic expert, you sure have some weak points.
>
> First, Obama said no such thing. *

I guess you don't get out much...

"Obama to push for higher Social Security tax"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/

So expect your paycheck to get smaller.

-Robert

Mike wrote:
>
> For a self-described economic expert, you sure have some weak points.
>
> First, Obama said no such thing. Next, SS can't possibly be "gone"
> because you will always have people paying into the system. The only
> thing that has a potential to be "gone" is the SS trust fund, which
> was a bad idea given to us by Reagan in the first place. Even if the
> SS trust fund is "gone", FICA will still cover at least 75% of SS
> payouts, even if all the doom-and-gloom predictions about SS come
> true decades from now.

Actually, SS was a bad idea given to us by FDR in the first place.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 1:49 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 30, 1:08 pm, gatt > wrote:
> > > > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >
> > > > >>Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> > > > >>Bush's?
> >
> > > > > I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling
> > > > > under
> > > > > Obama. He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing
> > > > > the
> > > > > social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.
> >
> > > > Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security
> > > > I've
> > > > been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.
> >
> > > Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
> > > tax we are paying will increase.
> >
> > For a self-described economic expert, you sure have some weak points.
> >
> > First, Obama said no such thing.
>
> I guess you don't get out much...
>
> "Obama to push for higher Social Security tax"
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/
>
> So expect your paycheck to get smaller.

I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is currently $102,000
which affects less than 5% of the population. The payroll tax rate would
remain the same. And you claim to be an economic expert?

I also see you didn't even address the rest of your ignorance and snipped it
out. Good show.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:02:21 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>"Obama to push for higher Social Security tax"
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/
>
>So expect your paycheck to get smaller.

Nov. 11, 2007
But during an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Obama said
subjecting more of a person's income to the payroll tax is the
option he would push for if elected president. He objected to
benefit cuts or a higher retirement age. ...

Currently [2007], only the first $97,500 of a person's annual
income is taxed. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next
year.

Obama also invoked his friend, billionaire Warren Buffett, who
Obama said has expressed concern that he pays less in Social
Security taxes than anyone else in his office.

"And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate
are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior
citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or
rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they
need," Obama said.


So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
assisting in funding seniors.

On Jun 30, 2:25*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. *Obama
> proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is currently $102,000
> which affects less than 5% of the population. *The payroll tax rate would
> remain the same. *And you claim to be an economic expert?


I'm not sure what hair your trying to split. The point is that more SS
tax will come out of my paycheck and I suspect the majority of
airplane owners.

-Robert

On Jun 30, 2:25*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:

> So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
> assisting in funding seniors. *

"Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one. You probably
couldn't even get a lone for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
:

> On Jun 30, 2:25*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>> I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great.
>> *Obama proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
>> currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. *The
>> payroll tax rate woul
> d
>> remain the same. *And you claim to be an economic expert?
>
>
> I'm not sure what hair your trying to split. The point is that more SS
> tax will come out of my paycheck and I suspect the majority of
> airplane owners.
>


What do you suspect them of?


Bertie

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:8458a3ab-92dd-4510-baa5-
:

> On Jun 30, 2:25*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
>> assisting in funding seniors. *
>
> "Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
> wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one. You probably
> couldn't even get a lone for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.


You could probably get alone with one for a hundred dollars. unless youre
looking for "extras" of course.


Bertie

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>>
>> For a self-described economic expert, you sure have some weak points.
>>
>> First, Obama said no such thing. Next, SS can't possibly be "gone"
>> because you will always have people paying into the system. The only
>> thing that has a potential to be "gone" is the SS trust fund, which
>> was a bad idea given to us by Reagan in the first place. Even if the
>> SS trust fund is "gone", FICA will still cover at least 75% of SS
>> payouts, even if all the doom-and-gloom predictions about SS come
>> true decades from now.
>
> Actually, SS was a bad idea given to us by FDR in the first place.

SS was a great idea. It's original intent was simply to insure old people
wouldn't be eating out of trash cans, which was widespread at the time. Of
course, I happen to think old people eating out of trash cans isn't a great
idea. If you don't share that sentiment, I can certainly understand why
you'd think SS wasn't a great idea.

Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the elgibility age
hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer. The SS
maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in income, and the
whole trust fund idea is a disaster. The result is you now have too many
people collecting benefits from too few, and the current FICA rate reflects
those failures.

Mike wrote:
>
> I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
> proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
> currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
> payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
> economic expert?

Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

Mike wrote:
>
> SS was a great idea. It's original intent was simply to insure old
> people wouldn't be eating out of trash cans, which was widespread at
> the time. Of course, I happen to think old people eating out of
> trash cans isn't a great idea. If you don't share that sentiment, I
> can certainly understand why you'd think SS wasn't a great idea.
>

You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be forced
on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out of trash cans,
and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

On Jun 30, 2:35*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the elgibility age
> hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer. *The SS
> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in income, and the
> whole trust fund idea is a disaster. *

The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to pay
into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on totally
throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by FDR.
In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow the
gov't control over your money so it will never fly.

-Robert

On Jun 30, 2:37*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
> > proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
> > currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. *The
> > payroll tax rate would remain the same. *And you claim to be an
> > economic expert?
>
> Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
> higher net tax is the result. *Do you disagree?

Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
Perhaps he should be running for office.

-Robert

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:43:58 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be forced
>on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out of trash cans,
>and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

What sort of program would you propose to keep our nation from
drowning in insolvent seniors?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:43:58 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be forced
>> on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out of
>> trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.
>
> What sort of program would you propose to keep our nation from
> drowning in insolvent seniors?
>

If you want me to answer your questions you'll have to answer mine first.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 2:25 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
> > assisting in funding seniors.
>
> "Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
> wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one. You probably
> couldn't even get a lone for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.

Let's see here. Less than 5% of the population makes more than $102K. It's
probably closer to 3-4%.

So what's your definition of wealthy, economic expert?

2% of the population?

1% of the population?

Less?

I would venture to guess that around 90% of the population considers someone
who makes almost twice the average household income is wealthy.

Furthermore, I know lots of people with less than $102K in wage income that
have much better planes than 172s.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>>
>> SS was a great idea. It's original intent was simply to insure old
>> people wouldn't be eating out of trash cans, which was widespread at
>> the time. Of course, I happen to think old people eating out of
>> trash cans isn't a great idea. If you don't share that sentiment, I
>> can certainly understand why you'd think SS wasn't a great idea.
>>
>
> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be
> forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out of
> trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.

I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
"Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.

I don't.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:29:52 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On Jun 30, 2:25*pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
>> assisting in funding seniors. *
>
>"Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
>wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one.

We're not talking family income here, but individual income:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/income.html
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00
according to the Census Bureau.[3] The median income per household
member (including all working and non-working members above the
age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[4] In 2005, there were
approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01%
of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] 12.7%
fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] and the bottom 20%
earned less than $20,032.[7] The aggregate income distribution is
highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning
roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle
incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total
earned income.[8][2] Income inequality in the United States, which
had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to
increase slowly in the 1970s, and has since increased more
quickly.[9] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two
income earners, had incomes exceeding $40,705. Households in the
mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had
incomes between $22,000 and $57,657.[10]

>You probably couldn't even get a lone [sic] for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.
>
>-Robert

You're probably right.

But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
more than $102,000.00 annually.

Mike wrote:
>>
>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be
>> forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out
>> of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.
>
> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>
> I don't.
>

What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?

What do you believe "sic" means?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the elgibility
> > age
> > hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer. The
> > SS
> > maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in income, and
> > the
> > whole trust fund idea is a disaster.
>
> The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
> the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
> contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to pay
> into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on totally
> throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by FDR.
> In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
> out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
> more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow the
> gov't control over your money so it will never fly.

FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.

You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll give you a
hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.

The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at higher
contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.

Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out" defeats
the entire intent of the program.

For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
> more than $102,000.00 annually.
>

Which means Obama is proposing to increase payroll taxes.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
>out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.

What leads you to believe that I believe it is not a tax increase?

Mike wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>>> Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
>>> elgibility age
>>> hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
>>> The SS
>>> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
>>> income, and the
>>> whole trust fund idea is a disaster.
>>
>> The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
>> the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
>> contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to pay
>> into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on totally
>> throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by FDR.
>> In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
>> out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
>> more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
>> the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.
>
> FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.
>
> You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll give
> you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.
>
> The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
> contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
> higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.
>
> Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
> defeats the entire intent of the program.
>
> For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.
>

Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question below?


Mike wrote:
>
> I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
> proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
> currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
> payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
> economic expert?
>

Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
> > > proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
> > > currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
> > > payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
> > > economic expert?
> >
> > Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
> > higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?
>
> Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
> out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
> Perhaps he should be running for office.

I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement, Mr. economic expert.
Here it is again:

"Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
tax we are paying will increase."

So first you say "we" and now you say "my". So which is it?

Who is this "we" you speak of?

Voices inside your head?

Mouse in your pocket?

Or perhaps you meant the small segment of the population who would be
affected? If that's the case, why didn't you specify it as such? Deception
by ommission?

Of course, that assumes you actually knew what the proposal actually was to
begin with, which is probably a very poor assumption.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> gatt > wrote in news:208405.vk4.17.3

>>> He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
>>>social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.
>>
>>Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
>>been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.
>
> Really? I'll collect on it and I don;t even pay SS!

Imagine that.


-c

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:46:01 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
>> out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
>
> What leads you to believe that I believe it is not a tax increase?
>

What leads you to believe that he was referring to you?

Mike wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
>> wrote:
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great.
>>>> Obama proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
>>>> currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population.
>>>> The payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
>>>> economic expert?
>>>
>>> Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax
>>> rate a higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?
>>
>> Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
>> out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
>> Perhaps he should be running for office.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement, Mr. economic
> expert. Here it is again:
>
> "Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
> tax we are paying will increase."
>
> So first you say "we" and now you say "my". So which is it?
>
> Who is this "we" you speak of?
>
> Voices inside your head?
>
> Mouse in your pocket?
>
> Or perhaps you meant the small segment of the population who would be
> affected? If that's the case, why didn't you specify it as such?
> Deception by ommission?
>
> Of course, that assumes you actually knew what the proposal actually
> was to begin with, which is probably a very poor assumption.
>

Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:
> >
> >No one wonders what Obama's position is?
>
> Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> Bush's?

Not at all.

For the sake of completeness, I'm wondering what McCain AND Obama's
positions are.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Robert M. Gary wrote:

>>>Oh, I should have known you're a liberal with a limited knowledge of
>>>economics.

>>> -Robert, MBA

>>Aw, Christ. Not only a Calfornian, but an MBA. They know EVERYTHING.
>>
>>"The criticism we hear most has to do with arrogance," says Bill
>>Boulding, associate dean for the daytime MBA Program at Duke
>>University's Fuqua School of Business, "essentially that students leave
>>MBA programs thinking they should be CEO and tell everyone what to do
>>when in fact they may not even be prepared to do the job they've taken.""
>>
>>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4070/is_227/ai_n21067809
>
> Oh good. You didn't have a response so you came back with a non-
> sequitur argument.

What part of 'MBA arrogance' did you fail to understand?

Let me guess: It was the programmers, politicans and end users that
caused the dot com collapse, it was the carpenters that caused the
mortage/lending failures and the collapse of the US dollar...

Everybody's responsible for the weak dollar US but the experts, right,
and saying you're an MBA means the other person has a limited knowledge
of economics.


-c

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:16:15 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
>> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
>> more than $102,000.00 annually.
>>
>
>Which means Obama is proposing to increase payroll taxes.
>

Why do you find that significant?

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:29:52 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>On Jun 30, 2:25 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
>>> assisting in funding seniors.
>>
>>"Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
>>wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one.
>
> We're not talking family income here, but individual income:
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/income.html
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
> In 2006, the median annual household income was $48,201.00
> according to the Census Bureau.[3] The median income per household
> member (including all working and non-working members above the
> age of 14) was $26,036 in 2006.[4] In 2005, there were
> approximately 113,146,000 households in the United States. 19.01%
> of all households had annual incomes exceeding $100,000,[5] 12.7%
> fell below the federal poverty threshold[6] and the bottom 20%
> earned less than $20,032.[7] The aggregate income distribution is
> highly concentrated towards the top, with the top 6.37% earning
> roughly one third of all income, and those with upper-middle
> incomes control a large, though declining, share of the total
> earned income.[8][2] Income inequality in the United States, which
> had decreased slowly after World War II until 1970, began to
> increase slowly in the 1970s, and has since increased more
> quickly.[9] Households in the top quintile, 77% of which had two
> income earners, had incomes exceeding $40,705. Households in the
> mid quintile, with a mean of one income earner per household had
> incomes between $22,000 and $57,657.[10]
>
>>You probably couldn't even get a lone [sic] for a Cessna 172 on
>>$102,000/yr.
>>
>>-Robert
>
> You're probably right.
>
> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
> more than $102,000.00 annually.

Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in investment
income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:26:05 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >> One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:
>> >
>> >No one wonders what Obama's position is?
>>
>> Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
>> Bush's?
>
>Not at all.
>
>For the sake of completeness, I'm wondering what McCain AND Obama's
>positions are.

Oh. I understand now. It was the missing period after 'No' that
threw me.

In article <vkcak.164$713.128@trnddc03>, "Mike" > wrote:

> The SS
> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in income,

eh?

My dad used to pay out the max on SS, but then they started raising the max level
and it went way Way WAAAY beyond his income.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:02:21 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"

> "And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate
> are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior
> citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or
> rising heating bills, that they've got the coverage that they
> need," Obama said.
>
> So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
> assisting in funding seniors.


On the flipside, they could grind the destitute seniors into gravy and
feed them to the prisoners and the homeless.

Soylent Granny is PEOPLE.

There's definately room for improvement; my grandmother is a two-time
war widow (her first husband died in combat and her second husband died
as a result of being a POW) and she gets less in benefits from the
government than her sister, whose husband was a noncombatant veteran.

Of course, the ex-POW --had shrapnel in his brain and contracted
hepatitis at Stalag 17B-- wasn't even considered disabled until after he
died at which point they determined he should have had
100% disability all along.

-c

On Jun 30, 3:21*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > wrote:
> > > Mike wrote:
>
> > > > I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
> > > > proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
> > > > currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
> > > > payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
> > > > economic expert?
>
> > > Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
> > > higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?
>
> > Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
> > out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
> > Perhaps he should be running for office.
>
> I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement, Mr. economic expert.
> Here it is again:
>
> "Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
> tax we are paying will increase."
>
> So first you say "we" and now you say "my". *So which is it?
>
> Who is this "we" you speak of?

Anyone who makes ore than the current limit of $97,500/yr. Again, how
is more money coming out of my check and going into SS not a tax
increase? I'm really interested in the logic here.

-Robert

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to be
>>> forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating out
>>> of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.
>>
>> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
>> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>>
>> I don't.
>>
>
> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?

Not the same one you do, obviously.

> What do you believe "sic" means?

Are you really that dense?

On Jun 30, 3:31*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

> Actually it's not even that. *Someone with a million dollars in investment
> income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

And collects $0 in SS retirement benefits.

-Robert

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2:25 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>So it would appear that Obama proposal would result in the wealthy
>>assisting in funding seniors.
>
> "Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
> wealthy, that's awesome,


Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
DEATH.


-c

On Jun 30, 3:36*pm, gatt > wrote:

> Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
> 2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
> DEATH.

Wait, I'm not following. What does average income have to do with
wealthy income levels?

-Robert

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
>>>> elgibility age
>>>> hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
>>>> The SS
>>>> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
>>>> income, and the
>>>> whole trust fund idea is a disaster.
>>>
>>> The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
>>> the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
>>> contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to pay
>>> into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on totally
>>> throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by FDR.
>>> In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
>>> out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
>>> more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
>>> the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.
>>
>> FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.
>>
>> You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll give
>> you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.
>>
>> The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
>> contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
>> higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.
>>
>> Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
>> defeats the entire intent of the program.
>>
>> For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.
>>
>
> Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question below?

First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed and then
we'll talk. Fair enough?




>
>
> Mike wrote:
>>
>> I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great. Obama
>> proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
>> currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
>> payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
>> economic expert?
>>
>
> Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate a
> higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?
>

On Jun 30, 3:02*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> > "Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
> > wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one. You probably
> > couldn't even get a lone for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.
>
> Let's see here. *Less than 5% of the population makes more than $102K. *It's
> probably closer to 3-4%.

What does 5% have to do with the fact that Obama said he's going to
increase SS taxes? Are you saying that if the tax doesn't affect you
its not a tax?

-Robert

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" > wrote
in <X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07>:

>
>> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
>> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households) earning
>> more than $102,000.00 annually.
>
>Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in investment
>income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.

That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'

Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your hypothetical
investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income tax decrease to
boot.

On Jun 30, 3:11*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> Mike wrote:

> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?


The 10th amendment..
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
authorize a Social Security program.

-Robert

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >> >> One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:
> >> >
> >> >No one wonders what Obama's position is?
> >>
> >> Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
> >> Bush's?
> >
> >Not at all.
> >
> >For the sake of completeness, I'm wondering what McCain AND Obama's
> >positions are.
>
> Oh. I understand now. It was the missing period after 'No' that
> threw me.

eh? There was no missing period. "No one" aka "nobody"

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:21 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > > > I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great.
> > > > > Obama
> > > > > proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
> > > > > currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population.
> > > > > The
> > > > > payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
> > > > > economic expert?
> >
> > > > Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate
> > > > a
> > > > higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?
> >
> > > Yea, I'm waiting to hear how he explains to me that more money coming
> > > out of my check and going into the SS system is not a tax increase.
> > > Perhaps he should be running for office.
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to explain your statement, Mr. economic
> > expert.
> > Here it is again:
> >
> > "Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll
> > tax we are paying will increase."
> >
> > So first you say "we" and now you say "my". So which is it?
> >
> > Who is this "we" you speak of?
>
> Anyone who makes ore than the current limit of $97,500/yr. Again, how
> is more money coming out of my check and going into SS not a tax
> increase? I'm really interested in the logic here.

The current limit isn't $97,500, Mr. economic expert, which leads me to
believe either you don't fall into that category or you're not quite the
economic expert you claim to be, no?

Furthermore, if you meant $97,500 or whatever, why didn't you specify it as
such rather than clearly implying everyone would be subject to an increase?

Two possibilities come to mind. Ignorance or a clear intent to deceive.

Which is it?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:02 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > "Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is now
> > > wealthy, that's awesome, I'll have to remember that one. You probably
> > > couldn't even get a lone for a Cessna 172 on $102,000/yr.
> >
> > Let's see here. Less than 5% of the population makes more than $102K.
> > It's
> > probably closer to 3-4%.
>
> What does 5% have to do with the fact that Obama said he's going to
> increase SS taxes? Are you saying that if the tax doesn't affect you
> its not a tax?

First answer my questions rather than snipping them and then we'll work on
yours. Fair enough?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> The 10th amendment..
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
> authorize a Social Security program.

This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:36 pm, gatt > wrote:
>
> > Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
> > 2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
> > DEATH.
>
> Wait, I'm not following. What does average income have to do with
> wealthy income levels?

Everything?

What does SS have to do with user fees?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:11 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
> > Mike wrote:
>
> > What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?
>
>
> The 10th amendment..
> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
> authorize a Social Security program.

Too bad you didn't get as far as the 16th amendment, Mr. economic expert.

On Jun 30, 3:49*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> The current limit isn't $97,500, Mr. economic expert, which leads me to
> believe either you don't fall into that category or you're not quite the
> economic expert you claim to be, no?

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10003.html
"6.2% on earnings up to $97,500"


> Furthermore, if you meant $97,500 or whatever, why didn't you specify it as
> such rather than clearly implying everyone would be subject to an increase?

So you are claiming that this is not a tax increase? I said he was
increasing SS tax. I have yet to hear how you claim this is not a tax
increase.

-Robert

On Jun 30, 3:53*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...

> First answer my questions rather than snipping them and then we'll work on
> yours. *Fair enough?

Certainly not 1 in 20! If 1 in 20 Americans are wealthy (as you say)
we're pretty amazing.

-Robert

On Jun 30, 3:57*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> Everything?
>
> What does SS have to do with user fees?

You apparently didn't read the first threads. The question was why
isn't anyone talking about the effect of user fees in Obama is elected
and the response is that we assume all taxes will go up as he has said
SS will. Gees, keep up on your own, don't make me spoon feed you.

-robert

On Jun 30, 3:53*pm, yedyegiss <dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
maaiil.c0m> wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > The 10th amendment..
> > "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> > nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> > respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
> > authorize a Social Security program.
>
> This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. *Look it up.

I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
of judges said so doesn't change the language of the constitution
though. I never said the Supreme Court struck down social security, I
just said it isn't authorized by the constitution because it isn't.

-Robert

On Jun 30, 4:04*pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in ...
>
> > On Jun 30, 3:11 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > wrote:
> > > Mike wrote:
>
> > > What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?
>
> > The 10th amendment..
> > "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> > nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> > respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
> > authorize a Social Security program.
>
> Too bad you didn't get as far as the 16th amendment, Mr. economic expert.

The 16th amendment just change the requirement that taxes be appointed
amoung the states. It does not authorize a social security system. You
probably shouldn't try to read the constitution on your own. Try
taking a real consitutional law class.

-Robert

gatt > wrote in news:208bs7.vgc.17.3
@integratelecom.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> gatt > wrote in news:208405.vk4.17.3
>
>>>> He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
>>>>social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.
>>>
>>>Won't hit me. By the time I'm eligible for the Socialist Security I've
>>>been paying into all my life, it'll be gone.
>>
>> Really? I'll collect on it and I don;t even pay SS!
>
> Imagine that.
>

Don't have to. Having said that, i haven't collected yet...

Bertie

On Jun 30, 3:41*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> > Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question below?
>
> First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed and then
> we'll talk. *Fair enough?

Looks like he's backing down Steve. He's now trying to find anyway
possible to get out of explaining how taking more money out of your
check and giving it to social security is not a tax increase.

-Robert

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:44:44 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>:

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >> >> One wonders what McCain's position on ATC user fees might be:
>> >> >
>> >> >No one wonders what Obama's position is?
>> >>
>> >> Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
>> >> Bush's?
>> >
>> >Not at all.
>> >
>> >For the sake of completeness, I'm wondering what McCain AND Obama's
>> >positions are.
>>
>> Oh. I understand now. It was the missing period after 'No' that
>> threw me.
>
>eh? There was no missing period. "No one" aka "nobody"

I thought you were implying that everyone knew what Obama's position
is, hence they don't wonder?

At any rate, it would be interesting to learn what Obama's views on
ATC user fees may be.

This Obama statement talks about transportation, but it's a bit light
on funding details:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/FactSheetTransportation.pdf



http://jets.halogenguides.com/articles/1191-faa-funding-bill-dies-in-senate
FAA Funding Bill Dies in Senate
05/07/2008
Presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Barack
Obama, D-Ill. and John McCain, R-Ariz. were among the nine
Senators who abstained from voting.



http://www.ainonline.com/ain-and-ainalerts/aviation-international-news/single-publication-story/article/natca-endorses-obama-for-president/
Natca Endorses Obama for President

June 2008

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (Natca) late last
week endorsed Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president. According
to the controllers union, Obama is “a champion of fair collective
bargaining rights for controllers [and] a fierce advocate for
aviation safety and holding the FAA accountable.” Two years ago,
Obama introduced the FAA Fair Labor Management Dispute Resolution
Act of 2006, which would have required neutral binding arbitr...


I suppose you could phone the number in this article and ask about
Obama's position on ATC user fees:


http://www.jetwhine.com/2007/09/aviation-user-fees-defeating-them-is-still-in-your-hands/
They seem to think that industry types will take time out of their
valuable day just to pick up the phone and punch in 866-908-5898
and be automatically connected to their members of Congress. I did
and spoke to the folks in the office of Senators Dick Durbin and
Barrack Obama and Representative Jan Shakowsky. That’s when I told
their staffers that this week’s vote on aviation industry funding
is crucial. ...



AOPA Search:
Your search - "user fees" obama - did not match any documents.

I submitted a question here:
http://obama.senate.gov/contact/index.php

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:49 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > The current limit isn't $97,500, Mr. economic expert, which leads me to
> > believe either you don't fall into that category or you're not quite the
> > economic expert you claim to be, no?
>
> http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10003.html
> "6.2% on earnings up to $97,500"

Your own link proves you wrong, Mr. economic expert.

Do you really want to continue to dig yourself into that hole?

> > Furthermore, if you meant $97,500 or whatever, why didn't you specify it
> > as
> > such rather than clearly implying everyone would be subject to an
> > increase?
>
> So you are claiming that this is not a tax increase? I said he was
> increasing SS tax.

Why do you keep trying to redefine what you said?

Here it is again, Mr. economic expert:

""Me too but the point is that Obama has pre-announced that the payroll tax
we are paying will increase."

Why do you insist on clipping out what you said and claim something else?

Do you really think your duplicitous rhetoric scores you any points?

> I have yet to hear how you claim this is not a tax
> increase.

Then why do you keep pretending I did? All I did was to take issue with the
accuracy of YOUR claim, Mr. economic expert.

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:43:41 -0700 (PDT), "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
>:

>On Jun 30, 3:11*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
>wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>
>> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?
>
>
>The 10th amendment..
>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
>authorize a Social Security program.
>
>-Robert



The Preamble to the Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity,
provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.” ...


http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-1/18-spending-for-general-welfare.html
SPENDING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE
Scope of the Power

The grant of power to “provide ... for the general welfare” raises
a two-fold question: how may Congress provide for “the general
welfare” and what is “the general welfare” that it is authorized
to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas
Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: “[T]he laying of
taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which
the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes
ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts
or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are
not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare,
but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”581 The clause, in short,
is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the
taxing power.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> > ...
>
> > First answer my questions rather than snipping them and then we'll work
> > on
> > yours. Fair enough?
>
> Certainly not 1 in 20! If 1 in 20 Americans are wealthy (as you say)
> we're pretty amazing.

Actually it's closer to 1 in 25, but now at least we have an idea of your
take.

Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would consider
someone making that kind of money wealthy?

On Jun 30, 5:01*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would consider
> someone making that kind of money wealthy?

yea, I think if you asked people "Who much money would you have to
make a year to be wealthy?" They would say something like $500,000 or
$1,000,000.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:57 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > Everything?
> >
> > What does SS have to do with user fees?
>
> You apparently didn't read the first threads. The question was why
> isn't anyone talking about the effect of user fees in Obama is elected
> and the response is that we assume all taxes will go up as he has said
> SS will. Gees, keep up on your own, don't make me spoon feed you.

You can't even keep up with what YOU said, Mr. economic expert.

There you go with that "we" again.

What is your pocket mouse's name, so at least I can have an idea of whom
you're referring.

> > I have yet to hear how you claim this is not a tax
> > increase.
>
> Then why do you keep pretending I did? *All I did was to take issue with the
> accuracy of YOUR claim, Mr. economic expert.

What claim? I said "Obama has pre-announced that the payroll tax
we are paying will increase". I even sent you a link. Now you are
somehow trying to claim that charging more a year in social security
tax is not an increase in payroll tax. I"m still waiting for you to
find a response to that. I guess you can't since you just change the
subject.

-Robret

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, yedyegiss <dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
> maaiil.c0m> wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
> > > The 10th amendment..
> > > "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> > > nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> > > respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
> > > authorize a Social Security program.
> >
> > This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.
>
> I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
> of judges said so doesn't change the language of the constitution
> though. I never said the Supreme Court struck down social security, I
> just said it isn't authorized by the constitution because it isn't.

Well, that's your opinion, Mr. economic expert, which may be shared by the
likes of Mr. Wesley Snipes. However, it just so happens the opinions of the
USSC are more relevant.

I hate to be the one to break that news to you, but it had to be done.

On Jun 30, 5:09*pm, "Mike" > wrote:

> Well, that's your opinion, Mr. economic expert, which may be shared by the
> likes of Mr. Wesley Snipes. *However, it just so happens the opinions of the
> USSC are more relevant.

Ok, now you are really desperate. Where did I say the Court struck
down Social Security? I just pointed on that the Constitution doesn’t
authorize it.

-Robert, Economic Expert.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 4:04 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in
> > ...
> >
> > > On Jun 30, 3:11 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Mike wrote:
> >
> > > > What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?
> >
> > > The 10th amendment..
> > > "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> > > nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> > > respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
> > > authorize a Social Security program.
> >
> > Too bad you didn't get as far as the 16th amendment, Mr. economic
> > expert.
>
> The 16th amendment just change the requirement that taxes be appointed
> amoung the states. It does not authorize a social security system. You
> probably shouldn't try to read the constitution on your own. Try
> taking a real consitutional law class.

Tell us again how a "couple of judges" on the USSC are wrong and you're
right.

That was a good one.

So now you're a legal expert, too.

With entertainment like this, who needs the comedy channel?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 3:41 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > > Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
> > > below?
> >
> > First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed and
> > then
> > we'll talk. Fair enough?
>
> Looks like he's backing down Steve. He's now trying to find anyway
> possible to get out of explaining how taking more money out of your
> check and giving it to social security is not a tax increase.

I'm just not stupid enough to answer loaded questions, Mr. economic/legal
expert.

You continually employ your childish tactic of diversion by snipping out
relevent text, and then you want to fault someone else for dismissing
irrelevant nonsense?

Are you even old enough to vote?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
>
> > > I have yet to hear how you claim this is not a tax
> > > increase.
> >
> > Then why do you keep pretending I did? All I did was to take issue with
> > the
> > accuracy of YOUR claim, Mr. economic expert.
>
> What claim? I said "Obama has pre-announced that the payroll tax
> we are paying will increase". I even sent you a link. Now you are
> somehow trying to claim that charging more a year in social security
> tax is not an increase in payroll tax. I"m still waiting for you to
> find a response to that. I guess you can't since you just change the
> subject.

For someone who claims to be a legal expert, you sure are weak on literacy.

By saying "we" any reasonable person would infer you meant 'everyone' since
you clearly didn't define "we".

As I said, Mr. economic/legal expert, either you were ignorant that Obama's
proposal didn't even come close to meaning 'everyone', or you were clearly
behaving in a duplicitous manner.

So which is it?

There are no other conclusions.

Why are you so afraid to answer that question?

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 5:01 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would
> > consider
> > someone making that kind of money wealthy?
>
> yea, I think

That's where you went wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/08/poll.socialsecurity/

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 30, 5:09 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> > Well, that's your opinion, Mr. economic expert, which may be shared by
> > the
> > likes of Mr. Wesley Snipes. However, it just so happens the opinions of
> > the
> > USSC are more relevant.
>
> Ok, now you are really desperate. Where did I say the Court struck
> down Social Security?

Where did I say you said any such thing, Mr. legal expert?

How many strawmen do you have?

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:16:15 -0500, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
>>> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households)
>>> earning more than $102,000.00 annually.
>>>
>>
>> Which means Obama is proposing to increase payroll taxes.
>>
>
> Why do you find that significant?
>

If you want me to answer your questions you must answer mine first.

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" > wrote
> in <X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07>:
>
>>
>>> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
>>> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households)
>>> earning more than $102,000.00 annually.
>>
>> Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in
>> investment income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.
>
> That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'
>
> Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your hypothetical
> investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income tax decrease to
> boot.
>

Does the fact that her dividend is simply her share of post income tax
profits mean anything at all to you?

yedyegiss wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> The 10th amendment..
>> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>> respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
>> authorize a Social Security program.
>
> This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.
>

The Supreme Court has made many decisions contrary to the Constitutuion.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:36 pm, gatt > wrote:
>

>>> "Wealthy"!! :):):). OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is
>>>now wealthy, that's awesome,


>>Why, here in Oregon where the average income for a family of four in
>>2007 was $61,250, those people who make $102,000 are simply starving to
>>DEATH.
>
>
> Wait, I'm not following.


No ****.


> What does average income have to do with wealthy income levels?

You're the MBA. Do the math.


-c

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> On Jun 30, 5:01 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>
>>Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would consider
>>someone making that kind of money wealthy?
>
>
> yea, I think if you asked people "Who much money would you have to
> make a year to be wealthy?" They would say something like $500,000 or
> $1,000,000.

*cackle*

That's amusing.

-c

Mike wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to
>>>> be forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating
>>>> out of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.
>>>
>>> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
>>> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>>
>>
>> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?
>
> Not the same one you do, obviously.
>

Obviously.


>>
>> What do you believe "sic" means?
>>
>
> Are you really that dense?
>

I'm not at all dense. Your usage suggests you don't know what it means.

Mike wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
>>>>> elgibility age
>>>>> hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
>>>>> The SS
>>>>> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
>>>>> income, and the
>>>>> whole trust fund idea is a disaster.
>>>>
>>>> The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
>>>> the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
>>>> contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to
>>>> pay into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on
>>>> totally throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by
>>>> FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to
>>>> opt
>>>> out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
>>>> more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
>>>> the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.
>>>
>>> FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.
>>>
>>> You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
>>> give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.
>>>
>>> The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
>>> contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
>>> higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.
>>>
>>> Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
>>> defeats the entire intent of the program.
>>>
>>> For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.
>>>
>>
>> Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
>> below?
>
> First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
> and then we'll talk. Fair enough?
>

I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.





>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess your reading comprehension skills aren't all that great.
>>> Obama proposes raising the SS maximum income level, which is
>>> currently $102,000 which affects less than 5% of the population. The
>>> payroll tax rate would remain the same. And you claim to be an
>>> economic expert?
>>>
>>
>> Seems to me if a larger income level is subject to the same tax rate
>> a higher net tax is the result. Do you disagree?

Mike wrote:
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Jun 30, 3:41 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>>>> Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
>>>> below?
>>>
>>> First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
>>> and then
>>> we'll talk. Fair enough?
>>
>> Looks like he's backing down Steve. He's now trying to find anyway
>> possible to get out of explaining how taking more money out of your
>> check and giving it to social security is not a tax increase.
>
> I'm just not stupid enough to answer loaded questions, Mr.
> economic/legal expert.
>

So what is your level of stupidity?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>>Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
>>Bush's?
>
> I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
> Obama.

Who's this "we" to which you refer?

Do you another proposal by which to pay off the massive deficits
incurred under the current administration - that is, besides currency
inflation?

> He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
> social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

"Many?" What is your definition of "many" as employed here? Ten
percent?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

> On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, yedyegiss <dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
> maaiil.c0m> wrote:
>
>>Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>> No where in the constitution does it
>>>authorize a Social Security program.
>>
>>This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.
>
> I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
> of judges said so

Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what does
and does not violate the US Constitution.

Thanks for pointing that out.

And since you don't seem capable figuring out that this is an AVIATION
newsgroup... *plonk*

Mike wrote:

> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in >
>> ...
>>
>>
>> > First answer my questions rather than snipping them and then we'll
>> work > on
>> > yours. Fair enough?
>>
>> Certainly not 1 in 20! If 1 in 20 Americans are wealthy (as you say)
>> we're pretty amazing.
>
> Actually it's closer to 1 in 25, but now at least we have an idea of
> your take.

On a wider basis, just about everyone in the USA can be considered
somewhat "wealthy."

http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php

> Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would
> consider someone making that kind of money wealthy?

I sure as hell don't, but you know how reality is biased that way.

yeedyeegiiss > wrote
in :

> Mike wrote:
>
>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>> > "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in >
>>>
>>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> > First answer my questions rather than snipping them and then we'll
>>> work > on
>>> > yours. Fair enough?
>>>
>>> Certainly not 1 in 20! If 1 in 20 Americans are wealthy (as you say)
>>> we're pretty amazing.
>>
>> Actually it's closer to 1 in 25, but now at least we have an idea of
>> your take.
>
> On a wider basis, just about everyone in the USA can be considered
> somewhat "wealthy."
>
> http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php
>
>> Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would
>> consider someone making that kind of money wealthy?
>
> I sure as hell don't, but you know how reality is biased that way.

Nothing to do with reality. That's strictly s relative point of view thing.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/10/07/average_earnings_world
wide/



in any case, the only wealthy man is one who doesn't want..



Bertie

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
>>> Bush's?
>>
>> I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
>> Obama.
>
> Who's this "we" to which you refer?
>
> Do you another proposal by which to pay off the massive deficits
> incurred under the current administration - that is, besides currency
> inflation?
>

Sure. Cut spending. That will pay off the off the massive deficits
incurred under the current and prior administrations.

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
>> On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, yedyegiss <dee/gee/ess/0ne/3hree/zer0/zer0_@_gee/
>> maaiil.c0m> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> No where in the constitution does it
>>>> authorize a Social Security program.
>>>
>>> This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.
>>
>> I'm very aware of that decision Mr WIkipedia. The fact that a couple
>> of judges said so
>
> Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
> charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what
> does and does not violate the US Constitution.
>

Where can that charge be found?

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>
>>Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
>>charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what
>>does and does not violate the US Constitution.
>>
>
>
> Where can that charge be found?

The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and,
thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

The rest is left as an exercise to the student.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>
>>Do you another proposal by which to pay off the massive deficits
>>incurred under the current administration - that is, besides currency
>>inflation?
>
> Sure. Cut spending. That will pay off the off the massive deficits
> incurred under the current and prior administrations.

Somehow, this "cut spending" paradigm seems to have been largely absent
for the last seven years, in spite of a political party allegedly
committed to fiscal probity being in charge much of the time.

> >>Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it is
> >>charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to what
> >>does and does not violate the US Constitution.

> > Where can that charge be found?

> The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
> controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
> States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
> ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and,
> thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.

Except that the USSC must first accept the case as being worthy of their
consideration. If they reject it, the lower courts ruling stands.

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>> yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it
>>> is charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to
>>> what does and does not violate the US Constitution.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Where can that charge be found?
>
> The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
> controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
> States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
> ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law
> and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the
> Constitution.
> The rest is left as an exercise to the student.
>

The student is you. I asked where that charge could be found, a proper
answer includes a location. Try again.

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>>
>>> Do you another proposal by which to pay off the massive deficits
>>> incurred under the current administration - that is, besides
>>> currency inflation?
>>
>> Sure. Cut spending. That will pay off the off the massive deficits
>> incurred under the current and prior administrations.
>
> Somehow, this "cut spending" paradigm seems to have been largely
> absent for the last seven years, in spite of a political party
> allegedly committed to fiscal probity being in charge much of the
> time.

Actually, it's been absent far longer than that.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
>>>>>> elgibility age
>>>>>> hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living longer.
>>>>>> The SS
>>>>>> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
>>>>>> income, and the
>>>>>> whole trust fund idea is a disaster.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is because
>>>>> the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that amount don't
>>>>> contribute to increased future distributions. Allowing people to
>>>>> pay into SS at higher income levels than they can ever collect on
>>>>> totally throws out the idea that its a "savings" plan as sold by
>>>>> FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS tax in 1/2 by allowing people to
>>>>> opt
>>>>> out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several times
>>>>> more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that doesn't allow
>>>>> the gov't control over your money so it will never fly.
>>>>
>>>> FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
>>>> give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.
>>>>
>>>> The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped by
>>>> contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is reduced at
>>>> higher contribution levels, but again this is always as it has been.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people to "opt out"
>>>> defeats the entire intent of the program.
>>>>
>>>> For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of things.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
>>> below?
>>
>> First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
>> and then we'll talk. Fair enough?
>>
>
> I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.

I don't answer loaded questions.

Answering the question would imply the discussion only involved a small
minority of the population in a specific circumstance and it most certainly
did not, Mr. expert.

It's no different than you not answering if I asked if you've stopped
beating your wife. Some questions don't deserve answers.

I'm sure you guys think you're clever by asking loaded questions, but you
aren't. You're simply someone who has to resort to childish rhetoric which
simply provides more evidence your points were invalid to begin with, as if
anyone needed more.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have to
>>>>> be forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be eating
>>>>> out of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional authority for it.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
>>>> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>>>>
>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if any?
>>
>> Not the same one you do, obviously.
>>
>
> Obviously.
>
>
>>>
>>> What do you believe "sic" means?
>>>
>>
>> Are you really that dense?
>>
>
> I'm not at all dense. Your usage suggests you don't know what it means.

I know exactly what it means, Mr. expert, and it was used quite correctly
regardless of what you think. A simple grammatical error is certainly
excusable, but continuing to repeat errors after they have been pointed out
demonstrates not only ignorance, but stupidity. If you want to remain
subliterate, that's your business. Don't let me stop you. Live like you
wanna live.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

> yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>
>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>
>>>yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though it
>>>>is charged with duties that include making legal decisions as to
>>>>what does and does not violate the US Constitution.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Where can that charge be found?
>>
>>The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
>>controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United
>>States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with
>>ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law
>>and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the
>>Constitution.
>>The rest is left as an exercise to the student.
>>
> The student is you.

No, the student isn't me. I know where the above quote can be found.

It is trivial to find it. Finding it will reveal the remainder of
the answer you seem to desperately seek.

Or do you not believe that the USC is "the highest tribunal in the
Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or
the laws of the United States?" If so, what body would serve this
function?

> I asked where that charge could be found, a proper
> answer includes a location.

A proper answer includes "plug in the above quote to the appropriate
search tool, and go find it. The location is glaringly obvious."

Otherwise, you're just sinking to Anthony Atkielski's level of, um,
"argument."

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" > wrote
>> in <X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07>:
>>
>>>
>>>> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
>>>> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households)
>>>> earning more than $102,000.00 annually.
>>>
>>> Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in
>>> investment income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin with.
>>
>> That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'
>>
>> Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your hypothetical
>> investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income tax decrease to
>> boot.
>>
>
> Does the fact that her dividend is simply her share of post income tax
> profits mean anything at all to you?

Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?

In article >,
yeedyeegiiss > wrote:

> Do you another proposal by which to pay off the massive deficits
> incurred under the current administration - that is, besides currency
> inflation?

reduce spending.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

>>> What do you believe "sic" means?
>>>
>>
>> Are you really that dense?
>>
>
> I'm not at all dense. Your usage suggests you don't know what it means.

You really are slipping, McNicoll.

This is another sign.

--
Dan

T182T at 4R4

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>> yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>>
>>> Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>>>
>>>> yeedyeegiiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so the USSC is an insufficient authority to you, even though
>>>>> it is charged with duties that include making legal decisions as
>>>>> to what does and does not violate the US Constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where can that charge be found?
>>>
>>> The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and
>>> controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the
>>> United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is
>>> charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal
>>> justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and
>>> interpreter of the Constitution.
>>> The rest is left as an exercise to the student.
>>>
>> The student is you.
>
> No, the student isn't me. I know where the above quote can be found.
>

What quote above?


>
> It is trivial to find it. Finding it will reveal the remainder of
> the answer you seem to desperately seek.
>

You said the SC is charged with duties that include making legal decisions
as to what does and does not violate the US Constitution. Prove it.


>
> Or do you not believe that the USC is "the highest tribunal in the
> Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution
> or the laws of the United States?" If so, what body would serve this
> function?
>
>> I asked where that charge could be found, a proper
>> answer includes a location.
>
> A proper answer includes "plug in the above quote to the appropriate
> search tool, and go find it. The location is glaringly obvious."
>

A proper answer includes a location. Your answer indicates you don't know
what you're talking about.

Mike wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 22:31:19 GMT, "Mike" >
>>> wrote in <X8dak.336$bn3.151@trnddc07>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But the fact remains, that what Obama is proposing will increase
>>>>> payroll taxes _only_ for those _individuals_ (not households)
>>>>> earning more than $102,000.00 annually.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it's not even that. Someone with a million dollars in
>>>> investment income who has no wage income pays $0 FICA to begin
>>>> with.
>>>
>>> That's why I stipulated 'payroll taxes.'
>>>
>>> Of course, Bush cut the taxes on dividend income, so your
>>> hypothetical investor not only doesn't pay FICA, she got an income
>>> tax decrease to boot.
>>>
>>
>> Does the fact that her dividend is simply her share of post income
>> tax profits mean anything at all to you?
>
> Does the word "fact" mean anything to you?
>

Yes. I doubt that you know what it means.

Mike wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
>>>>>>> elgibility age
>>>>>>> hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living
>>>>>>> longer. The SS
>>>>>>> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
>>>>>>> income, and the
>>>>>>> whole trust fund idea is a disaster.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is
>>>>>> because the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that
>>>>>> amount don't contribute to increased future distributions.
>>>>>> Allowing people to pay into SS at higher income levels than they
>>>>>> can ever collect on totally throws out the idea that its a
>>>>>> "savings" plan as sold by FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS
>>>>>> tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
>>>>>> out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several
>>>>>> times more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that
>>>>>> doesn't allow the gov't control over your money so it will never
>>>>>> fly.
>>>>>
>>>>> FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
>>>>> give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.
>>>>>
>>>>> The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped
>>>>> by contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is
>>>>> reduced at higher contribution levels, but again this is always
>>>>> as it has been. Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people
>>>>> to "opt out"
>>>>> defeats the entire intent of the program.
>>>>>
>>>>> For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of
>>>>> things.
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
>>>> below?
>>>
>>> First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
>>> and then we'll talk. Fair enough?
>>>
>>
>> I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.
>
> I don't answer loaded questions.
>

It's a simple question. Just yes or no will do.

Mike wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have
>>>>>> to be forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be
>>>>>> eating out of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional
>>>>>> authority for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
>>>>> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if
>>>> any?
>>>
>>> Not the same one you do, obviously.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you believe "sic" means?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you really that dense?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not at all dense. Your usage suggests you don't know what it
>> means.
>
> I know exactly what it means, Mr. expert, and it was used quite
> correctly regardless of what you think. A simple grammatical error
> is certainly excusable, but continuing to repeat errors after they
> have been pointed out demonstrates not only ignorance, but stupidity.
> If you want to remain subliterate, that's your business. Don't let
> me stop you. Live like you wanna live.
>

What simple grammatical error?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have
>>>>>>> to be forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be
>>>>>>> eating out of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional
>>>>>>> authority for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
>>>>>> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if
>>>>> any?
>>>>
>>>> Not the same one you do, obviously.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you believe "sic" means?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you really that dense?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not at all dense. Your usage suggests you don't know what it
>>> means.
>>
>> I know exactly what it means, Mr. expert, and it was used quite
>> correctly regardless of what you think. A simple grammatical error
>> is certainly excusable, but continuing to repeat errors after they
>> have been pointed out demonstrates not only ignorance, but stupidity.
>> If you want to remain subliterate, that's your business. Don't let
>> me stop you. Live like you wanna live.
>>
>
> What simple grammatical error?

Am I your literacy coach now?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Jun 30, 2:35 pm, "Mike" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, SS has been expanded over the years and the
>>>>>>>> elgibility age
>>>>>>>> hasn't been raised to reflect the reality of people living
>>>>>>>> longer. The SS
>>>>>>>> maximum income level also hasn't kept pace with increases in
>>>>>>>> income, and the
>>>>>>>> whole trust fund idea is a disaster.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason the max income level hasn't increased as fast is
>>>>>>> because the max payout has been reduced. Incomes over that
>>>>>>> amount don't contribute to increased future distributions.
>>>>>>> Allowing people to pay into SS at higher income levels than they
>>>>>>> can ever collect on totally throws out the idea that its a
>>>>>>> "savings" plan as sold by FDR. In anycase, if they cut the SS
>>>>>>> tax in 1/2 by allowing people to opt
>>>>>>> out of ever collecting on it people would retire with several
>>>>>>> times more money by investing the saved 1/2. However, that
>>>>>>> doesn't allow the gov't control over your money so it will never
>>>>>>> fly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FDR never billed it as a "savings plan" to begin with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You might want to look up what the "I" in FICA stands for. I'll
>>>>>> give you a hint. It's the same thing as the "I" in OASDI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The max payout has never been reduced. The max payout is capped
>>>>>> by contributions as it's always been and the payout rate is
>>>>>> reduced at higher contribution levels, but again this is always
>>>>>> as it has been. Looking at SS as a "savings plan" and allowing people
>>>>>> to "opt out"
>>>>>> defeats the entire intent of the program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For an economic expert, you sure are ignorant about a lot of
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you demonstrate your expertise by answering the question
>>>>> below?
>>>>
>>>> First explain how it's relevant to what Mr. economic expert claimed
>>>> and then we'll talk. Fair enough?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can prepare a better lesson if you answer first.
>>
>> I don't answer loaded questions.
>>
>
> It's a simple question. Just yes or no will do.

Most loaded questions are.

Mike wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mike wrote:
>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>>>> m...
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have
>>>>>>>> to be forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be
>>>>>>>> eating out of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional
>>>>>>>> authority for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
>>>>>>> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if
>>>>>> any?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the same one you do, obviously.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you believe "sic" means?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really that dense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not at all dense. Your usage suggests you don't know what it
>>>> means.
>>>
>>> I know exactly what it means, Mr. expert, and it was used quite
>>> correctly regardless of what you think. A simple grammatical error
>>> is certainly excusable, but continuing to repeat errors after they
>>> have been pointed out demonstrates not only ignorance, but
>>> stupidity. If you want to remain subliterate, that's your business.
>>> Don't let me stop you. Live like you wanna live.
>>>
>>
>> What simple grammatical error?
>
> Am I your literacy coach now?
>

You're not in a position to coach anyone on anything.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
m...
> Mike wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>>> m...
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>>>>>> m...
>>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You're wrong, SS was always a bad idea. Great ideas don't have
>>>>>>>>> to be forced on people, SS does not insure old people won't be
>>>>>>>>> eating out of trash cans, and there's no Constitutional
>>>>>>>>> authority for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suppose if one subscribes to the Wesley Snipes school of
>>>>>>>> "Constitutional(sic) authority", you might think so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What school of Constitutional authority do you subscribe to, if
>>>>>>> any?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the same one you do, obviously.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you believe "sic" means?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you really that dense?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not at all dense. Your usage suggests you don't know what it
>>>>> means.
>>>>
>>>> I know exactly what it means, Mr. expert, and it was used quite
>>>> correctly regardless of what you think. A simple grammatical error
>>>> is certainly excusable, but continuing to repeat errors after they
>>>> have been pointed out demonstrates not only ignorance, but
>>>> stupidity. If you want to remain subliterate, that's your business.
>>>> Don't let me stop you. Live like you wanna live.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What simple grammatical error?
>>
>> Am I your literacy coach now?
>>
>
> You're not in a position to coach anyone on anything.

Sez the pot to the kettle.

On Jun 30, 9:10*pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
wrote:
> yedyegiss wrote:
> > Robert M. Gary wrote:
>
> >> The 10th amendment..
> >> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
> >> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
> >> respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does it
> >> authorize a Social Security program.
>
> > This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. *Look it up.
>
> The Supreme Court has made many decisions contrary to the Constitutuion.

Name one.

Foobar wrote:
> On Jun 30, 9:10 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" >
> wrote:
>> yedyegiss wrote:
>>> Robert M. Gary wrote:
>>
>>>> The 10th amendment..
>>>> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
>>>> nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
>>>> respectively, or to the people." No where in the constitution does
>>>> it authorize a Social Security program.
>>
>>> This was settled by the Supreme Court on May 24, 1937. Look it up.
>>
>> The Supreme Court has made many decisions contrary to the
>> Constitution.
>
> Name one.
>

Kelo v. City of New London.