Bush Threatens Veto Of Any Bills That Don't Include User Fees For Everyone Talking To ATC!

"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/...ocialsecurity/

"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.