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

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
news
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
news
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
news
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.