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

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/pd...sportation.pdf



http://jets.halogenguides.com/articl...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-ain...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/avia...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 he
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/constituti...l-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