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

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?