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

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