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

Robert M. Gary wrote:
On Jun 30, 3:36 pm, gatt wrote:


"Wealthy"!! . OMG I'm on the floor laughing. $102,000/yr is
now wealthy, that's awesome,


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.


No ****.


What does average income have to do with wealthy income levels?

You're the MBA. Do the math.


-c

Robert M. Gary wrote:
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.

*cackle*

That's amusing.

-c

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.

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.










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?

Mike wrote:
"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.


So what is your level of stupidity?

Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
Obama.

Who's this "we" to which you refer?

Do you another proposal by which to pay off the massive deficits
incurred under the current administration - that is, besides currency
inflation?

He's already started warning us by saying he's increasing the
social security tax. That's going to hit many of us.

"Many?" What is your definition of "many" as employed here? Ten
percent?

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.

Thanks for pointing that out.

And since you don't seem capable figuring out that this is an AVIATION
newsgroup... *plonk*

Mike wrote:

"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.

On a wider basis, just about everyone in the USA can be considered
somewhat "wealthy."

http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php

Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would
consider someone making that kind of money wealthy?

I sure as hell don't, but you know how reality is biased that way.

yeedyeegiiss wrote
in :

Mike wrote:

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message

...

On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, "Mike" wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in

oups.com...


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.

On a wider basis, just about everyone in the USA can be considered
somewhat "wealthy."

http://www.globalrichlist.com/index.php

Now, do you question my assumption that 90% of the population would
consider someone making that kind of money wealthy?

I sure as hell don't, but you know how reality is biased that way.

Nothing to do with reality. That's strictly s relative point of view thing.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/art...earnings_world
wide/



in any case, the only wealthy man is one who doesn't want..



Bertie

yeedyeegiiss wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Jun 30, 11:16 am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Are you intimating that Obama's ATC user fee view is aligned with
Bush's?

I think we all just assume that taxes are going to be crippling under
Obama.

Who's this "we" to which you refer?

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.