|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Bob NoelBob Noel Date: Jul 1, 2008 00:44
In article <5kni645c11v1v8dcrtegehhb4jtdfe34ph@ 4ax.com>,
Larry Dighera att.net> 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"
|
| Show full article (0.63Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: Jul 1, 2008 00:49
> On Jun 30, 3:21 pm, "Mike" microsoft.com> wrote:>>> On Jun 30, 2:37 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" writeme.com>
>>> 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 ...
|
| Show full article (2.11Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: Jul 1, 2008 00:53
> On Jun 30, 3:02 pm, "Mike" microsoft.com> 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?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jul 1, 2008 00:53
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.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: Jul 1, 2008 00:57
> 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?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: MikeMike Date: Jul 1, 2008 01:04
> On Jun 30, 3:11 pm, "Steven P. McNicoll" writeme.com>
> 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.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Robert M. GaryRobert M. Gary Date: Jul 1, 2008 01:24
On Jun 30, 3:49 pm, "Mike" microsoft.com> 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?
> 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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Robert M. GaryRobert M. Gary Date: Jul 1, 2008 01:26
On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, "Mike" microsoft.com> wrote:> 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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Robert M. GaryRobert M. Gary Date: Jul 1, 2008 01:27
On Jun 30, 3:57 pm, "Mike" microsoft.com> 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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Robert M. GaryRobert M. Gary Date: Jul 1, 2008 01:31
On Jun 30, 3:53 pm, yedyegiss
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
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
