Eturnalshift wrote:
Bush hasn't been President for a long time.
3.5 years is a long time? Maybe if your world is made up of five-second soundbites, you think anything over a paragraph is TLDR and that the world began in 1960.
Even if it were 50 years it wouldn't matter. Our big problems, two wars and unsustainably low taxes for the richest, are attributable to Bush. The fact another man is now President does not change that.
Eturnalshift wrote:
There are about 22 new taxes. Some of them are on the wealthy. Some of them are on the drug companies. Some of them are on the companies that manufacturer the medical devices. Twelve of them will affect people making less than $250,000/yr (married, jointly). If you don't buy insurance, you're penalized with a new tax.
22 new taxes! Cool, a statistic! Mark Twain, anyone?
Those 22 "new" taxes do not change the fact that the wealthiest will STILL pay less than ever before.
You say many will affect those earning less than $250k/yr.
Is that, to you, good, or bad?
Would you prefer they be on those who earn more or less, or no taxes at all?
Eturnalshift wrote:
If you do buy insurance (and don't need it),
Who exactly doesn't need insurance?
Is there anyone who doesn't ever catch flu or is at risk of an accident or breaking a bone or suffering from food poisoning or any other sort of incidental thing that puts someone in the ER?
And if someone is unlucky and does not have coverage then they go to the ER and get seen anyway, at taxpayer expense. How is that better?
Eturnalshift wrote:
then you're penalized by buying something you don't want to buy or don't think you need.
Everyone thinks they're bulletproof until they get shot.
Especially Americans, who see themselves as a nation of veritable Robinson Cruesoes, who think they're invincible until their fragile little lives are shattered by forces outside their control.
Case study, you don't think you need the government that gave you literally everything you have, for free, at no cost nor labor to you. A contradiction with your views that you have yet to explain.
Eturnalshift wrote:
After all the penalties and taxes have been collected, we're still going to be 1.25 trillion dollars short.
We will be, yes. Those countries that have nationalized healthcare, abundant public spending, little military welfare, and far higher taxes on the rich, will not. What is the logical conclusion?
Eturnalshift wrote:
PS: Aestu still likes to play make believe. Wat a dum.
What am I "making believe"? What have I said that is not factually true?