No its all over the bill.. Rich people floating the bill again b/c no matter what, they just got a tax increase... I like how ya'll keep pointing to the Romney bill while TOTALLY ignoring the differences between state lvl and federal. You just refuse to read the bill. Taxes went up on majority of tax payers, those making 250K +...
You a fucking tool trying to make this seem trivial, all the while you haven't even once read the bill. Otherwise you'd shut the fuck up b/c you'd know your wrong. Taxes went up. I didn't fucking say they went up on everyone, but taxes went up. To be perfectly clear, I don't really give a shit b/c I am not rich. HOWEVER, Obama himself said this wouldn't happen, but you and other Libs seem to let this slide all while creating Republican hypocrisy threads.... Sep 20, 2009 Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax
Because I am only supporting one side of the aisle on this issue. Are you seriously suggesting that I argue your side of it for you?
No, the Supreme court ruled that the individual mandate requirement was a tax and completely legal. If you think that the majority of taxpayers make over 250K a year, you are quite wrong.
I do not know why you have this perception that I do not know what is in the bill or that I have not read it. Taxing those who make over $200,000 (individuals) or $250,000 (couples) a grand total of 0.9% is hardly "Taxes went up on majority of tax payers." You are essentially calling a 1% tax on 1% of the population a massive tax hike. And before you start, yes I know there is also a 3.8% tax on non-earned income which essentially a tax on money earned from investments but that will also only affect those earning more than the aforementioned totals. That said, those in the same tax bracket currently pay next to nothing on their investment incomes. This is how the rich have become richer at such an enormous pace over the past decade. On your point about Romney, I always find it interesting how Republicans like to switch back and forth between fighting for states rights and federalism. Republicans like to champion states rights and blah blah blah but given the opportunity they would revoke Roe v. Wade at the federal level and make english a national language, among other things. There is absolutely no difference in what Romney did in Massachusets and what Obama did at the federal level. However, you guys are having a damn hard time explaining yourselves now.
Once more, it is always easy to know when I have won an argument because you start cursing and ranting because you cannot seem to muster an intelligent argument any more. Again, I have no idea where you have ascertained the knowledge that I have not read this bill or that I am some how oblivious to it's contents. I also find it interesting that in this post you state "I didn't say they (taxes) went up on everyone" yet in your previous post (#71) you stated, "Taxes went up on majority of tax payers." Which is it? You said one thing at 6:45 and something completely different 10 minutes later. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were drunk because the alternative would mean just plain ole' stupidity. If you are not rich, why do you continue to defend them? Why is it your responsibility to ensure they become even richer? Do you think for one second that they are going to repay the favor? If so, we would have never needed a bail out because the "job creators" would have just interevened and created jobs. If trickle down economics works so well then why haven't we seen the positive results of it? Since 1980 not one single Republican President has ever presided over a balanced budget. During that same time period no Republican President has reduced the deficit. What gives?
