First, Obamacare hasn't even begun yet, much less affected the last 6 years. Second, the money in Obamacare pales in comparison to the wealth transfer and robbing of savings by the Federal Reserve during the last six years. And lastly, Obamacare puts more money in the pockets of insurers at the expense of the middle class - how is that a reverse? The uninsured may actually get healthcare out of this (even that is in doubt) but they certainly won't get wealth.
Please let jem and DH know about that first bit. Second, ok, while I agree to some extent, it does tend to indicate that Obama is not a socialist (or at least not a good one), never was, and the labeling was typical rightie HS. So it seems unlikely America will go FULL COMMIE, at least under him. Third, a handy precondition to building wealth is not going bankrupt from medical expenses.
I don't agree with a good deal that comes from Jem, nor do I have a dog in that particular hunt. Please point me to my post calling Obama a Socialist or where I said America is going FULL COMMIE. Just in case you missed it, I am Tsing Tao, not Scat, and have responsibility for whatever I post, but cannot control others. Perhaps in some rare and unfortunate cases. But far, far more importantly, a precondition to building wealth is a good work ethic, a job, and a sense of self identity. If the government can leave one alone so that one can then invest safely and build interest, all the better.
I never meant to say it was you, in particular, saying it. It was simply another meme. Still alive from the sound of other posters around here, for whose benefit I wrote that. Were medical bankruptcies rare?
I see you're back to posting nonsense. In liberal fantasy world, letting people keep a bit more of their own money is called taking it from the poor. You must know that the lower 47% or thereabout pay zero income taxes, so your whole argument is specious.