[Video] Judge Napolitano: GOP Did Opposite Of What They Were Elected For With Fiscal Cliff

[Confederate]

Judge Napolitano: Republicans Did Opposite Of What They Were Elected For With Fiscal Cliff Bill


http://youtu.be/tWmnPQbf57g

 

[cbrons]

Going over the cliff = cutting spending. Increasing spending and debt = being rescued from going over the cliff. Hmm somethin don't sound right about that jackson.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Obama was on just a bit ago vowing that this was the last time we will raise the debt ceiling.

Anyone believe him?

-t

 

[Confederate]

Obama was on just a bit ago vowing that this was the last time we will raise the debt ceiling.

Anyone believe him?

-t

So he's finally going to balance the budget?

 

[CaptUSA]

So he's finally going to balance the budget?

No, he wants to raise the limit to infinity.


....AND BEYOND!!!

 

[Confederate]

No, he wants to raise the limit to infinity.


....AND BEYOND!!!

That can't be. Obama has always said he's in favor of balancing the budget.

 

[Madison320]

I heard an analyst on CNN last night talk about how there are issues remaining for the republicans. They still want to cancel the sequestration and they want to reduce spending. Ha! Ha! Ha! Sequestration IS cutting spending. The republicans want to trade real, current cuts in spending for phoney, imaginary cuts in the future. Of course the democrats aren't any better. They don't want to cut spending, period.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Thanks for letting the payroll tax cut expire, Republicans! I'm so glad you guys are an anti-tax party.

 

[Brett85]

So what exactly were the Republicans supposed to do when all of the tax cuts had officially expired anyway? Just refuse to re-instate any of them just because they couldn't get all of them re-instated?

 

[CaptUSA]

So what exactly were the Republicans supposed to do when all of the tax cuts had officially expired anyway? Just refuse to re-instate any of them just because they couldn't get all of them re-instated?

Seeing that the real issue is spending and not how they're going to tax us - YES.

Remember, Dr. Paul kept telling us, "the spending IS the tax." Whether it comes in the form of an income tax, luxury tax, inflation tax, it doesn't matter. As long as the debt keeps going up, the amount the American people have to pay is going up. So yes, they should have let taxes go up in order to get spending cuts. (Although, we all know in here that the sequestor cuts weren't really cuts, anyway) You can always cut taxes in the future, but you will never be able to get them to cut spending!

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

So what exactly were the Republicans supposed to do when all of the tax cuts had officially expired anyway? Just refuse to re-instate any of them just because they couldn't get all of them re-instated?

They could have supported the payroll tax cut when it happened, instead of opposing it. For one.

 

[supermario21]

We're winning the argument on sequestration. Many Republicans, especially the ones who voted no on the cliff deal, want the sequester to happen. I saw Mulvaney the other day on CNN saying we need the sequester to happen if Obama will not want to cut much of anything.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Seeing that the real issue is spending and not how they're going to tax us - YES.

Remember, Dr. Paul kept telling us, "the spending IS the tax." Whether it comes in the form of an income tax, luxury tax, inflation tax, it doesn't matter. As long as the debt keeps going up, the amount the American people have to pay is going up. So yes, they should have let taxes go up in order to get spending cuts. (Although, we all know in here that the sequestor cuts weren't really cuts, anyway) You can always cut taxes in the future, but you will never be able to get them to cut spending!

This is what happens when you take an idea and completely distort and remove it from its context (Fed inflation). What you're arguing for is austerity so that the banks and their high-roller operators can be paid. Fuck the banks, fuck the government, the debt needs to be repudiated and taxes eliminated.

Theft is a graver injustice than government deficit. Furthermore, raising taxes or cutting spending will do... what, exactly? How do you get government to cut its own spending? When has that happened? Ever?

If anyone still thinks answers will be provided or found in politics, they're hopeless and will never see reality for what it is.

For Ron's thoughts on whether taxes should go up:

I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes - rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that’s why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I’ll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I’ve never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”

 

[Madison320]

I'm in the minority, but I don't like a tax cut if it means taxes are more progressive. For example if you had a flat tax of 10% and then reduced it to 5% for all but millionaires, I think that would be wrong. I think laws, even bad laws should be applied evenly to everyone.