Posted on 12/01/2011 4:38:36 AM PST by radioone
Another Republican senator has opened the door to tax increases on high earners as a way to pay for a payroll tax cut, showing more movement in the party ranks after resistance all year to tax increases.
“I sense a change in mood,” Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said Wednesday. “It’s a little more bipartisan. My position has always been, ‘Let’s not raise taxes,’ but on the other hand, I don’t want our country to collapses under a mountain of debt. If that means compromise, I am going to do everything to get that done.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com ...
The rinos are everywhere.
First cut spending.
If spending is truly CUT, not in the future, but for the present, and stays cut for 3 years, then maybe consider increasing taxes.
But NOT BEFORE REAL CUTS!
IDIOT!
Bipartisan means democrats refuse to compromise on their position and the GOP caves. Always has, always will.
Democrats do not compromise. They demonize, they attack, they obstruct but they do not compromise. When you hear "lawmakers today compromised on ... " you can bet that the concessions made by dems will turn out to be fake and never happen for real, like Boehner's mythical spending cut deal earlier in the year. It's disgusting that this keeps winning for them, but it does.
I AGREE- CALL THEIR BLUFF
If they really are going to offer 10 dollars of cuts for each dollar of spending then DO THE CUTS FIRST
And I mean real cuts- a smaller increase is NOT a cut.
ARE THE GOP SO STUPID THEY CAN’T EVEN USE THE WORD “FREEZE”
If they would just freeze spending we would grow our way out of it- Let the democraps try to call a ‘freeze’ a cut - WE WOULD FINALLY WIN THE TERMINOLOGY!!!!
It will never happen. We have a one party system with few exceptions.
The vicious cycle... it always seems to go as follows:
1. Agree to a tax hike in exchange for a vague promise to consider future spending cuts.
2. Hike taxes.
3. Talk a little more about about future spending cuts.
4. Refuse to raise taxes in the future without spending cuts.
5. Agree to a tax hike in exchange for a vague promise to consider future spending cuts.
Same ol’... same ol’...
And -- evil as they are -- I SO admire that trait. A good example of this is the witch Pelosi. The woman never gives an inch, and as such the rest of the dems never back down on the stuff that matters -- BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEIR LEADERSHIP HAS THEIR BACK!!!!!!
Contrast that to the gelatin-spined Boehner, McConnell and the other craven repugs in the House and Senate, who simply seem to have an innate tendency to weaken in the face of pressure.
Maybe the theory of republicans preferring minority status has merit.
“I sense a change in mood,”
...these idiots always say this. Do they go to the “Main Street Diner” and hear people saying...”I feel like my taxes should be raised”!? Living and working inside the beltway gives you no “sense” of anything!
Another Bush administration official now in the legislature. Surprise, surprise he’s susceptible to the usual establishment reasoning. Johans, Portman, Martinez of Florida, they’re all the same.
We need members of congress who bubble up from the bottom, not move from the king’s cabinet to the house of lords to coninue the establishment policies.
the lack of regulation and taxation is NOT the problem in the Country, Senator...unless you’ve been in DC too long.
WHY DO WE ALWAYS HAVE TO COMPROMISE!! When is Congress finally going to accept that we need to reign in spending or at a minimum, we need to rid ourselves of baseline budgeting!
The payroll tax cut was Obama’s idea and another one of his idiotic ideas at that. I mean, we have a struggling SS program, so he cuts revenue to that program? And now he wants to make up for that shortfall with an income tax increase? We are dealing with two different taxes and the revenues from those taxes are SUPPOSED to be going in to two different buckets.
“I don’t want our country to collapse under a mountain of debt.”
Then STOP SPENDING, Johanns, you stupid “man.”
He’s probably helping Ben Nelson too. He never was that conservative anyway. NE has had poor choices since the late Carl T. Curtis and Roman Hruska.
Exactly, and the poor little Republican primary voters are about as clueless as their Democrat cousins.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.