Posted on 12/21/2006 6:58:32 AM PST by meg88
President Bush is willing to raise taxes.
That reality was a big surprise to me 16 years ago, in 1990, when I was working in the White House. It's less of a surprise to me in 2006, when I am on the outside - because, after a while, you learn to identify the warning signs.
In both cases, both Bushes have been willing to talk about "process" and "common ground."
Here's the "on the table" language, right on the front page of yesterday's Washington Post: "Signaling a new flexibility on issues in the wake of the Democrats' wins, Bush said he is willing to discuss Democratic ideas for solving the Social Security problem, including tax increases."
The president is quoted as adding, "I don't see how you can move forward without people feeling comfortable about putting ideas on the table."
Those are the magic words the Democrats were waiting to hear. As Post reporter Michael Fletcher explains, Bush's "new flexibility" is "part of a larger White House plan to renew the effort to tame the rising costs of government entitlement programs as the nation's population ages."
And so, the Post reporter added, the administration is willing to consider "higher payroll taxes."
The Post, of course, has never met a tax increase it didn't like, and the Powertown paper is not above trying to cajole Republicans into generating more revenue for its Beltway readership.
But a look at the transcript confirms the Post's interpretation. Asked whether tax increases are on the table, Bush answered that the Democrats "can come to the table and talk about them."
In D.C., that's code for opening up a discussion that leads, inevitably, to a tax increase.
I know, because I was there the last time this happened.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Backstabbers? By folding like a cheap suit to the Dems exactly who is stabbing who here?
Not as long as I have voice, he won't!
You must have been asleep since Nov. 6. The American people gave a green light on the next day to raise taxes. It is part of the Teach the Republicans movement's consequences.
It is a LIE to proclaim the democrats "allies" of Bush. Those who knowing spread lies are liars.
We are to get mad at Bush rather than the LIARS who have misinformed the voters about the War and the Economy, who have actually contributed to the efforts of America's enemies. Yeah, right.
You'll get no disagreement from me on cutting spending. Entitlements have to be cut. The Federal Government needs to go on a diet.
It is madness. Republicans will revolt. It would not pass the Senate. Dems may have the majority, but I would expect Republicans to filibuster (they might lie down, but as a grassroots supporter this is what I expect.)
They can't get cloture without 60 votes anyway....
Dubya appears hell bent on jacking up anything he touches at this point.
This is all based upon WashPost spin. Bush is using the same language as he used in the assualt-weapons ban debate "If it reaches my desk..." I seriously doubt Bush would agree to tax hikes, as it would slow the economy.
A lot of the nation's problems can be solved overnight just by lowering and simplifying the tax code. People would have more money to buy their own healthcare insurance, there'd be none of this "Federal Poverty" crap and people can afford housing without a gov't program.
Finally someone has made sense. Thank you. I personally feel that a trap is being set for the RATS. Sure the President could veto the bill and would go back threw the system. But I believe if I remember right that to upset a President veto it will require more than a simple majority. Is that right? (Guess my age is showing, I forgot)
2/3rds majority to override a veto. But you can expect any tax increase bill to be tied to war funding, all government funding (the government shutdown trick), or some other legislation that will provide good soundbites for the leftist media.
What an interesting choice of words, especially in light of the fact that it was Bush who stabbed conservatism in the back. Now, it looks like he'll spend his lame duck months happily urinating all over its corpse.
Who is surprised? Let's see those hands...............
C'mon now....................
Anybody?
The Republicans in Congress are going to face a choice.
Either they will vote with the Dems and Bush, or they will adhere to Republican political philosophy and vote against them.
Bush II is going to be a pliant tool in the hands of Nancy Pelosi and her fellow-travellers.
I'm starting to wonder if maybe the Bushes and the Clintons have something worked out behind the scenes.
What pray tell is your "brand" of conservatism? Tough to tell from your homepage.
Funny how I can always always get a rant going when I dare mention the backstabbers. Happens every time!
Seems from your own admission that you routinely enjoy doing it. Is that your purpose for visiting FR?
BTW I don't believe backstabbers is one word. Feel free to correct me.
Sorry not trying to hijack your thread. So I'll go on record as opposing any payroll tax increases.
You mean all the cut and run republicans....?
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.