Just heard that the repubs ar thinking of renigging.

[uscitizen]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

 

[PredFan]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

Remind us what that means. Taxes go up or down?

 

[uscitizen]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

Remind us what that means. Taxes go up or down?

It means mostly accross the board % funding cuts including the military.

 

[California Girl]

What's 'renigging'? Or is that some kind of hidden racism accusation?

 

[J.E.D]

I heard about that the other day. And if I remember correctly, Republicans were only concerned about the cuts to the defense dept, not the cuts to other domestic spending. I'm not surprised. The GOP has become the party of obstruction and dishonesty.

 

[BDBoop]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I don't think they have that option, actually.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I don't think they have that option, actually.

Actually until congress passes a bill in both houses and sends it to the President for signature NOTHING is set in stone.

Unless you can provide for us such a bill?

 

[PredFan]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

Remind us what that means. Taxes go up or down?

It means mostly accross the board % funding cuts including the military.

Sounds good to me.

 

[PredFan]

I heard about that the other day. And if I remember correctly, Republicans were only concerned about the cuts to the defense dept, not the cuts to other domestic spending. I'm not surprised. The GOP has become the party of obstruction and dishonesty.

How is that dishonest? They never claim to be pro-domestic spending or anti-defense.

 

[Conservative]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

link?

 

[WillowTree]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I don't think they have that option, actually.

Actually until congress passes a bill in both houses and sends it to the President for signature NOTHING is set in stone.

Unless you can provide for us such a bill?

you do remember don't you that this jackass don't need no damn congress! don't you?

 

[Conservative]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I don't think they have that option, actually.

Actually until congress passes a bill in both houses and sends it to the President for signature NOTHING is set in stone.

Unless you can provide for us such a bill?

http://www.ombwatch.org/files/budget/debtceilingfaq.pdf

On Aug. 2, President Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA). The bill allows the president to increase the debt ceiling by up to $2.8 trillion, but it will reduce the deficit by $2.3 trillion over 10 years, with at least $840 billion coming from discretionary spending cuts over the next decade. In the first year of enactment, fiscal year 2012, discretionary programs will see a cut of $44 billion (4 percent). There are two ways the federal deficit can be cut –
through automatic “caps” on categories of spending or through a proposed budget hammered out by a “Super Committee” of 12 members of Congress. The automatic caps exempt some mandatory programs like Social Security, food stamps, and Medicare. However, no revenues would be raised to help retire the deficit. The Super Committee could cut any program or raise revenues.

The “Super Committee” deficit reduction plan: BCA creates a new, special joint committee of Congress charged with finding an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. This “Super Committee” can cut spending (including Social Security and Medicare), raise revenue, or propose a combination of both. If the committee cannot agree on a plan, or Congress fails to approve it, automatic cuts of $1.2 trillion will be triggered, again
through sequestration.

 

[AVG-JOE]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I heard the same - PBS news hour. Said they also want more tax cuts for the top tier.

Are they TRYING to blow the 2012 election?

 

[California Girl]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I heard the same - PBS news hour. Said they also want more tax cuts for the top tier.

Are they TRYING to blow the 2012 election?

And do we have a link - preferably to a vaguely rational source?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I heard the same - PBS news hour. Said they also want more tax cuts for the top tier.

Are they TRYING to blow the 2012 election?

And do we have a link - preferably to a vaguely rational source?

Since it is already law as provided by another poster they simply can not. Unless that law designates that Congress pass a new law on where the cuts come from.

 

[Conservative]

According to the Budget Control Act of 2011, the cuts are automatic unless the committee comes up with a plan.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to the Budget Control Act of 2011, the cuts are automatic unless the committee comes up with a plan.

Which means the claim made in this thread is a lie. The Republicans can not "renigg" it is already law.

 

[AVG-JOE]

What's 'renigging'? Or is that some kind of hidden racism accusation?

There is a small spelling issue - the word is 'renege'

renege - Search results - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It means to go back on a promise, basically.

 

[AVG-JOE]

ON the fallbuck cuts they agreed to if the supercomittee fails to reach accord.

I don't think they have that option, actually.

The way I understood it from the fine folks at PBS News Hour is that they can renege on the deal, but it will take an act of congress. And they'll have to get it through both houses.

It's pretty tight but certainly not foolproof. It's going to be an interesting political winter.

 

[J.E.D]

I heard about that the other day. And if I remember correctly, Republicans were only concerned about the cuts to the defense dept, not the cuts to other domestic spending. I'm not surprised. The GOP has become the party of obstruction and dishonesty.

How is that dishonest? They never claim to be pro-domestic spending or anti-defense.

It's dishonest because they agreed to the trigger cuts and now, before the super committee is even done, they're already talking about backing out.