Just heard that the repubs ar thinking of renigging.

[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.

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?

A bill providing some kind of combination of revenue increases and spending cuts 'or else' is the brand new law kicking this shit up - I'm pretty sure that the document that authorized the 'Super Committee' is a genuine law passed by both houses and signed by what's his name - that same law calls for the across the board cuts in like 2014.

That being the high-pressure bad news for the porky pig-pen, even if the committee fails or the congress won't pass their success, there will be plenty of time to pass another law saying "Psyche!".

Of course, they'll say it more like lawyers and politicians.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Good.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

No it's not good. We're paying the players in the porky pig-pen a pretty big salary to do their fucking job and produce a definitive and fair source of revenue, alongside a list of government services We, The People can expect to be provided by that revenue stream.

That is the extent of their job description - the rest is expensive, bullshit favoritism.

Slashing budgets across the board will create chaos in the military and beyond.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Does this surprise you?

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

That's true. The Republicans have an AMAZING record of maintaining a certain base in spite of their pretty blatant pandering to the top tier.

 

[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?

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

Like I said... PBS NewsHour

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Congress cannot pass a law that they can't renege on.

All it takes is passing another law.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Being stupid does not make it 'dishonest'.

You may feel cheated and therefore personally treated dishonestly - but "dishonest" in politics remains an opinion.

 

[AquaAthena]

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

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

going back on something...

idiot

I'd say 'idiot' is a bit harsh, considering the misspelling.

Lighten up, PB - it's not a pelvic exam.

 

[California Girl]

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

going back on something...

idiot

No, moron, that would be reneging.

 

[The T]

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

Does this surprise you?

Not at all. The 'Supercommittee" will fail...and I have to ask? Why now when they have had months before now to do something? Could it be that an election draws nigh? ...Nah...

 

[uscitizen]

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.

They are talking of passing another law which usurps the first law and prevents any military cuts.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Que Amos and Andy Congressional routine......

 

[Charles_Main]

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.

Including? Please it is heavily Weighted toward Defense cuts, and almost every expert agree the cuts would be sheer Lunacy. The Debt deal was always a joke, the Super Committee is a joke, We are screwed.

 

[uscitizen]

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

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

Including? Please it is heavily Weighted toward Defense cuts, and almost every expert agree the cuts would be sheer Lunacy. The Debt deal was always a joke, the Super Committee is a joke, We are screwed.

Yes it was a joke but the republicans agreed to it or it would not have passed the house.
And didn't they get to keep some stuff they wanted for agreeing to it?

 

[The T]

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

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

Including? Please it is heavily Weighted toward Defense cuts, and almost every expert agree the cuts would be sheer Lunacy. The Debt deal was always a joke, the Super Committee is a joke, We are screwed.

Latter being the operative term. We're screwed because we have politicinas playing games...gotcha games when they've had a very long time before now to address these issues...they do it now because an election is coming...each politician jockeying for position to show that they care more than the next jerk that has had the oppritunity to do something they waited to address until now.

YEP...we're screwed because WE keep voting turkeys into office as they are in it for themselves.

 

[Conservative]

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.

In other words... they can do the same thing they'd have to do with any other law, signed by the President...pass another law countermanding it, have it passed in the House and Senate by a wide enough majority to over ride a Presidential veto.

It's not a unique reneging of this issue. So, in essense, the OP is in fact a lie.

 

[Conservative]

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.

what part of THEY CANT BACK OUT, IT'S ALREADY A LAW, SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT, escapes you?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

what part of THEY CANT BACK OUT, IT'S ALREADY A LAW, SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT, escapes you?

You might want to read a few more posts. The one right above your last one for instance.

What part of they can pass another law escapes you?

And why would Obama veto the next law on this anyway?