If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass them?

[Little-Acorn]

IIRC the new rules say that the Supercommittee is charged with finding some $1.2 trillion in cuts. And that whatever the Supercommittee agrees on, is merely a recommendation, not a law (or even a passed bill). It then goes to the full Congress (House and Senate) for an up-or-down vote, without discussion. If they pass it, then the President gets his chance to sign it... or not.

Well, maybe the Congress can't discuss it, but the media can. And Congress's votes will be public, so it will be known that Congressman Bupkis from North Wherever voted to pass it. But you know the drill. As soon as the Scomm's recommendations are passed (or sooner), they will become public information. And the media screaming will begin instantly... but they may as well not waste the bandwidth. We already know what they will say.

"But-but-but this will take away school lunches from children! And that part will cut down Seniors' benefits! And the other part over there will be especially hard on women and minorities!!! WE CAN'T HAVE THIS!!!"

Same old, same old. And any Rep or Senator who dares vote for it, will be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. And Congresscritters will be put on all the morning shows as "Serious, concerned" newsreaders pillory them before the public any time they even hint they might vote Yes. And Breaking News will erupt every five minutes with the revelation that Mary Martin from Calexico actually said she is considering it. And etc. etc. You know the drill.

So, is this whole Supercommittee thing an exercise in futility? In the unlikely event that six Republicans and six Democrats can even agree how to spell "In Congress assembled", is there any chance that what they agree on, will even see the light of day in the full Congress before it's summarily thrown out?

 

[dogtowner]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Well their record on any sort of budget is dicey of late, particularly in the upper chamber. I'd say the real question is whether or not they ever intended to try and come up with anything or just be very happy to let the default happen. Not quite sure if that requires a vote or not.

If one comes to pass I suspect Obama signs just because there is no value in not signing and some value in doing it.

Kind of getting down to the wire aren't we ?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

If the Supercommittee can't agree on cuts, then stiff penalties go into place instead: Automatic across-the-board cuts in many programs, including Defense etc.

But if the SComm DOES agree on major cuts, and then Congress votes them down, are there any penalties?

Or will we just be back to where we started, with wild, uncontrolled borrowing and spending and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and no plan to rein them in?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

My other question is:

Is the Supercommittee really charged with finding actual CUTS? Meaning, "We'll spend less next year, than we did this year."?

Or is all they have to do, is to say, "Well, we WERE going to increase spending by 15% for next year. But since these new rules require cuts, we've decided to spend only 12% more next year instead of 15% more. There you go - we've cut the budget, just like you wanted!"?

 

[dogtowner]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

If the Supercommittee can't agree on cuts, then stiff penalties go into place instead: Automatic across-the-board cuts in many programs, including Defense etc.

But if the SComm DOES agree on major cuts, and then Congress votes them down, are there any penalties?

Or will we just be back to where we started, with wild, uncontrolled borrowing and spending and trillion-dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, and no plan to rein them in?

Would that not result in the auto-cuts ? I was under the impression that this was the case. And the main reason the left was OK with it.

My other question is:

Is the Supercommittee really charged with finding actual CUTS? Meaning, "We'll spend less next year, than we did this year."?

Or is all they have to do, is to say, "Well, we WERE going to increase spending by 15% for next year. But since these new rules require cuts, we've decided to spend only 12% more next year instead of 15% more. There you go - we've cut the budget, just like you wanted!"?

I would be shocked if it had to represent actual cuts. Shoot, they want to count money they already know they will not require for ME. Moreoer they seek to steal money from that SAVINGS as well as TARP etc to continue the gravy train.

Really no way out without throwing ALL the bums out and passing a balanced budget + GDP based cap.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Any bill coming out of the supercommittee would contain so much tripe that every single congressman would both be vilified for supporting it and simultaneously vilified for opposing it. It then becomes a contest to see who can best survive their vote.

Anything short of a clean bill is bad for America and just maybe bad for the party that is less favored by the most influential media.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

If it raises a nickel in revenue, the Republicans make sure it does not pass.

 

[PLC1]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Isn't that 1.2 teradollar figure over the next decade? That' 120 B a year on average, out of a deficit of over a trillion.

Should they somehow actually cut that amount, deficit spending will continue practically unchanged.

Does anyone really, seriously believe that Congress can cut spending and balance the budget?

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

If it raises a nickel in revenue, the Republicans make sure it does not pass.

Raising revenue is not the problem but raising taxes is. I commend any congressman who refuses to vote for any bill at present that raises taxes.

 

[Dr.Who]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Isn't that 1.2 teradollar figure over the next decade? That' 120 B a year on average, out of a deficit of over a trillion.

Should they somehow actually cut that amount, deficit spending will continue practically unchanged.

Does anyone really, seriously believe that Congress can cut spending and balance the budget?

Before they can balance the budget they need to take the constitutionally mandated step of having one.

Newt balanced the budget all four years.

We have so many totally useless programs that it would be a cakewalk to make cuts. The only question is will the cuts be large enough?

 

[dogtowner]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Isn't that 1.2 teradollar figure over the next decade? That' 120 B a year on average, out of a deficit of over a trillion.

Should they somehow actually cut that amount, deficit spending will continue practically unchanged.

Does anyone really, seriously believe that Congress can cut spending and balance the budget?

only if a gun is held at their collective heads.

 

[a777pilot]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Before they can balance the budget they need to take the constitutionally mandated step of having one.

Newt balanced the budget all four years.

We have so many totally useless programs that it would be a cakewalk to make cuts. The only question is will the cuts be large enough?

This^

It's been, what? Around 900 days since the Senate passed a budget? Then why have one? Yes, I mean both a budget and a Senate.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Raising revenue is not the problem but raising taxes is. I commend any congressman who refuses to vote for any bill at present that raises taxes.

And people like you are why it will not get done...you think a compromise is what ever you want and giving nothing to the other side..

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

Before they can balance the budget they need to take the constitutionally mandated step of having one.

Newt balanced the budget all four years.

We have so many totally useless programs that it would be a cakewalk to make cuts. The only question is will the cuts be large enough?

So now Newt is the one who did it...Clinton had nothing to do with it

But of course when you don't like the result...Obama did not balance the budget and you will not go after the Speaker of the House..Because can't have that, got to blame Obama.

 

[Gipper]

Re: If Supercommittee agrees on LARGE cuts, any chance in world Congress will pass th

And people like you are why it will not get done...you think a compromise is what ever you want and giving nothing to the other side..

See? The left including our beloved Pockets chooses to believe lies to fit their political beliefs and dutifully believe what the elite left tells them to believe.

Well, Pockets is just like the two fools Nina whack job Totenberg and Mark The Kooky Lib washed up Shields.

Charles Krauthammer justifiably lost his patience with his fellow panelists on PBS's Inside Washington Friday evening.

No matter how many times he explained that Republicans last week proposed a revenue increase that Democrats refused, PBS's Mark Shields and NPR's Nina Totenberg couldn't seem to grasp this simple concept leading Krauthammer to ask, "What planet are you guys living on...I’ve rarely encountered such thickness" (video follows with transcript and commentary):

NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Anybody who has seen Washington for 40, 50, 60 years, and now it’s, as you pointed out, awash in money, who really believes that those loopholes are going to be gone, they’re crazy.

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Wait a minute, though. You know, we talked about Newt Gingrich, but when he was Speaker of the House, he and Bill Clinton managed to cooperate on some things.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I mean, what planet are you guys living on? This week, forget about the ’90s, Pat Toomey, a Club of Rome Republican, proposed an increase in tax revenues. I’m trying to explain to you that if you’re a Republican and you’re a conservative, a Club of Rome conservative, you can propose raising revenues as long as the rates, the marginal rates stay the same or go down. The way that you square that is by eliminating loopholes, which is what he proposed. This isn’t history, it isn’t hypothetical, it’s real, and the Democrats have said, “No.”

WATCH THE HILARIOUS VIDEO HERE
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...rg-what-planet-are-you-guys-liv#ixzz1eFcfyLRb