They're playing it like a chess game - very tricky - Repubs want to force the President to sign a bill that requires more debate and another bill BEFORE the election; and the Prez wants one that runs into 2013 so it doesn't come up at every campaign debate in 2012. If the government shuts down, the Repubs lose. If we "default," the Prez loses. The next 6 days will be verrrrrrrryyy interesting....

This is why I refuse to be considered a republican or democrat.

Me, too. Now I see that the T-partiers want to give Boehner the boot because he isn't "tough enough."

It's Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus all over again....

his fiddle is tuned up and ready to go...

This chess game would be easy to win by taking care of the promises the government is compelled to do by constitutional law.

If I were the Speaker I would direct the House to enact a bill that would guarantee payments in a responsible manner, since BHO can't make up his mind.

I would have the bill list the debt, social security, Medicaid, Medicare, active duty soldiers to be paid out of the 172 billion that is left from the 307 billion the Feds would receive without default. Afterwards I would use the rest of the funds
with careful analysis in regards to America's best interests.

This is an easy solution for problem solvers like Herman Cain, not so much for career politicians.

I failed to mention this would be a separate bill from the debt crisis; therefore there would be no reason for it not to pass in the House and Senate with that important signature of our POTUS to become law!

"If I were the Speaker I would direct the House to enact a bill that would guarantee payments in a responsible manner, since BHO can't make up his mind."

Yes - but, unfortunately, no single branch of government can independently enact anything (unless you consider SCOTUS opinions "enactments," which I do). The Executive and Legislative Branches were designed to work together to enact laws, which is why bills have to pass the House and Senate AND be signed the Prez before they actually become a law.

We are in this mess because our elected representatives read their consituency in the past as caring more about having money spent in their districts than balancing the federal budget. And they were correct: nobody ever got unelected for spending too much money on the people who put them in office in the first place. Then the Republicans stopped being fiscal hawks under Bush the Younger; fate (and a bunch of crooks) took a hand in 2008 and 2009 to set up our Great Recession; and then Obama tried to spend us out of our financial woes, which resulted in $14,349,186,581,685.64 worth of debt as of a few minutes ago . Now we as a country have to "take our medicine" or this debt will swallow us up.

The problem will never be solved unless there is COMPROMISE. The Tea-partiers do not yet recognize this.

I predict that they will.

Ok Chief,

The bill would be separate from the debt ceiling increase and by the constitution all bills directed thru revenue whether increases or payments, originate in the House. I outlined the priority of the spending which would prevent a default according to Moody's and Standard and Poors definition of default which is to pay our debt which is 30 billion with 142 billion left in the coffers.

Hmmm....."billions and billions and billions...." Where is Carl Sagan when you need him?

However, according to Moody's and S&P we will lose our triple a rating because the Democrats aren't serious about deficit reduction according to their proposed plan. The only plan that enures our rating is the Cut, Cap and Balance bill from the House.

The only plan that ensures our triple A rating is Cut, Cap and Balance. The Boehner Compromise doesn't ensure the rating either, but it is a compromise which is something the Demos didn't do in BHO's first two years as President.

I didn't see the TV series Cosmos.
Billions and billions.
A large quantity of anything.

China dropped from AAA to AA years ago and it did nothing to hurt their economy.

I didn't see the TV series Cosmos.
Billions and billions.
A large quantity of anything.

I didn't see it first-run either; I first heard the "billions and billions" when Carson was doing a parody in one of his monologues. Sagan did an interview later where he joked about the phrase being his claim to fame.

Regarding the S&P/Moody's ratings, the concern is that with the US currency being the defacto world standard (China's wasn't when they dropped to AA), a reduced rating would just provide further evidence that we are financially going down the tubes. This MIGHT provide impetus for the rest of the world to adopt something like the Euro (or create a new standard currency from scratch), which supposedly would hurt us in world-wide trade.

Also, I've seen rating agency statements over the past few days which say that NONE of the "plans" do enough to ensure that we maintain a AAA rating.

They just need to do something fast. I favor the short-term extension. It keeps the pressure on Congress to work on a real solution to the problem, and it doesn't give the President a pass beyond the 2012 election.

The Democrats in the Senate haven't passed any budgeting bills in over 800 days, why should America be held hostage by them when they failed to legislate by the will of the people since BHO's Presidency and attempt to label the House legislation that passed as extreme even though polls show Americans want Cut, Cap and Balance by 67%. The people backed by the media should demand Reid to put the bill in for an up or down vote. Here is what would happen because it is too easy to predict using facts and common sense. There are 33 Senate seats up for re-election in 2012, 23 of those seats are Democrats. Because of self perseverance and selfishness at least half of these would vote yea for passage which would easily garner the 60 votes needed to pass. Harry Reid is the extremist here for not taking Cut, Cap and Balance to the senate floor. I'm calling it like it is, and I rest my case.

I don't rest my case, strike that from the record

However, I'am calling it like it is!!!

Self preservation is the word, not perseverance.

It's hard to argue that the Dems have actually "governed" when it comes to the budget. They only lost total control of the the legislative branch less than seven months ago (when the new House members elected last November were sworn in), so they totally "own" the issue of non-budgetary passage for 600 of those days.

Now it appears that they will only be dragged kicking and screaming to anything resembling a balanced budget. What is now emerging is a demonstration of the classic difference - IMHO - between the two parties that existed for many years (before the Repubs became big government spenders):

*Dems want to tax and spend, with "wealth redistribution" as a cornerstone of a philosophy that relies on the government to "take care of the needy." I call it a "Robin Hood" mentality.

*Repubs historically have wanted to limit the size of government, control government spending, and rely as the primary source of government funding those revenues elicited from a growing economy. I call this the "You're On Your Own" mentality.

I haven't seen much change in the Dem's approach over the years. During the Bush II administration, the Republicans essentially joined the Dems in trying to be all things to all people, and spending like drunken sailors on the economy and foreign wars. Now the Tea Party is trying to drag the Repubs back to their "roots."

It's the ugly sausage-making process that comprises the democratic process in our constitutional republic.

I, for one, LIKE IT.

Fair, balanced and accurate analysis; however it's discouraging how the media don't even give the Repubs any breaks when they are trying to do something good for the country.