Magox

Technically they couldn't, but there are things that Treasury can do to push it back a few months.

Because they need the Rs to increase the limit. This last debate was focused on "protecting the middle class and asking the wealthy to pay a little more", which of course poll tests really well, however that fight has already been won by the president and will quickly shift to the national debt, and most people agree that we need to reduce the deficit, and since Revenues was the primary driver of the last deal, the focus of debt ceiling deal will be primarily spending cuts. Which of course falls more into the Rs comfort zone.

Thank you for your meaningless contribution.

Yes they will, and I expect one of the nastiest contentious political battles take place in a very public manner. If Obama doesn't come away with a meaningful deficit reduction package his legacy as a president will be seen as an abject failure, unless somehow, miraculously his health care bill becomes a success, which I highly doubt.

"Starving the Beast" would actually have to entail a diet.

"Guarantee" is an awfully strong word

You're probably right, but that wouldn't make him an "idiot". There are some intriguing aspects to choosing the Bills, they do have a young, strong offensive line. An incredibly dynamic RB that could be a huge weapon in the passing game and a very solid WR, and on the Defensive side, a defensive line that on paper has the potential to be one of the best along with some very good pieces at DB. Also, we have no clue now how Russ Brandon will run this team, he may make an intriguing pitch that could entice a coach to come over here. After all, he is a salesman, probably much better than Nix ever was.

I'd be ecstatic with the selection of Chip Kelly, having said that, I don't believe he would come here and how would Quentin Groves have any idea of this being the outcome?

The irony in all this is that the reason why the "Fiscal Cliff" came about was the president's and congress failure to put together a meaningful deficit reduction package, the Fiscal Cliff was never intended to take effect because it would be too tough of a pill to swallow for both sides of the aisle, so what was originally intended to help reduce the deficit, now will be signed by the president and according to CBO projections will add $4 Trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

Some people don't deserve reasonable responses.

I don't quite see what sort of deal will get done. Boehner has already made it known that whatever proposal that he decides to attempt to push through will have to be to the right of the "Plan B". The "Plan B" was already too far to the right for Liberal members of congress, (even though they were for it before they were against it, odd how the media isn't picking up this story), and too far to the left for Conservative lawmakers, so I honestly don't see the path to move forward. My guess is that it will have to go throught he Senate first, some of the more moderate R's will have to be the one's who vote for it, McConnell will have to agree on not filibustering it and there will have to be enough R's to pass what most likely will be a left leaning deal.

From my perspective, this team has more talent than any time I can remember in the past 10 years and we are about to record our second worst record ( I believe) during that time span. Not only are we not improving, we're getting worse. The playcalling and clock management has been putrid and the fact that Gailey has a bizarre determination to not give Spiller the ball more often, metaphorically speaking is down right criminal. Yes, I'm sure he's given it his best and yes I believe he's a good man, but in order for change, it is in my opinion that our voices of disgust must be heard.

My Guess is Whaley will be the man.

No you dipshit, people just don't want to have their names and address along with a map pinpointing their home plastered all over the local newspaper.

Only in your mind does this make any sort of sense.

With what?

I don't see much of a difference. One is self-inflicted and the other is tool that can be used for malicious intent. Death is death, and if you are going to restrict any tool that causes death or a means to it, than for the sake of consistency you would have to include, cholesterol, sugar, smoking, drinking, etc. etc.

what about smoking? or cholesterol? sugar?

Oh yeah? Please explain.

Next time you see Big Brother, let him know I said Hi.

Why is it important for you to know who has a legal right to carry a gun? Specially considering that those who are legally able to carry a gun are much more apt to not commit a crime than those who aren't. That's a fact. If anything, all this did other than needlessly agitate people was make homeowners who are not on the list more of a target than those listed.

Probably? ughh Down the slippery slope we go

I'm no gun fan, but this is your response from the actions of the newspaper? Really??

All of them. To go back to the topic of the nearly impossible task Boehner had, earlier in the year, Pelosi backed taxing millionaires. http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/12/hoyer-pelosi-engaged-in-political-ploy-152289.html Then earlier in the year, Shumer backed a millionaire's tax, remember, the Buffett Rule. The fact that Boehner accepted raising rates is a huge compromise. The original deal had 800B in tax increases, his new proposal had 1.2 Trillion. Very unpopular bill with R's. So rather than trying to make this work, Pelosi who earlier backed this plan, whipped up the votes so that it wouldn't go through. R's could of had have more than half of their caucus support this unpopular bill, but there was no support from any D's. If the D's would of supported it, the president would of basically had the Buffett rule pass, which is something that D's advocated. As I said, they keep moving the goal posts.