Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

So. when the adults give in to the children, who are you going to blame for the problems then hawkeye? There is little question that if we give in the the Tea party idiots, that the economy will crash. But I doubt they will be willing to take the blame.

I get tired of children playing with matches complaining about the adults that tell them to stop.

Miller, Government census are only as accurate as their statistical models will allow. If there is no way to count those in the underground economy, all estimates are only guesses.

FYI, those who work in the underground economy doesn't impact our economy in any material way. Most struggle to keep a steady income, and they defeat their own economic stability by staying underground, because they lose out on government benefits.

We hate to see money spent on everlasting welfare programs that go nowhere except to breed more welfare programs and more generations of welfare recepients.

let's just shoot the poor, eh miller...?

And your conclusion is more reliable than many economists who have said otherwise?

Please provide some reliable source outside of your personal opinion to back up what you claim?

Democracy, and the actual running of government, is a process involving compromise and negotiation--because one group of legislators does not represent the entire country. But the Tea Partiers refuse to compromise and negotiate, even when their rigidity damages the welfare of the country--and there already is fallout, and some economic damage to the standing of the U.S., as a result of not extending the debt ceiling by now and the type of government dysfunction that the entire world is witnessing.

This isn't the time to wage a battle about "smaller government"--right now, we have a debt ceiling that must be raised so that our government can continue to meet it's obligations and continue to function, and our dollar can continue to maintain it's strength on the world economic stage. Holding an increase in the debt ceiling hostage, in order to gain a political victory, and satisfy a group of extremist ideologues, is irresponsible and dangerous brinkmanship because it is threatening everyone's economic well being and our country's entire economy.

Our government cannot be allowed to default. This wrangling should be stopped before next Tuesday because, the longer it goes on, the more stress it places on an already fragile economy. The debt ceiling must be raised, and the Republican party, and their Tea Party faction, had better focus on that as their main priority right now--if they really care about the welfare of our country. Addressing future spending can wait. Right now, we have to keep our government functioning and enable it to stand behind its obligations.

True, and I concur with your opinions.

There's a lot of chatter about Obama's plea to the populace to call/write/tweet their congressmen about this situation. There are many who say he isn't leading the fight, that he's making congressional leaders do the work, and now he's getting dinged for calling in the troops re the American people.

Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC called it a mistake and said it will bring a backlash against the President from Dems in congress because they won't like the fact that their phones are ringing off the hook.

Here's a tweet from Grist's David Roberts:
@drgrist I remember I once harbored fantasies that Obama would use the grassroots to pressure Congress for progressive policy.

I think this is part of the big disconnect between Obama and those who expected him to be a typical politician who was in Washington to continue a long tradition of politics as usual. I also think it's a big part of how we got to where we are today.

People vote for someone to go to Washington to (hopefully) represent their interests. Unless things go bat-**** crazy they generally don't spend too much thought or energy paying attention to how things are going. Dems vote for Dems, Repubs vote for Repubs, Independents split between the camps and end up giving one side or the other a majority. It's been a soap opera called "As The Pendulum Swings" for decades.

In 2008 things went bat-**** crazy and folks started paying attention. A couple remarkable things were happening. The was a dynamic, intelligent African American candidate on one side with a chance of winning the Presidency and there was a dynamic, not-so-intelligent female candidate on the other side with a chance of bringing both a female and a strong social conservative to the Vice Presidency. On top of all this there was a major economic meltdown the size of which we hadn't seen since the 1930s.

All the blinders came off and folks felt compelled (oftentimes to their dismay) to take a look inside the cookie jar. Unfortunately, the cookie jar didn't contain any cookies. It was full of IOUs and bills that couldn't be paid without large amounts of additional borrowing.

Obama's appeal from the outset has been his message to the populace. He got a tremendous amount of grief from the right for being a "community organizer" as if that was something other than encouraging people to get involved in order to make things better for themselves. He's a man who, I think, is more comfortable getting you and I involved than he is with the wheeling and dealing that has been so typical during the long run of "As The Pendulum Swings". Not just more comfortable -- I think he sees it as a better way and I agree with him.

He's getting dinged for not playing the beltway games the way they've always been played. Yesterday I was listening to some talking heads lament that he's the invisible President. And, now they're complaining that when he's visible he asking you and I to get involved and speak out. Why? Is it because talking heads think they do a better job at talking for us than we can do ourselves? Is it because our representatives only want our votes and don't care about our opinions? Why the grief for doing what he's always done, which is to speak directly to the folks in the neighborhoods about getting off their duffs and doing something about a situation that impacts them directly?

In my understanding, a constitutional convention is not required. I don't recall on in my lifetime, at any rate. I am pretty sure that where you say "34 states" you meant 3/4 of the states.

Nope, Roger, I am sticking by 2/3rds of the states (=34 states) to force Congress to call a convention. Once the convention votes to agree on the language, 3/4ths of the states' legislature (=38) must approve.
My understanding is that, over the past few years, some 30 states have signed on to the concept - if not the identical wording.

Polling indicates that the American people support the Tea Party Republicans.

Polling also indicates Americans are sick and tired of Obama and his democrat minions.

Tax payer funded future liberal breeding program.

You are right on the percentages.

I understand the last constitutional convention occured in 1787 though, and many amendments have been passed since. This leads me to believe no such convention is needed to pass an amendment. Feel free to correct this, too.

Actually, that's an impossible legislation to pass through any state; they'll only hurt themselves by voting for a BBA. All are foolish gamesmanship by the GOP-tea party idiots who doesn't know when to quit.

Congress can start the amendment process OR the states can start it.

Cool. That is where I was stumbling here: the 2/3rds of both the House and the Senate. Boehner's bill need not be approved by 2/3rds. Rather, it seems to require a mere 50% to pass something "calling" for a BBA. Talk about kicking the can down the road, with congresspeople wrapping themselves in the flag.

Final vote in the House scheduled for 6:15 ET.

They are just going through the motions to delay what is inevitable.

Obama and his democrat minions are holding this country and all Americans hostage

I trolled through this for awhile today, Roger. I think that what I found was that Congress didn't like the notion of amendments coming up from the states (and ending up in a convention). So, when needed, Congress would initiate the process.
I read on Libertarian through Tea Party threads about the BBA this afternoon. The fear is that a constitutional convention could not be restricted to BBA. They could add language re abortion or gay rights or something that would be folks on the right would object to.