As of Friday, according to the Treasury, the government had $85 billion in cash.

UBS estimates that the government will run out of money to pay all bills starting no sooner than Aug. 8. Barclays suggests Aug. 10. Wells Fargo Securities said the government might have to cut back on some spending but could pay most of its bill through August.

"If policymakers are truly falling short by just a few days on a big agreement, they now seem to have an extra week or so," said Barclays analysts, led by senior debt strategist Ajay Rajadhyaksha.

Yeah, me too...like I want to hurl at the likelihood that there will be more plans floated, more lectures from the Dad-in-Chief...blech.

"For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation's credit card.

Baker disagrees with that assessment and contends the economic downturn was the primary cause.

The huge deficits came about entirely as a result of the economic downturn brought about by the collapse of the housing bubble.

He also believes that because Obama misunderstands the reason for the high deficits, he is taking the wrong action to correct them.

This misunderstanding of the origins of the budget deficit could explain President Obama's willingness to make large cuts to core social welfare programs, like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Amazing.

Tantrum may be going a bit far, but only a bit.

Its pretty clear that he is not serious when he drags out the corporate jet silliness.  

Obama blew it a long time ago, beginning with health insurance reform.

"Can't we all just get along?" isn't a particularly strong position from which to govern.

Let's restate what Obama considers a "compromise:"

Medicare: Raising the eligibility age, imposing higher premiums for upper income beneficiaries, changing the cost-sharing structure, and shifting Medigap insurance in ways that would likely reduce first-dollar coverage. This was to generate about $250 billion in ten-year savings. This was virtually identical to what Boehner offered.

Medicaid: Significant reductions in the federal contribution along with changes in taxes on providers, resulting in lower spending that would likely curb eligibility or benefits. This was to yield about $110 billion in savings. Boehner had sought more: About $140 billion. But that's the kind of gap ongoing negotiation could close.

Social Security: Changing the formula for calculating cost-of-living increases in order to reduce future payouts. The idea was to close the long-term solvency gap by one-third, although it likely would have taken more than just this one reform to produce enough savings for that.

Discretionary spending: A cut in discretionary spending equal to $1.2 trillion over ten years, some of them coming in fiscal year 2012. The remaining differences here, over the timing of such cuts, were tiny. link  

We know that Republicans only love big government when it allows them to wage war, invade the personal privacy of ordinary Americans, and legislate private matters that involve sex, religion and drugs; they hate bigger government that helps people.  But what's Obama's excuse for buying into much of that agenda?

Anyone who was listening carefully to Obama, even from before he was officially a candidate for the presidency, knew that this was not someone who was going to operate from a traditional Democratic place, so many of us are not at all surprised by what has been happening; it's been a colossal disappointment to see how relatively easily the Democrats in Congress have enabled that less-than-Democratic agenda, because that really was the only hope we had to stop it.

And anyone who was paying attention as Obama convened the Deficit Commission, whose ideas we were only saved from the first time by its failure to get the required 14 votes of approval within the committee, understands that what is most important to Obama now, in whatever deal is struck, is the creation of a new, Congressional commission, that will require only a majority commission vote before getting an up-or-down, no-amendment, no-filibuster vote by the full Congress.  We understand that that is where the safety net changes will come; that you don't see it, or refuse to acknowledge it, is just par for the course for someone so completely wedded to this man's political fortune.

There is no crisis.  If there were a Republican in the WH, we would not be having this conversation, as the debt ceiling would have been raised, in traditional perfunctory fashion, months ago.  So, it once again makes me ask the question: why has Obama bought in, why is he determined to out-do the Republicans on this?  Just answer that, would you?

And please don't tell me that this is what people want; I can assure you that it isn't.  They want jobs - good, well-paying ones.  Whatever deal gets done is not going to be delivering them, and in all likelihood, more people will lose their jobs.  The government does not have to live within its means - not when it has complete control over those means.  A real Democrat would have made that argument to the people.  A real Democrat would have pointed to all the many, many times the debt ceiling has been raised while Republicans held the WH and the Congress.  A real Democrat would have never, ever opened the door to cuts in the safety net - especially not now when so many are suffering.

Second, because it's obvious that you get more of what you want out of Obama by bashing him than any other way. Supporting him just puts you on the hook for budget austerity and cutting Social Security and Medicare, or you get sold down the river a la The Deal.

here:

Don't get me wrong. I am with Reid and Pelosi: if we get some compromise with no material revenue component i am going to be pissed, but the polls say the following:

The country generally doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling (meaning they don't understand what is at stake)

The country generally favors solutions in this order: 1. Cut spending/raise taxes, 2. cut spending only, and 3. raise taxes only.

The country trusts Obama, the dems and the gop, in that order.

If there is no deal, most will blame the republicans.

What Reid is proposing has no tax increases, what Boehner is proposing has no tax increases.

I am glad that it looks like the social safety net will not be cut, but I am still mindful of the fact that if one refuses to constantly move the goalposts you can't help but see that what's on the table is a deal in which the GOP win.

And this is AFTER an extended period in which we were all pretty much agreeing that the President was outperforming and embarrassing Republicans!

This is going to be Obama's third bite of the SocSec/MM apple.