Can we just shut the government down already?

• IggyPride00

  

  "This party is going nuts," King told HuffPost. "So many people I run into who are normal people -- and I hate to use that term -- they just can't understand what's going on."
  
  "On this one they can't even see both sides," King said. "They just think Republicans are crazy. That's it. They see no justification for any of this."
  He added that the compromise House leaders were pushing actually did little to affect Obamacare, except to force the federal government to stop contributing its share to congressional staffers' health insurance.
  
  "Even if this bill passed tonight, what would it have done?" King said. "After shutting down the government for two and a half weeks, laying off 800,000 people, all the damage we caused, all we would end up doing was taking away health insurance from congressional employees. That's it? That's what you go to war for? That's what we shut down the United States government for?"

  Peter King was reacting to Boehner's failed attempt to even have a vote on a House bill because he couldn't get enough Republican votes.
  
  The level of crazy being brought to the GOP via the Tea Party right now is just tremendous, and is largely making their caucus ungovernable.
  
  If Calgary Ted and Mike Lee really believed the snake oil they are selling they would be filibustering the McConnell/Reid bill, instead of telling the House GOP to stand firm and take all the bullets for them.
• BGFalcons82

  

  Peter King needs to do one of 2 things:
  1. Become the Democrat he's always wanted to be or
  2. Shut The Fuck Up.
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;1518511 wrote:Peter King needs to do one of 2 things:
  1. Become the Democrat he's always wanted to be or
  2. Shut The Fuck Up.

  I'm curious why you say the latter.
• friendfromlowry

  Just out of curiosity, can anyone ballpark what percentage of the House is considered Tea Party? I admit I'm quite the rookie to politics, but I've been trying to catch up on things over the past few weeks. The way I understand it, the House was trying to form their own proposal to the Senate, while appeasing the tea party conservatives at the same time.
  
  Joe Barton said their proposal would have been shot down in the senate anyways because it lacks any real reform, but rather just pushes the deadline down the road 6-8 weeks. So why is letting the government default in about 26 hours the better solution? I'm not asking rhetorically because I really don't know.
• IggyPride00

  

  friendfromlowry;1518519 wrote:Just out of curiosity, can anyone ballpark what percentage of the House is considered Tea Party? I admit I'm quite the rookie to politics, but I've been trying to catch up on things over the past few weeks. The way I understand it, the House was trying to form their own proposal to the Senate, while appeasing the tea party conservatives at the same time.
  
  Joe Barton said their proposal would have been shot down in the senate anyways because it lacks any real reform, but rather just pushes the deadline down the road 6-8 weeks. So why is letting the government default in about 26 hours the better solution? I'm not asking rhetorically because I really don't know.

  About 50-60 House members are part of the Tea Party Caucus.
  
  They hold so much power because if Boehner wants to bring a symbolic vote to the floor like he did today where Democrats won't vote for it, if the Tea Party balks he can't pass anything.
  
  He had to call the vote off tonight because Pelosi wouldn't give him any votes, and the Tea Party groups are threatening members with primaries if they vote to raise the debt ceiling at all.
  
  Boehner had no way to get anything to 218, so he could hold no vote.
  
  They will vote on the Senate bill, which will violate the Republican rule that no bill come to the floor without support from a majority of the majority.
  
  A handful of Republicans will join all 200 Democrats to pass it, and the crisis will be over.
  
  We then will have a Republican civil war as the Tea Party will likely attempt to oust Boehner for allowing a vote on the bill and using Democrats to pass it.
• BGFalcons82

  

  O-Trap;1518512 wrote:I'm curious why you say the latter.

  He doesn't get his way so he's going to whine & cry to anyone with a mic. If Boehner has to keep the malcontents constantly in line, then King needs to leave. Reminds me of Dwight Howard...he can't be a team player, so he'll bitch about it. He's either with the direction or against it. Constant public complaining about the leaders's position does NOT help. If he could do it in private and say his peace there, that is how it should be done. He's not into being a team player, so he should either leave or STFU
• IggyPride00

  

  “It’s very, very serious,” warned Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. “Republicans have to understand we have lost this battle, as I predicted weeks ago, that we would not be able to win because we were demanding something that was not achievable.”

  McCain is taking a victory lap in the media right now as he has been a big critic of Calgary Ted and his push to walk the part off a cliff.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/congress-budget-debate.html?_r=0
• stlouiedipalma

  King probably should leave the party, because it has ceased to be relevant. The GOP has rapidly become the COP: Crazies Only Party.
• QuakerOats

  ^^^Said those who continue to lap up the kool-aid.
  
  
  Hell the sequester alone has been a massive victory for the minority party.
  
  Step away from it all and make objective analysis --- then remember that the next pivotal election is over a year away.
• stlouiedipalma

  Quaker, that post actually made sense. Unfortunately nobody in the COP is capable of rational thought any more. The D's might be drinking Kool-Aid, but the other side is mainlining it.
• IggyPride00

  

  I am also starting to wonder if Reince Priebus has any idea of the kind of backlash his mandate against debates and lengthy primaries is going to have.
  
  The GOP at this point needs to have it out, and the primary system is currently in the process of being rigged so that only establishment moderate types with big money will have a chance.
  
  This flies directly in the face of what the base wants. There is a tremendous passion right now amongst grass roots conservatives against anything establishment, and rigging the rules of the presidential primary to guarantee another candidate in the mold of Willard/McCain is like pouring a tank of gasoline on a raging inferno.
  
  I personally can't wait to see the Republican primary, as it promises to be all kinds of crazy on so many different levels.
• stlouiedipalma

  That's all fine and good, but if they nominate one of the crazies they won't stand a chance of winning the White House. The Independents will run for cover and a landslide will bury the R's.
• SportsAndLady

  

  Don't mind stlouie. He's from Illinois. Everyone here are flaming liberal doichebags
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;1518524 wrote:He doesn't get his way so he's going to whine & cry to anyone with a mic. If Boehner has to keep the malcontents constantly in line, then King needs to leave. Reminds me of Dwight Howard...he can't be a team player, so he'll bitch about it. He's either with the direction or against it. Constant public complaining about the leaders's position does NOT help. If he could do it in private and say his peace there, that is how it should be done. He's not into being a team player, so he should either leave or STFU

  Well, for that, you don't really need to be in the public at all, then, since all you would do in the public eye is toe the party line. If we already know that's what they all will do, what's the point in them saying anything in the media at all?
  
  It seems like he is constantly butting heads with the GOP, but honestly, I don't see that as bad. It shows the public that there are actually people who think for themselves who espouse the party name. Quite frankly, I think we need MORE people from the two parties that are willing to buck the party system publicly. If you don't force people to articulate their views in light of dissent, then a good speech writer and make-up man can turn a moron into a political powerhouse. I don't see why that's such a good thing.
  
  "He's either with the direction or against it."
  
  Didn't GWB say something similar? It was no more logical a statement then. Being generally for a direction doesn't require being 100% for a direction on every matter, nor should it.
  
  Why should dissent be private? After all, unpopular ideas are often spawned from genuine thinking (otherwise, why would one articulate an unpopular idea). Why ought such genuine thinking be kept out of the public square, simply because it doesn't fall in line with the de facto party line, which may or may not be logical in light of it?
  
  I don't mean to be terse, but the notion that dissent should only take place behind closed doors is silly, and only displays a series of cookie cutter politicians, thereby making a vote among ALL the Congressmen and Senators pointless.
  

  IggyPride00;1518569 wrote:I am also starting to wonder if Reince Priebus has any idea of the kind of backlash his mandate against debates and lengthy primaries is going to have.
  
  The GOP at this point needs to have it out, and the primary system is currently in the process of being rigged so that only establishment moderate types with big money will have a chance.
  
  This flies directly in the face of what the base wants. There is a tremendous passion right now amongst grass roots conservatives against anything establishment, and rigging the rules of the presidential primary to guarantee another candidate in the mold of Willard/McCain is like pouring a tank of gasoline on a raging inferno.
  
  I personally can't wait to see the Republican primary, as it promises to be all kinds of crazy on so many different levels.

  Hell, it was pretty crazy this past election. Grab the popcorn.
  

  SportsAndLady;1518595 wrote:Don't mind stlouie. He's from Illinois. Everyone here are flaming liberal doichebags

  Why are everyone here flaming? Or doichebags (like a German bag?)? I thought people here were cool.
• Glory Days

  

  IggyPride00;1518359 wrote:The President actually has the power to convene either House of Congress on Extraordinary occasions at any time int he Constitution.
  
  If Boehner tries to cut and run, BHO can order the cops to go out and start rounding up members of Congress to bring them back.
  
  The Tea Party's heads would collectively explode if it were to come to this.

  that would be pretty entertaining to watch.
• queencitybuckeye

  Glory Days;1518653 wrote:that would be pretty entertaining to watch.

  This president actually following the constitution would be unique.
• BoatShoes

  O-Trap;1518382 wrote:Eventually, this is going to hurt. I honestly wonder if now, as opposed to later, is inherently bad, particularly if it minimizes the potential devastation of the economy.
  
  I, for one, will be holed up to watch.

  
  Nothing has to hurt.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1518461 wrote:As long as global deflation persists, they can theoretically continue to monetize the debt with little SHORT-RUN economic damage (what artificially low interest rates do to savers, retirees and pensions is where it gets tricky).
  
  A return to more normal rates will be a large addition to the deficit, but a little less than half of the debt is intergov, and as such those interest payments actually are offset as income elsewhere. Intergovt debt is basically a tracker for, I don't know, maybe money supply expansion. It shows on the balance sheet as both a liability with an offsetting asset. It can be, effectively, ignored.
  
  So what we are really talking is more like $10T in public debt that is relevant. A return to normal rates of @ 5% means about $500B in annual interest, which is probably about $350B incremental budget hit. It's even more critical as they've gone really short on duration to squeeze the interest pymts (when the responsible thing would have been to extend maturities at historically low rates).
  
  That's pretty significant, but manageable. Of course, continued deficits mean that number would only go up, but in actuality the vast majority of issues (80-90% now) is being gobbled up by the Fed (i.e. more intergovt debt). When global deflationary pressure subsides, rates will rise and you won't be able to monetize the debt, but likely see a return of public demand...which means higher and higher debt service.
  
  What I would like to see is get spending under control and take advantage of continued global deflation to further monetize the outstanding public debt - reduce that $10T number to something more manageable.
  
  Eventually the music is going to stop, and you are talking a very hard landing if we are running $800B+ deficits or more. At that point, you have the ugly alternatives of high inflation (perhaps 8-10% or more) or high unemployment. That's when the shit really hits the fan. And point of clarification - the monetizing of the debt is showing in inflated asset prices, which have triggered the last two recessions. And in many respects the global debt bubble is potentially far more dangerous than anything we've seen recently. So in reality the clock is already ticking - they are engaged in a very risky and dangerous balancing act.
  
  More alarming is the Fed and govt haven't demonstrated an ability, or clue, to manage the economic risks of asset bubbles. Even then, Japan has struggled and lost TWO decades utilizing similar economic policies. That's certainly not an appealing path for the US. We need to find an exit strategy. I think what we are seeing is a massive amount of debt that is materializing mostly in higher asset prices, which tend to evaporate when the fundamentals aren't there. That ultimately leaves you with a -100% ROI on the trillions of debt you are creating.

  
  Relax. Budget deficit for 2013 is 4% of gdp and for 2014 is projected to be 3.4% of gdp. That's down from 10.1% of GDP in 2009. Government spending is projected to be 21.6% of gdp, lower than the 22% of gdp average during the Reagan years. Your continued railing about out of control debt and deficits is simply not matched by the real world...and that would even be true if the U.S. didn't have sovereign currency control like a member of the Euro.
  
  We have long term health care cost concerns but if conservatives cared as much about rent seeking by pharmaceutical companies, health care providers and private health insurers as they did about poor minorities this would be a non-issue. Just look how they demagogued medicare becoming more fiscally prudent because of the ACA as horrific medicare cuts! Gahh!!
  
  If we had the healthcare costs of any other industrialized country...France, the UK, Germany, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Denmark, Switzerland....all countries with healthcare delivery that is more "socialized" than in the U.S., the United States government would be looking at perpetual budget surpluses and could even consider repealing the individual income tax.
  
  
  Never mind of course that the deficit hyperventilation in the vein of the sequester and debt ceiling brinksmanship(despite record deficit reduction at the fastest pace since the demobilization after the Korean War) has shaved $700 billion from national product over the last several years and raised the unemployment rate nearly a full percentage point. >1 million jobs.
  
  That is so much lost wealth and output that we'll never get back and millions of people's lives harmed for what?
  
  Sad.
• BoatShoes

  
• queencitybuckeye

  The problem with King's "you're willing to go to war over this?" argument is that the opposite holds true. If it's insignificant, give the other side their insignificant "win" and move on.
• I Wear Pants

  queencitybuckeye;1518720 wrote:The problem with King's "you're willing to go to war over this?" argument is that the opposite holds true. If it's insignificant, give the other side their insignificant "win" and move on.

  Why would they? The people blame the GOP and even people in the GOP are breaking against the GOP.
• IggyPride00

  

  On Morning Joe today Carl Berstein likened the current House GOP to the old Segregationist Democrats in the south.
  

  “You have to go back to the party, the Democratic party of segregation to find this kind of scorched-earth politics putting the national interests nowhere and putting ideology and ideology above all else,” Bernstein said on Morning Joe on Wednesday.

  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
• jmog

  IggyPride00;1518769 wrote:On Morning Joe today Carl Berstein likened the current House GOP to the old Segregationist Democrats in the south.
  
  
  
  http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

  Is it ideology when the majority of ACTUAL American Citizens agree with the fact that the ACA needs to go?
• queencitybuckeye

  I Wear Pants;1518741 wrote:Why would they? The people blame the GOP and even people in the GOP are breaking against the GOP.

  It makes no sense for them not to do it if the issue is "no big deal". If they mean it, they'll lead. If not, the statement is disingenuous.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;1518787 wrote:Is it ideology when the majority of ACTUAL American Citizens agree with the fact that the ACA needs to go?

  And an even bigger majority agrees that it's not worth shutting the government down over ACA.