"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?"

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.

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.

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

“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.”

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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

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

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