US government Shutdown

[Crossroads Inc.]

No it doesn't work like that..
I am sorry but no matter HOW bad you think a LAW is, you do not try and stop it by this fashion.

The law that has been passed does not grant rolling appropriations. In a similar way, the law authorises the existence of the US Army but does not mandate that Congress funds it as the President likes. If Bush had demanded another however many billions for the US Army and the Democrats controlled the Senate, they could have done the same, or demanded Bush make some other political concession in order to get his Army money. I suspect who is taking a principled stand and who is a reckless opportunity would also in that case come down to respective views on the goodness of the army.

Yes they COULD Have, but, and this is the important part, THEY DIDN'T.
What the GOP is doing right now is beyond mere foot stomping, it is putting the whole of the country in danger, harming it, all because they want to stop something that has already gone into effect.
You are making the mistake of a Golden Mean fallacy, assuming that "Anyone" when pushed with such convictions, would make the same firm stand the GOP is making. By extension you are saying that, given the chance, the Democrats would do this too!
But they don't... The reason for this is hat the Democrats do not have people that are bat shit crazy, people who WANT The Government to blow up and cease to be!

There is a saying that I like to recall in such times...
"People who are in the same boat, may often disagree about how to steer the boat, or how the boat should be captained, they may even rock the boat to try and get their way. But only a truly insane person, would want to SINK the boat
And thats what we have here, the Tea Party is a bunch of people who are out to Sink the government.

Boehner: 'All we want is a simple discussion.'

Direct quote from an interview I just heard. I'm sorry, what do you think the huge, raging national debate about the specifics of the ACA was? We had this discussion already. This discussion has a lot to do with the lack of a public option in the ACA. Been there, discussed that.

Yeah but thats just it, for the Republicans, or at least the tea Party "Discussion" doesn't count, unless they win.
What do you do when your side is defeated? You Ignore you were defeated, and continue trying to claim victory anyways.
That in effect is what the Right wing has been trying to do ever since the ACA was passed into Law. Basically, 'Discussions' doesn't count unless it ends with the result THEY want.

[Serafina]

Well of course there wasn't a proper discussion.
If the liberal media and lying democrats hadn't deceived the people, they all would agree that the ACA is bad. All we are asking for is that we are allowed to present facts without liberal spindoctoring.

(sarcasm, though maybe some republicans think along those lines).

[White Haven]

Okay, a bit of ASCII art to help visualize the present Republican rhetoric of 'we want to negotiate, and the Democrats refuse to meet us halfway.'

Code: Select all

2010:

Democratic positions                                                          Republican Positions
|                                                                                                |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  |
                                      Affordable Care Act

Pretty standard stuff. Now, in 2013:

                                         Affordable Care Act                   Tea Party Positions
                                                  |                                              |
                                                   ----------------------------------------------
                                                                          |
                                                                          ?

Negotiation means that you start with two disparate positions, then work towards a compromise position. This is, broadly speaking, why we have a health care bill at all, and why it does not include a pubic option. Both sides conceded points. You do not, however, then get to reset things with the compromise position as a new starting point. You especially do not get to act offended when you get called on it.

[Simon_Jester]

A lot of the government has been written rubber checks and told to keep coming to work. The shut-down is partial at most. I'm not sure what specifically he thinks is important that was shut down that shouldn't have been but the executive did have considerable latitude in this regard.

The people told to keep coming in are, by and large, those without whom people might die (air traffic controllers). Or without whom buildings might fall down, or prisons go unguarded, or various other immediate crises that would make things much much worse.

Now, if there were some way to ensure the consequences fell only upon the heads of the people who wanted the damn shutdown in the first place, and enabled it by voting in politicians who courted it, I'd be sorely tempted to say "sure, let them deal with the consequences of their actions; it is a conservative truism that ideas have consequences, so let them experience consequences."

But since that is not the case, and innocent people could come to grave, immediate harm if these vital positions were not filled... yeah. The government writes rubber checks to keep them coming. Which it does NOT do for park service staff.

If you resent Obama's decision not to write rubber checks to fund the park service, reflect that the park service is blatantly a luxury. Many other things the government can't do are NOT luxuries, certainly not for the people most directly impacted.

As far as apportioning blame, the pro-ACA party controls the House and the anti-ACA party controls the Senate. The two bodies are constitutionally designed to be equal in so far as approval for appropriations go. The fact that the ACA has been passed does not bind future Congress of different composition to retain and fund it.

No, but it is grossly irresponsible to shut down the government indefinitely rather than allow the ACA to operate. We're not talking about federally mandated genocide or anything; the ACA is very similar to many other bills proposed by both parties over several decades, it was discussed widely and negotiated over extensively.

The ACA is not such a weird and bizarre thing that it justifies a thing as weird and bizarre (and harmful) as shutting down the government.

[FaxModem1]

I heard this on the way home from D&D, it's what the US shutdown would sound like from a foreign perspective.

Slate Magazine

If It Happened There ... the Government Shutdown
117.3k
8.8k
143
By Joshua Keating
182532993 WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 30: The sun sets on an uneasy capital.

Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

This is the first installment of “If It Happened There,” a regular feature in which American events are described using the tropes and tone normally employed by the American media to describe events in other countries.

WASHINGTON, United States—The typical signs of state failure aren’t evident on the streets of this sleepy capital city. Beret-wearing colonels have not yet taken to the airwaves to declare martial law. Money-changers are not yet buying stacks of useless greenbacks on the street.

But the pleasant autumn weather disguises a government teetering on the brink. Because, at midnight Monday night, the government of this intensely proud and nationalistic people will shut down, a drastic sign of political dysfunction in this moribund republic.

The capital’s rival clans find themselves at an impasse, unable to agree on a measure that will allow the American state to carry out its most basic functions. While the factions have come close to such a shutdown before, opponents of President Barack Obama’s embattled regime now appear prepared to allow the government to be shuttered over opposition to a controversial plan intended to bring the nation’s health care system in line with international standards.

Six years into his rule, Obama’s position can appear confusing, even contradictory. Though the executive retains control of the country’s powerful intelligence service, capable of the extrajudicial execution of the regime’s opponents half a world away, the president’s efforts to govern domestically have been stymied in the legislature by an extremist rump faction of the main opposition party.

The current rebellion has been led by Sen. Ted Cruz, a young fundamentalist lawmaker from the restive Texas region, known in the past as a hotbed of separatist activity. Activity in the legislature ground to a halt last week for a full day as Cruz insisted on performing a time-honored American demonstration of stamina and self-denial, which involved speaking for 21 hours, quoting liberally from science fiction films and children’s books. The gesture drew wide media attention, though its political purpose was unclear to outsiders.

With hours remaining until the government of the world’s richest nation runs out of money, attention now focuses on longtime opposition leader John Boehner, under pressure from both the regime and the radical elements of his own movement, who may be the only political figure with the standing needed to end the standoff.

While the country’s most recent elections were generally considered to be free and fair (despite threats against international observers), the current crisis has raised questions in the international community about the regime’s ability to govern this complex nation of 300 million people, not to mention its vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

Americans themselves are starting to ask difficult questions as well. As this correspondent’s cab driver put it, while driving down the poorly maintained roads that lead from the airport, “Do these guys have any idea what they’re doing to the country?”

The only thing I don't get is the comment about science fiction.

[Broomstick]

A lot of the government has been written rubber checks and told to keep coming to work. The shut-down is partial at most. I'm not sure what specifically he thinks is important that was shut down that shouldn't have been but the executive did have considerable latitude in this regard.

The people told to keep coming in are, by and large, those without whom people might die (air traffic controllers). Or without whom buildings might fall down, or prisons go unguarded, or various other immediate crises that would make things much much worse.

energiewende - no, the government is NOT writing rubber checks. Those people coming in to work? The air traffic controllers and the DC cops and all the other personnel deemed "essential"? They are NOT getting paid. Until this is over they do NOT get a paycheck. They are working without pay while Congress, which IS getting paid, dithers and dicks over the rest of the country. Last I heard Congress has not even taken the steps required to ensure those people, who are currently working without pay, get back pay when this stinking pile of shit is over.

That makes them even worse off than the folks on furlough, who have the option of unemployment or looking for another job.

So consider that, asshat, that not only is the government needed but the people in that government, the little people who do the grunt work, are working for your benefit and not getting a goddamned cent while this is going on.

[Broomstick]

Oh, and from the National Weather Service, as reported by CNN:

Sometimes, it pays to read between the lines.

At least that may be the message --and, more accurately, the hope -- of workers at the National Weather Service office in Anchorage, Alaska.

The message can be found in an official forecast put out at 5 a.m. (9 a.m. ET) that seems, at first glance, routine with its discussion of air pressure, wind speeds and weather systems.

But if you line up the first letters of each word from top-to-bottom in the forecast, under the heading "Analysis and Upper levels," there's something else there: P-L-E-A-S-E-P-A-Y-U-S.

That breaks down into three simple words: Please pay us.

Meteorologists at the service's Anchorage office declined Friday afternoon to comment on the possibly cryptic wording, saying they can only speak about weather-related matters. It was not immediately clear who exactly put out the forecast or whether a message was intentionally tucked into it.

Still, it's no secret that National Weather Service employees -- like other federal government employees -- aren't getting paid as long as the government is shut down. That began Tuesday and there has been no indication that it will end anytime soon, with Democrats and Republicans holding firm on their positions that the other is to blame and that they won't budge.

Up to 800,000 federal workers are at risk of furlough, meaning they won't report to work until the sides agree on a spending plan that President Barack Obama signs into law.

Other federal employees are still working, because what they do is considered essential by the government. That includes many at the National Weather Service.

Whenever the shutdown ends, these government workers should get back-pay. But there's no telling when that will happen, meaning they could work for days, weeks or months before they take home a paycheck.

And here's the forecast:

[energiewende]

No it doesn't work like that..
I am sorry but no matter HOW bad you think a LAW is, you do not try and stop it by this fashion.

The law that has been passed does not grant rolling appropriations. In a similar way, the law authorises the existence of the US Army but does not mandate that Congress funds it as the President likes. If Bush had demanded another however many billions for the US Army and the Democrats controlled the Senate, they could have done the same, or demanded Bush make some other political concession in order to get his Army money. I suspect who is taking a principled stand and who is a reckless opportunity would also in that case come down to respective views on the goodness of the army.

Yes they COULD Have, but, and this is the important part, THEY DIDN'T.
What the GOP is doing right now is beyond mere foot stomping, it is putting the whole of the country in danger, harming it, all because they want to stop something that has already gone into effect.
You are making the mistake of a Golden Mean fallacy, assuming that "Anyone" when pushed with such convictions, would make the same firm stand the GOP is making. By extension you are saying that, given the chance, the Democrats would do this too!
But they don't... The reason for this is hat the Democrats do not have people that are bat shit crazy, people who WANT The Government to blow up and cease to be!

There is a saying that I like to recall in such times...
"People who are in the same boat, may often disagree about how to steer the boat, or how the boat should be captained, they may even rock the boat to try and get their way. But only a truly insane person, would want to SINK the boat
And thats what we have here, the Tea Party is a bunch of people who are out to Sink the government.

The Democrats have done so in the past. They defunded the Pershing II missile and aid to the Contras in this way, despite the undenied legal right of the executive to maintain a military and conduct foreign policy. Anyway, my point wasn't that Republicans are Good and Democrats are Bad, but rather that the presence of authorising legislation for some agency doesn't mean Congress is bound to fund that agency.

[energiewende]

A lot of the government has been written rubber checks and told to keep coming to work. The shut-down is partial at most. I'm not sure what specifically he thinks is important that was shut down that shouldn't have been but the executive did have considerable latitude in this regard.

The people told to keep coming in are, by and large, those without whom people might die (air traffic controllers). Or without whom buildings might fall down, or prisons go unguarded, or various other immediate crises that would make things much much worse.

energiewende - no, the government is NOT writing rubber checks. Those people coming in to work? The air traffic controllers and the DC cops and all the other personnel deemed "essential"? They are NOT getting paid. Until this is over they do NOT get a paycheck. They are working without pay while Congress, which IS getting paid, dithers and dicks over the rest of the country. Last I heard Congress has not even taken the steps required to ensure those people, who are currently working without pay, get back pay when this stinking pile of shit is over.

That makes them even worse off than the folks on furlough, who have the option of unemployment or looking for another job.

So consider that, asshat, that not only is the government needed but the people in that government, the little people who do the grunt work, are working for your benefit and not getting a goddamned cent while this is going on.

Do you know what a rubber check is?

"Non-sufficient funds (NSF) is a term used in the banking industry to indicate that a demand for payment (a cheque) cannot be honored because insufficient funds are available in the account on which the instrument was drawn. In simplified terms, a cheque has been presented for clearance, but the amount written on the cheque exceeds the available balance in the account. An NSF cheque is often referred to as a bad cheque or dishonored cheque, or more colloquially, a bounced cheque, cold cheque, rubber cheque, returned item, or hot check."

And these people are certainly not working for my benefit as I, like most of the world's population, am not a citizen of the United States.

I'm not sure if you think the swearing reinforces your misconceived points. Actually it makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum.

[Grumman]

Okay, a bit of ASCII art to help visualize the present Republican rhetoric of 'we want to negotiate, and the Democrats refuse to meet us halfway.'

The ACA was not a bipartisan bill. It was passed by Democrats and Democrats alone - not a single Republican voted for it.

[Broomstick]

And these people are certainly not working for my benefit as I, like most of the world's population, am not a citizen of the United States.

And I'm supposed to know this... how? Your profile does not indicate a location, and you haven't been here particularly long so I have no clue where you live. Sorry, not a mind reader.

I'm not sure if you think the swearing reinforces your misconceived points. Actually it makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum.

Your statement that "A lot of the government has been written rubber checks and told to keep coming to work." is factually incorrect, as most of the people, outside Congress are not getting paid. They aren't getting checks. Therefore, the government is not writing checks, rubber or any other sort. But rather than concede you're wrong on that point you bring up my ability to swear.

Makes you look Tea Party.

[energiewende]

And these people are certainly not working for my benefit as I, like most of the world's population, am not a citizen of the United States.

And I'm supposed to know this... how? Your profile does not indicate a location, and you haven't been here particularly long so I have no clue where you live. Sorry, not a mind reader.

It does not indeed. That includes Location: United States.

I'm not sure if you think the swearing reinforces your misconceived points. Actually it makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum.

Your statement that "A lot of the government has been written rubber checks and told to keep coming to work." is factually incorrect, as most of the people, outside Congress are not getting paid. They aren't getting checks. Therefore, the government is not writing checks, rubber or any other sort. But rather than concede you're wrong on that point you bring up my ability to swear.

Makes you look Tea Party.

A rubber check is a check that cannot be honored. Saying someone "is receiving a rubber check" does not imply they are being paid. It implies the opposite. The fact you look like a child is incidental.

[Broomstick]

It does not indeed. That includes Location: United States.

You list no location whatsoever. Should I then conclude you don't exist?

Either list where you are or shut the fuck up when someone guesses wrong.

I'm not sure if you think the swearing reinforces your misconceived points. Actually it makes you look like a child throwing a tantrum.

Your statement that "A lot of the government has been written rubber checks and told to keep coming to work." is factually incorrect, as most of the people, outside Congress are not getting paid. They aren't getting checks. Therefore, the government is not writing checks, rubber or any other sort.

Makes you look Tea Party.

A rubber check is a check that cannot be honored. Saying someone "is receiving a rubber check" does not imply they are being paid. It implies the opposite. The fact you look like a child is incidental.

You fucking tool - concede you are wrong and that workers are not being paid and the US Fed is not issuing checks to them, rubber or otherwise. YOU are the one who stated the employees are getting bad checks, not me. You are factually incorrect.

And, since you claim to be living outside the US let me advise you, based upon my own personal experience with a bad employer, there is a legal distinction here between not being paid at all and being paid with a bad check. Specifically, not being paid can result in the employee receiving up to the three times the value of the owed wages. Paying with a bad check can result in not only triple the wages as penalty, it can also entitled the wrong party to three times the face value of the bad check in addition to the triple-wages-value. Paying with a bad check, in this country, is seen as worse than not paying someone at all.

[energiewende]

It does not indeed. That includes Location: United States.

You list no location whatsoever. Should I then conclude you don't exist?

Either list where you are or shut the fuck up when someone guesses wrong.

Don't guess at all. If you didn't want to throw in a few more goddamns and asshats you didn't need to accuse me, personally, of supposed ingratitude in the first place.

A rubber check is a check that cannot be honored. Saying someone "is receiving a rubber check" does not imply they are being paid. It implies the opposite. The fact you look like a child is incidental.

You fucking tool - concede you are wrong and that workers are not being paid and the US Fed is not issuing checks to them, rubber or otherwise. YOU are the one who stated the employees are getting bad checks, not me. You are factually incorrect.

And, since you claim to be living outside the US let me advise you, based upon my own personal experience with a bad employer, there is a legal distinction here between not being paid at all and being paid with a bad check. Specifically, not being paid can result in the employee receiving up to the three times the value of the owed wages. Paying with a bad check can result in not only triple the wages as penalty, it can also entitled the wrong party to three times the face value of the bad check in addition to the triple-wages-value. Paying with a bad check, in this country, is seen as worse than not paying someone at all.

When you admit that wishes are not horses because, hell, "horses" doesn't even have a "w" in it!

[Crossroads Inc.]

There is a saying that I like to recall in such times...
"People who are in the same boat, may often disagree about how to steer the boat, or how the boat should be captained, they may even rock the boat to try and get their way. But only a truly insane person, would want to SINK the boat
And thats what we have here, the Tea Party is a bunch of people who are out to Sink the government.

The Democrats have done so in the past. They defunded the Pershing II missile and aid to the Contras in this way, despite the undenied legal right of the executive to maintain a military and conduct foreign policy. Anyway, my point wasn't that Republicans are Good and Democrats are Bad, but rather that the presence of authorising legislation for some agency doesn't mean Congress is bound to fund that agency.

Close but no cigars...
In late Dec 1982, The Democrats wanted to push forward a Jobs bill at the time. They had the votes to do this is BOTH the house and Congress, but President Reagan had vowed to veto it.
The shutdown lasted three days, The Democrats abandoned their attempts at a Jobs Bill to help America, but only after they got concessions to cut spending to the MX-Missilie system that Reagan had thus far dumped billions into.

So, The Democrats wanted to pass a Bill that they couldn't, and they scrapped it only after the GOP gave up something that they wanted to.
Now I don't know about you, but that sounds like "Negotiating" to me, BOTH sides gave up something they wanted, and the shutdown lasted 3 days. It sounds like the boat got rocked, but no one tried to sink it...

So tell me again how the Democrats in the past have behaved like the Tea-Party currently in regards to forcing a shutdown?
Also an example of the Democrats outright wishing for the whole scale destruction of the federal Government would also be appreciated.,

[Crossroads Inc.]

There is a saying that I like to recall in such times...
"People who are in the same boat, may often disagree about how to steer the boat, or how the boat should be captained, they may even rock the boat to try and get their way. But only a truly insane person, would want to SINK the boat
And thats what we have here, the Tea Party is a bunch of people who are out to Sink the government.

The Democrats have done so in the past. They defunded the Pershing II missile and aid to the Contras in this way, despite the undenied legal right of the executive to maintain a military and conduct foreign policy. Anyway, my point wasn't that Republicans are Good and Democrats are Bad, but rather that the presence of authorising legislation for some agency doesn't mean Congress is bound to fund that agency.

Close but no cigars...
In late Dec 1982, The Democrats wanted to push forward a Jobs bill at the time. They had the votes to do this is BOTH the house and Congress, but President Reagan had vowed to veto it.
The shutdown lasted three days, The Democrats abandoned their attempts at a Jobs Bill to help America, but only after they got concessions to cut spending to the MX-Missilie system that Reagan had thus far dumped billions into.

So, The Democrats wanted to pass a Bill that they couldn't, and they scrapped it only after the GOP gave up something that they wanted to.
Now I don't know about you, but that sounds like "Negotiating" to me, BOTH sides gave up something they wanted, and the shutdown lasted 3 days. It sounds like the boat got rocked, but no one tried to sink it... Also how any of that has to do with crucial funding to the Us?

So tell me again how the Democrats in the past have behaved like the Tea-Party currently in regards to forcing a shutdown?
Also an example of the Democrats outright wishing for the whole scale destruction of the federal Government would also be appreciated.,

[Alyeska]

A rubber check is a check that cannot be honored. Saying someone "is receiving a rubber check" does not imply they are being paid. It implies the opposite. The fact you look like a child is incidental.

Style over substance fallacy. Address her argument, and not the method in which she made it. You have been challenged on your claims. Back them up or concede.

[Eleas]

Okay, a bit of ASCII art to help visualize the present Republican rhetoric of 'we want to negotiate, and the Democrats refuse to meet us halfway.'

The ACA was not a bipartisan bill. It was passed by Democrats and Democrats alone - not a single Republican voted for it.

Please explain. The way I understand it, the ACA is basically Romneycare, i.e. a program that replaced what the Democrats really wanted as a concession to the Republican opposition. If I'm wrong on a substantial point, I'd welcome correction.

[White Haven]

That's more or less correct, up until the point at which it came time to vote on the bloody thing. At that point, the Republicans didn't vote for it even with the concessions that watered it down into its present form. Sort of a lose-lose from a leftist position, make compromises, then have to do it all yourselves anyway.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Whether you consider ACA a compromise bill or not depends on your definition of compromise, I guess. The details of the bill did keep getting shifted further and further towards uselessness and market incentives to fill in with the Republican demands. However, IIRC, it was passed purely by Democratic caucus votes, because even by that stage the Republican party was already demanding cohesion in obstructionism.

[Lord MJ]

Okay, a bit of ASCII art to help visualize the present Republican rhetoric of 'we want to negotiate, and the Democrats refuse to meet us halfway.'

The ACA was not a bipartisan bill. It was passed by Democrats and Democrats alone - not a single Republican voted for it.

Please explain. The way I understand it, the ACA is basically Romneycare, i.e. a program that replaced what the Democrats really wanted as a concession to the Republican opposition. If I'm wrong on a substantial point, I'd welcome correction.

That's mostly the case. However I have some doubts whether the Dems really wanted Single Payer, or Public Option. The Democrats are every bit beholden to masters in the Insurance companies as the Republicans are. A large part of why the compromise took place was not just to get the Republicans on board, but to satisfy the insurance companies.

[Civil War Man]

Please explain. The way I understand it, the ACA is basically Romneycare, i.e. a program that replaced what the Democrats really wanted as a concession to the Republican opposition. If I'm wrong on a substantial point, I'd welcome correction.

ACA was effectively a compromise bill between the liberal Democrats and conservative Democrats because the Republicans refused to participate in the process. Every attempt to include Republicans in the dialogue resulted in them openly attempting to sabotage the bill (I'm pretty sure Grassley even bragged on cable news that he would not vote for the ACA even if the Democrats gave him everything he wanted). The actual compromises in it, like taking the public option off the table, were actually to convince Democrats like Baucus to support the bill and not vote with the Republicans to sink the whole thing.

The actual mechanism the ACA uses was originally an early 90's Republican idea, but in the eyes of the Tea Party everything Obama touches immediately turns to socialism.

[AniThyng]

I've read on a certain right wing board to the effect that Hillary is preparing to backstabbing Obama based of this speech. It's hilarious almost how polarized the us is confronted with the same ppicture yet drawing completely opposite reactions.

http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-shutdown- ... itics.html

CLINTON, N.Y. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton is deriding the partial government shutdown, saying dysfunction and gridlock are emblematic of too many people in politics choosing "scorched earth over common ground."

The former senator and secretary of state said during a speech Friday night at Hamilton College in upstate New York that it was difficult to recall a time when "politicians were willing to risk so much damage to the country to pursue their own agendas."

Clinton described some of the lessons she learned during her time in the Senate and at the State Department, contrasting it with the budget battle engulfing Congress and the White House and a looming deadline to raise the nation's debt limit.

"Today, too many in our politics choose scorched earth over common ground. Many of our public debates are happening in what I like to call an evidence-free zone, where ideology trumps data and common sense," she said. "That is a recipe for paralysis, not progress."

Recalling shutdowns during the mid-1990s, Clinton noted that her husband worked with then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to find a way to reopen the government. Neither side got everything it wanted, she said, but it led to a balanced budget and economic growth.

Clinton said the stalemate could have repercussions around the globe, noting that the shutdown had forced President Barack Obama to cancel his trip to Asia for meetings with world leaders. "Russia is there. China is there. We're not there," Clinton said, arguing that it could affect the way the U.S. is perceived around the globe.

Polls show Clinton would be the leading contender for the White House in 2016 if she decides to seek the presidency again. The Hamilton address, before 5,800 people jammed into the college's field house, offered glimpses of a possible campaign.

Clinton received loud applause at several points during her speech and question-and-answer session and shook hands with dozens of students and others along a blue partition after the event. Some stretched out their smart phones to take a picture of the former first lady.

Hamilton's president, Joan Hinde Stewart, said the college's speaker series had brought to campus former President Bill Clinton, prime ministers, secretaries of state and other leaders. "Never yet a future president, but there's a first time for everything," Stewart said to cheers.

Clinton avoided any talk of another White House campaign, but she spoke of the need to promote trade around the globe and to help young people find jobs.

"We need to be thinking together again, not fighting the same old stale arguments," Clinton said. "I worked with Republicans and Democrats. I worked with business leaders and labor leaders, anybody with a good idea. So let's think about how we're going to spur growth again."

Describing lessons she learned as the nation's top diplomat, Clinton said that after a decade of war and financial crisis, "the United States remains the indispensable nation."

"For me this isn't even a question. We have to lead. I hear all the talk about America needs to pull back and not be so active. That's not the world I've seen," she said.

Clinton said that after traveling the world, "my faith in our country is deeper. Our optimism about our future is strong. But we're not going to get there by accident or hoping for it. We're really going to have to work hard, we're going to have to make this country work for all of us again."

Concluding her remarks, Clinton urged the audience, "Let's take this country that has given so much to people like us, the greatest force for peace and progress that the world has ever known and resolve we are going to pull together."

She added: "We are going to get out of the evidence-free zone. We're going to start looking at the facts. We're going to roll up our sleeves. We're going to solve our problems together. We're going to build a kind of future that our children and our grandchildren deserve."

[TimothyC]

Sorry for the delay in the responses. I've been busy with other stuff.

My fundamental question is, what, specifically, was being cut? It matters, because a budget can't be as vague as "cut discretionary spending by 10%" and be meaningful. How did the Republicans propose to implement the desired cuts? What wasn't going to get funded?

The goal of the the House budget is to hold discretionary spending to the FY2008 levels, so the answer is generally - if it wasn't funded (or something else funded at a similar level) in 2008, it's not going to be funded under the new budget. As for exact specifics, I imagine you can find those in the budget documents, I have not bothered to give myself a headache by trying.

While we're at it, how much openness did the Republicans express to, say, balancing tax hikes and spending cuts to avoid accidentally destroying important positive multiplier effects, or things needed for America's long term financial health?

That last question matters on a second-order basis, because it tells us how practical it would have been for the Democrats to even try to engage with this budget proposal. Under present circumstances and GINI coefficient, refusing to countenance tax hikes for millionaires is enough to make anyone who is less than far right-of-center by global standards say "surely you must be joking."

I can't personally defend a failure to optimize the tax code, so I'm not going to try. If the Republicans were very smart, they'd call for tax optimization (if that's cuts, that's cuts, if it's increases, then it's increases, let's just scientifically maximize the amount we bring) to pay down the damn debt (Yes Bush added to it to a very large degree, but Obama has been even worse in a shorter period) before the interest on it eats the budget alive. They'd also bring in means-testing for social security (ie "Why does Warren Buffet get social security at all?" would be an excellent starter question to ask to get the ball rolling).

Fair enough- but consider the scale of the... allegedly spiteful actions by the administration and Senate (to avoid softening the impact of the closure), relative to the scale of the closure itself.

There is a major difference of raw scale here.

Both branches of congress and the administration (where has President Obama been for leadership this entire time?) bear responsibility for the current shutdown. President Obama gets all of the responsibility for making it worse than it has to be.

No, calling an imbecile 'idiot' is nowhere near calling sane, normal man so. Anyone but blind right wingers would see it. Same with say 'policy' Republithugs have towards atheists or homosexuals, killing all their legal and human rights that they rightfully should have does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as what the left proposes, yet right wingers insists their scum is worth considering, much less looking at

Do you really think that President Obama cares about gay rights at all? The man is a politician and only came out in favor of gay marriage once it was politically expedient* to do so. Heck, Dick Cheney came out in favor before he did.

*Expedient in that if he didn't come out in favor, it was likely that the donation pool would be a lot shallower for his re-election bid.

19 Republicans have openly declared they are willing to vote for a Clean CR if it comes up, allowing it to pass the House.

And 20+ democrats have voted for the partial CRs. It is entirely possible that by sticking to his guns Boehner is solidifying his position and weakening the democrat's position.

Ok, maybe that is not fair usage for it's entirety, but I sometimes peruse big forums of US armed forces/sympathetics called Militaryphotos.net (one thing they have are photos/movies you can't find anywhere else) and most of the time I close it after a few minutes facepalming at the stupidity and disconnection from reality of 95% of posters. It has all, from glorifying war criminals (complete with calling every investigation in Afghanistan/Iraq/Gitmo 'stupid joke'), callous racism towards everyone non-WASP, calls for military coup/privatization of US army (because everyone knows private run things are GOOD™), latching to any militia-born moronic idea (such as 3-percenters) and much more.

What I would call a 'mob with guns that largely breathes NRA propaganda' would be people with exactly such mindset - mob because they hate chain of command (triply so for civilian supervision) and as for NRA part, the board is so rabid this week they openly discussed walking in groups with guns in the open to Starbucks stores with stickers forbidding guns claiming it's "unconstitutional" As far as I can tell, large numbers of lower ranks do think similarly, so IMHO the description would be at least partly justified, people I'd call sane are in definite minority and wouldn't need convincing anyway.

Yes or no, are you honestly saying that the US military (or parts thereof) is likely to revolt if the current partial shutdown continues? I ask because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

And what do you mean by "shutting down thing he really shouldn't be"? There is no funding for those things. That's why they are shut down. There is no money in the checking account.

Broomstick, Mt. Vernon only gets federal funds for the Parking lot, and yet the orange barricades were put up by the National Parks Service. The Park in Virginia operates off of state funds and contributions. There are reports that scenic over-looks in the DC area are being closed down because the NPS owns the land they are on (even if there is little to no ongoing maintenance at the facilities.

You've also got the closures of the non-NPS viewing areas around Mt. Rushmore (Link), and the attempted closing of State park facilities in Wisconsin (Link). But hey, Obama's political home is Chicago - a citygenerally considered to be run by a corrupt family - so I guess I shoudln't be surprised when we've got a report of Park rangers saying "We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting." (Link).

As far as nicknames go - when Bush II supporters voice objection to "Shrub" I stop using it. It's not so much "fun" as it detracts from keeping the debate rational. But hey, shithead, if you want to go down the merry road of name-calling we can do that...

Yeah, you did, but there are plenty of others who didn't, and infact still don't.

You do NOT try and stop a law by holding a gun to the head of the country and say "Pass this OR ELSE!"

Let us change one word. Let us change 'stop' to 'keep' Ok?

You do NOT try and stop keep a law by holding a gun to the head of the country and say "Pass this OR ELSE!"

Why, now it describes exactly what President Obama and Senator Reid are doing! They are preventing any of the funding bills that don't fund the ACA! (President Obama being Reid's Political back-stop by sticking to the veto threat)

Lets be honest, the REAL Reason why the GOP is so terrified of the ACA is because deep down they are in pants wetting terror that once fully implemented, it will actually HELP America, and America in return, will start to think it is a GOOD thing to have!

A few questions.
First, have you signed up for health insurance under the ACA yet?
Second, how much did you spend on this conservative strawman, because you seem really invested in it?
I (and other republicans) oppose the ACA because I/we think it's a bad law. I think it's a bad law that will cause more problems when fully implemented than it solves. I think that if you are not going to require employers to cover everyone on insurance (seriously, The administration has already pushed back the employer mandate by a year), then you shouldn't require that employees have insurance now should you (unless you were a shill for the insurance industry's abiltiy to ream customers)?

As for the delaying the implementation of the ACA, nearly 60% of the American people support a one year delay, so allowing a delay would be the will of the people. We've also had 20+ democrats defect in the house and vote for the partial CRs. If this keeps up we might start to see the defections spread to the Senate.

I've read on a certain right wing board to the effect that Hillary is preparing to backstabbing Obama based of this speech. It's hilarious almost how polarized the us is confronted with the same picture yet drawing completely opposite reactions.

I'm actually trying to find a copy of a transcript of what she said. If she mentioned negotiation, then yes it is her starting her 2016 campaign. I'd feel better qualified to make a statement on what she said after I find out exactly what she's said.

I would caution people around here to remember that SDN is far left of the American political center and that sometimes the N&P population collectively can't see six inches from their face (witness the first debate last year).

[AniThyng]

You've also got the closures of the non-NPS viewing areas around Mt. Rushmore (Link), and the attempted closing of State park facilities in Wisconsin (Link). But hey, Obama's political home is Chicago - a citygenerally considered to be run by a corrupt family - so I guess I shoudln't be surprised when we've got a report of Park rangers saying "We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It’s disgusting." (Link).

I actually would like to see the board come up with a reasonable justification for this, because from the outside looking in and reading both boards it's not self-evident to me that either side including the president are blameless, and the narrative that this is entirely the republican's fault begin to seem as rose tinted as the narrative that this is the democrat's fault, particularly since it seems that the democrats are trying to make the shutdown more painful than it actually needs to be so that the blame falls more heavily on the republicans in the eyes of people who may not be aware that the shutdown is being made more painful that it has to be.

*In conclusion - it's also sad and hilarious that we need to be reminded that politicians are politicians and therefore vile and untrustworthy, but they are the only kind of people we can choose to lead us. (democracy or lack off is irrelevant - despots and ogliarchs are politicians too, just with a more select circle)