George Clooney has never been shy about sharing his thoughts on politics and current events. So yesterday, when we ran into him at a lunch for his new space flick Gravity, we asked the liberal-leaning actor for his thoughts about the ongoing government shutdown. He had many — on John Boehner's grand strategy, on the "idiots" who think we don't need government, and on Ted Cruz's reading of Green Eggs and Ham.

"People keep talking about how this has to be a great negotiation, but there isn't any negotiating a law. We negotiate on all these other topics, but this was put into law, and [Obama] was reelected on it. It was reaffirmed, it was passed through the Supreme Court — it's a law. You don't like it? Win an election. That's how it works. That's how the country works. But you don't get to shut down the government because of it. That's not how it works."

"My sense is that if I were in John Boehner's shoes and I was looking at two — one and then another one in a couple of weeks — I would figure, well, I can absorb a government shutdown and then say, 'We stood strong, but now the debt ceiling is something completely different. We can't deal with it.' You settle the government shutdown, and you still got the debt ceiling. It's the same fight, so maybe they're just trying to consolidate. Maybe it's the best version of their way of getting out."

"It's basically: 30 people in one half of one branch of the three branches of government are shutting down the government. Okay, that's how they want to play? Okay. That's fine if everybody comes to their senses before we actually destroy the economy and lose credit, full faith in credit, as they like to say. That's a big deal."

"So my sense is, cooler heads will prevail in the debt-ceiling crisis. I don't think too much will happen."

"Look, sequestration is a big deal. People like to brush it off and say nothing happened, but an awful lot of kids aren't being fed, and a lot of stuff happens that just gets swept under the rug."

"Shutting down the government is not how you make government work. And anybody who thinks we don't need it is an idiot.""And what is essential? Are we talking about education? Are we talking about food stamps? Are we talking about kids' lunches? Yes, the army is essential. Is security of the country essential? Of course it is. But there are a lot of things you can look at and say, 'How do you say that's not essential?'"

"I always panic when people like Ted Cruz take the floor and read Green Eggs and Ham. You know? Like somehow they're Jimmy Stewart."

party animal - not! wrote:Cutting through the crap with plain common sense. Excellent. Let's just hope they are listening!!

I'm afraid that the GOP are to pigheaded to do the right thing. The party has been on a downhill spiral for sometime now and are grasping for straws. They have an on going campaign against minorities, the poor, women and children. They are even trying to suppress the vote of select groups, it is outrageous and scary. I just hope we all remember this come election time and put a stop to them.

Here in NY we have the Taylor Law, which fines municipal workers 2 days pay for every day they're out on strike. To my mind, shutting down the government is pretty much the same thing, and Congress should pay the price. Maybe if it was their paycheck that was gone they'd think twice about behaving like spoiled brats!

In the world most of us live in, our jobs come with minimum basic duties. They also come with policies and procedures set by the people who do the hiring.

Congress doesn't live in that world. The very bottom-line minimum that has to be accomplished for the country is setting a budget and making sure we can continue to pay our bills. They get to not even do that, and when they don't, they get to hold the entire country -- the people who pay their salaries and benefits and all the extravagant 'perks' -- hostage in an asinine pissing contest.

I say that there has to be a provision that a budget has to be passed by August 1 of the fiscal year, and the debt limit issue settled, or (1) Congress doesn't get paid for every day after that that there's no agreed-upon budget; (2) nobody gets money for their staff or district offices or postage or anything the fuck else until there's a budget and debt limit set; and (3) if the government comes to a shutdown, the money for Congress' salaries and benefits gets shifted to the NIH, nutrition, and medical & research programs.

And anybody whose vote (or non-vote, or refusal to send a bill to conference) contributed to a shutdown is barred from re-election.

None of us gets to shut down a company because we don't like one of its policies, and then blame the head of the company for not giving in to their tantrum. These people have gone off the rails. They need to go. It's like watching three-year-olds stomp their feet and wail at the top of their lungs because mom didn't buy them candy.

I'll probably offend some here, but I won't qualify this with an apology: Republicans as a group, I'm convinced, are both mean-spirited and dumb as bricks -- a very bad combination -- and are counting on the majority of us being stupid and gullible enough to buy into the crap. Shame on anyone who does.

Way2Old4Dis wrote:In the world most of us live in, our jobs come with minimum basic duties. They also come with policies and procedures set by the people who do the hiring.

Congress doesn't live in that world. The very bottom-line minimum that has to be accomplished for the country is setting a budget and making sure we can continue to pay our bills. They get to not even do that, and when they don't, they get to hold the entire country -- the people who pay their salaries and benefits and all the extravagant 'perks' -- hostage in an asinine pissing contest.

I say that there has to be a provision that a budget has to be passed by August 1 of the fiscal year, and the debt limit issue settled, or (1) Congress doesn't get paid for every day after that that there's no agreed-upon budget; (2) nobody gets money for their staff or district offices or postage or anything the fuck else until there's a budget and debt limit set; and (3) if the government comes to a shutdown, the money for Congress' salaries and benefits gets shifted to the NIH, nutrition, and medical & research programs.

And anybody whose vote (or non-vote, or refusal to send a bill to conference) contributed to a shutdown is barred from re-election.

None of us gets to shut down a company because we don't like one of its policies, and then blame the head of the company for not giving in to their tantrum. These people have gone off the rails. They need to go. It's like watching three-year-olds stomp their feet and wail at the top of their lungs because mom didn't buy them candy.

I'll probably offend some here, but I won't qualify this with an apology: Republicans as a group, I'm convinced, are both mean-spirited and dumb as bricks -- a very bad combination -- and are counting on the majority of us being stupid and gullible enough to buy into the crap. Shame on anyone who does.

Amen to all of that.

I don't know why anyone is surprised that things like this happen when Republicans are in charge. The basic philosophy of their party is that government doesn't work. They can't effectively govern without going directly against their own belief system. They cannot allow a law like the Affordable Care Act to help the millions of people it's meant to help. Then people might *GASP* realize that government is actually a good thing.

I wish there was some way the president could issue an executive order withholding their pay until they come to a decision.

Maybe Im not fully understanding the situation but how on earth can Congress hold their own government to ransom, is that basically the sum of it? Its ludicrous from my perspective here in Aus to see the USA in shut-down mode - there should be repercussions for this and if not then Obama should pass legislation to ensure that there is next time.

Several people have thought about the executive order route. Apparently, that's one of the few things an executive order can't touch. Congress sets the parameters for its own pay. Nothing changes unless they agree to it. Ain't that some shit? I understand that our system of government relies on checks and balances, and executive orders can't be used to circumvent or punish, but I too wish there was some authority the President could exercise to protect the interests of the public when Congress clearly acts against them.

As far as Republicans and their credo of "small government:" they're full of shit. They want to tell you, as a government, who you can fall in love with and marry, whether women can get safe abortions, that poor children can't eat if they have drug-addicted parents, and that you can use a gun license but not a university ID to vote. Welfare is gladly handed over to giant companies but people in need are mocked and belittled and treated like shit when they need it.

F**k their "small government" bullshit. It's a joke, a smokescreen for "We have a God-given right to run this country, based on our beliefs and our ambitions, and we will destroy anyone who has the audacity to think otherwise."

... Or if they can't destroy, they take their ball and go home. Knock over the checkers board. Smash the game pieces.

They are whining and holding us hostage because they can't change something that is a law. A passed, vetted, and Supreme Court-sanctioned law. The Republicans have tried and failed dozens of times to repeal it. It's still law. And a third grader can tell you that a law cannot be repealed by attaching what amounts to an extortion rider to a bill. They want to rewrite the Constitution because they lost, and continue to lose.

Well we have issues with our government too - one of the things our departing Prime Minister (Julia Gilliard) put through legislation before she was toppled was to stop payments to single mothers or stay-at-home Mums like myself and force them to work basically. The idea is when your youngest turns 6 you have to be working or studying 15 hours a week, they still take away some of your money, but when your youngest is 8 then you lose best guess is about 70% of your payments if you are not working. It was put in place to stop those who abuse the system - however it will affect one of my friends drastically - she is a stay at home single mum, one of her youngest is a special needs child who requires 24 hour care, so she is not in a position to go to work as she would have to find a daycare that has a special needs teacher that will adequately take care of him, not always easy to do. So in 2 years she will be in a lot of trouble financially, her ex pays child support but that is still not enough to help her out, her caretaker payments will continue but she thinks she is about to lose about $500 a week, that's a lot of money when you don't have much. I have no problem with going back to work, have not been successful in my endeavours as yet, will keep plugging away to find something that is compatible with raising my children, or at least being able to see them for more than an hour or 2 a day. Its interesting that some people in the Government who make changes to our lives don't have to be impacted by the changes, damn frustrating.

It seems that our government isn't the only one that's out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent.In this country our only chance to make a change is to get involved and vote the idiots out of office.

Well I tried to vote the idiots out in the last election but alas, better luck next time! At least in Aus voting is compulsory so over 90% of the population end up voting, the rest get fined. The 2 main parties are Labour and Liberal, it was labour that brought in the changes above, now we have a liberal government but the preceding changes along with many others that upset many voters are still going through as planned, even though we have a new government - that is frustrating.

Way2Old4Dis, I could not have said it better. Because of all my medical issues I'm affected personally so I do understand the problems with this mess. I always think what about the people that have children how can they survive. There are many working people that still are below the poverty level who cannot handle cuts. I get concerned that some desperate parents are liable to do something foolish. The GOP are taking this country backwards.

What I find scary is that there are people out there who believe this is Obamas fault and imagine next elections Republicans would win. Everything is possible in the US. I couldn't even beliebe W. Buch Junior was elected the second time. So it is scary to watch where America is going.

This shut down is effecting the company I work for too. It's a tour operator. It is crazy how many sightseeing tours we have to refund because of the shut down. Everybody is loosing money.

What I don't understand, I read that since 1977 there were 17 shut downs in the US. Why it is so "normal" to do a shut down in the US.

Obama used the election, the Senate, and the Supreme Court as tools to advance the Affordable Care Act. The House is using their majority vote in their body, and the debt ceiling control to thwart it. Tools on each side. Not sure how they will get to a compromise but it has to happen or the shutdown goes on. Obama DOES NOT have all the cards as he thinks he does despite painting the other side as terrorists and anarchists.

George Fan wrote:Obama used the election, the Senate, and the Supreme Court as tools to advance the Affordable Care Act. The House is using their majority vote in their body, and the debt ceiling control to thwart it. Tools on each side. Not sure how they will get to a compromise but it has to happen or the shutdown goes on. Obama DOES NOT have all the cards as he thinks he does despite painting the other side as terrorists and anarchists.

President Obama made it known that he would propose and work for legislation to reform health care coverage. He was elected. His administration advanced one of the planks of the platform on which he ran. The legislation passed. It is law. It happened in the same way every other law is made. The Supreme Court heard the challenges, and struck down only minor parts of it. It is law, and it is Constitutional.

The ACA went into effect on Tuesday. It is not funded by any budgetary funds that are (or rather, aren't) on the table in this impasse. What's more, the repeal of the tax on medical devices that is being put forth by the Republicans will also not "defund" the ACA.

So the Republicans' position is, "Take back a Constitutionally-based and vetted law that we don't like, which has been on the books for 3 years, which we have not been able to get repealed because the system we live in and have agreed to protect and preserve has upheld its passage, or we will not allow the government that is by and for the people to function."

What part of that has any semblance of integrity?

And where is the point of negotiation? The US system of government does not allow for compromise on this issue. They have shut down the government over a duly-vetted law. This is not how laws are repealed. President Obama is right not to give an inch to these clowns. They have no right to do what they're doing. If the administration "compromises," we will be held hostage on every issue the Republicans disagree with. Sorry, but that's not how things work.

GiGi wrote:Don't like O-care, win an election. There is over 2400 waivers for hand picked winners (special interest) along with gov and gov employees. Talk about buying an election and done with my tax dollars.O-care is law of the land; like saying rape is now legal, quit putting up a fight. And, we're coming for your family.Its good for you but not me or my buddies. Horrible legislation.Real life example: full time now forced to have hours cut to 28 hours. Since 90% of employees have insurance from other sources, business apply for and denied waiver...hurting wallets and families.

How do you liken a law that provides for affordable health care coverage to uninsured or underinsured citizens to the horrible crime of rape? I know rape has been a popular talking point in Republican circles, but, you know, maybe not here...?

If your family has good health care coverage that you're happy with, nobody is coming for you to make you change it. The ACA gives an option for people who may not be as happy, and a lifeline to those who have not had a choice in the past. What is your argument with that?

If your private-coverage premiums rise, it will be because your commercial carrier has either lost clients (to a cheaper carrier or the ACA marketplace) and are passing their business losses on to you, or they are now forced to invest in the type of coverage that they have been denying to this point (i.e., instead of pocketing more money, they have to now cover pre-existing conditions and remove the lifetime cap), or they have to make up their decreased revenue because they can no longer charge women more just for having vaginas and uteri.

The level of work-sponsored health insurance coverage is nowhere near 90% in this country. And nobody will be forced to cut full-time hours to 28; that would be ludicrous, and would never pass muster under most labor law and contracts. Let's not throw numbers around because they've been tossed around in the circles of those we choose to listen to.

The entirety of the ACA is online for the reading, like all non-classified laws. There are numerous independent, non-partisan analytical studies of the social and financial impact of the ACA.

Don't like Obamacare? Don't sign up. Keep what you have. Enjoy it. But don't think you have the right to deny anyone else participation in coverage under a system that is now law. We pay taxes and vote, too. Everybody gets a say, and this particular point has been decided.

Just to clarify, are you saying that 90% of working people have health insurance coverage from someplace other than their employers?

What, exactly, would those other sources be? And where does the 90% figure come from?

The choices, in my estimation, would be being covered by a spouse's insurance (but those population, demographic, and insurance numbers don't add up); buying it out-of-pocket (again, with 40 million uninsured, I don't think so), or having Medicare (in which case, probably not an employee), or Medicaid (wouldn't qualify in most states)-sponsored insurance coverage.

Please enlighten me on this, which I admit I misread.

If there's some other point I'm missing, or didn't understand from your post, let me know.

theminis - voting is compulsory or you get fined? Brilliant! That's a great way to make people get involved, although there are a lot of people here who do vote, who I wish would stay home!Way2Old4Dis - How did you get so smart? Your posts are the clearest explanation of what's going on that I've seen anywhere. Thank you.

LizzyNY - yep voting is compulsory, so if you decide you don't want to cast your vote, the Government will send you a fine in the mail, don't pay it, then you end up in court. I do think its a good set up, your chance to have your say etc.

LizzyNY wrote:theminis - voting is compulsory or you get fined? Brilliant! That's a great way to make people get involved, although there are a lot of people here who do vote, who I wish would stay home!Way2Old4Dis - How did you get so smart? Your posts are the clearest explanation of what's going on that I've seen anywhere. Thank you.

I second this you have given the best explanation possible.

I am a life long Republican who changed before this last election and tried very hard to push for President Obama to get reelected. The GOP have really been doing some horrible things lately, some of the things that they say are totally ridiculous, and down right stupid. They are making the US the laughing stock of the world while ruining this country.

I will work even harder in 2014 to get as many of them out as possible and the rest in 2016. There are many of us on twitter that are determined to get representatives that are there for the people they work for. In any business if the House worked for you they would have been fired a long time ago for not doing there appointed job, this shutdown is totally illegal.

What I'd like to see is all the PORK that gets pushed into bills on BOTH sides become the casualty of not passing a budget.

So it's 30 days past budget time? Ok then, both sides are REQUIRED to pull out the pork. That bridge to fucking NO WHERE IN ALASKA yea, that's gone.

Subsidies to corporate farmers. Outta here.

Subsidies and tax breaks to US oil companies especially in light of record profits. Yup that's gone too.

See there is a lot more in the budgets that could be cut but the GOP's focus on trying to repeal Obamacare is just a game of smoke and mirrors so that the American public won't remember all the bullshit THEY put in their never ending bills and legislation.

So far these "fiscally conservative" Congress folks have spent $54 million trying to repeal the law. Hypocrisy reigns in Congress.

I think it's appalling that a CEO in an insurance company can make 14 million dollars a year and then turn around and tell someone with a pre existing condition that they can't be insured because it would not be fiscally responsible for the insurance company to do so.

Congress also just cut 40 billion out of funding for food stamps. If the shutdown is prolonged, single mothers with children under 5 won't have any way to feed their kids.

The "I got mine but fuck you" mentally is what reigns in the eyes of the 1%ers and the Congress members who support them. And it's obvious that they've also forgotten that the last time somebody rich told folks who didn't have food to go fuck themselves ended up with a guillotine wrapped around their necks.

Here is a link to Obamacare Explained as if you were a five year old. I think it helps to simplify what's really in the law.

This really isn't complicated. The Republicans couldn't defeat the ACA as a bill, and couldn't repeal it as a law. Constitutional methods didn't work, so they have resorted to this petty, extortionist shutdown.

And as long as they are willing to be led by the meanest, pettiest, dumbest bully (Cruz) among them, nothing will get done. Somebody in that lot has to step up to start the end of this unconscionable mess.

FactCheck.org is a self-proclaimed "nonpartisan" site that tries to hold politicians accountable. And by providing a wealth of research, it does a fine job.

Instead of espousing one side's beliefs, FactCheck.org tackles a politician's record or major issue and sets the record straight. It performs in-depth research to find out if both sides are being truthful in their statements on a subject and allows the reader to formulate their own opinions off the collected facts. It's a great source for those who want to cut through all the politics.

Project Vote Smart http://votesmart.org/"Picture this: thousands of citizens (conservative and liberal alike) working together, spending endless hours researching the backgrounds and records of thousands of political candidates and elected officials to discover their voting records, campaign contributions, public statements, biographical data (including their work history) and evaluations of them generated by over 100 competing special interest groups."

That's Project Vote Smart in a nutshell. The organization provides outstanding information on every current or prospective elected official and does what it can to inform the public about the respective person's entire history. Its research is exhaustive and its accuracy is never put into question. Project Vote Smart is one of the best nonpartisan sites on the Web.

Spot-On http://spot-on.com/Spot-On originally started in 2003 as a forum for Chris Nolan, the site's founder, to express her opinions on politics. Since then, the site has grown into a syndication platform where clients can acquire articles on the site and place them into their own publication.

Armed with more than 10 writers, Spot-On provides readers with viewpoints from both sides of the aisle and allows its writers to say whatever they think. The content is individually liberal or individually conservative, but taken together, the site's vision is nonpartisan.

My favorite part of the "a majority of Americans are against Obamacare" argument is that so many people tried to sign up on Tuesday, the first day, that the website crashed. Sounds really unpopular to me

Missa wrote:My favorite part of the "a majority of Americans are against Obamacare" argument is that so many people tried to sign up on Tuesday, the first day, that the website crashed. Sounds really unpopular to me

LornaDoone- You're right. Cutting Congressional or staff budgets wouldn't make a dent in our problems, but at least it might give those idiots a taste of what they're doing to the rest of us. They'll never cut the real pork out of the budget because the people who benefit from it are the ones who will give them jobs when they're out of office.

I was just wondering - they tried to impeach Clinton for (pardon my crassness) a blow job, but what these fools are doing is IMHO much worse. They're screwing the American economy, and by extension the world economy, out of pure self interest. Isn't there something in the Congressional rules that they could be charged with? Like treason, maybe? Just asking.

There are a few things wrong with UK but.....Our National Health Service is the Gold Plated Plusof living here.

Having just watched the film The Rainmaker it just proved to me once again what a wonderful service we get from it. Those in employment support it from taxes and healthcare is "free at the point of deliverance"

We have a choice of paying for private medical care in addition to paying the tax.

LizzyNY wrote:LornaDoone- You're right. Cutting Congressional or staff budgets wouldn't make a dent in our problems, but at least it might give those idiots a taste of what they're doing to the rest of us. They'll never cut the real pork out of the budget because the people who benefit from it are the ones who will give them jobs when they're out of office.

I was just wondering - they tried to impeach Clinton for (pardon my crassness) a blow job, but what these fools are doing is IMHO much worse. They're screwing the American economy, and by extension the world economy, out of pure self interest. Isn't there something in the Congressional rules that they could be charged with? Like treason, maybe? Just asking.

I really don't know but I sure wish there were. But if Congress had to vote for it there wouldn't be any votes!

The best thing we can do here is VOTE THOSE ASSHOLES OUT and put in some sane people!!

That being said, here's one for the Queen. Go Lizzie! -- No disrespect tho & not picking OZ theminis :-)

Australia had a government shutdown once. In the end, the queen fired everyone in Parliament.

The United States' self-imposed federal government shutdown has a way of making people around the world shake their heads in bewilderment. As Georgetown professor Erik Voeten wrote for The Washington Post's new Monkey Cage political science blog, "I cannot think of a single foreign analogy to what is happening in the U.S. today."

But there actually is one foreign precedent: Australia did this once. In 1975, the Australian government shut down because the legislature had failed to fund it, deadlocked by a budgetary squabble. It looked a lot like the U.S. shutdown of today, or the 17 previous U.S. shutdowns.

Australia's 1975 shutdown ended pretty differently, though, than they do here in America. Queen Elizabeth II's official representative in Australia, Governor General Sir John Kerr, simply dismissed the prime minister. He appointed a replacement, who immediately passed the spending bill to fund the government. Three hours later, Kerr dismissed the rest of Parliament. Then Australia held elections to restart from scratch. And they haven't had another shutdown since.

Here's how it happened. Australia, like the United States, has both a Senate and a House of Representatives. In 1975, the chambers were controlled by different parties. The House had passed an appropriations bill to fund the government, but the Senate refused to pass it because it believed that the government was spending too much money on unworthy programs during an economic downturn. The opposition party that controlled the Senate said it would not pass the spending bill unless the government met its somewhat outlandish demand. Does this all sound familiar so far? In the Australian case, though, the opposition's demand wasn't repeal of a health-care law -- they wanted early elections, which they believed would unseat the ruling party.

Prime Minister Gough Whitlam rejected the opposition's demands but couldn't bring the parties to a compromise, and the federal budget went unfunded. Then, on the morning of Nov. 11, Whitlam announced he would hold early elections not for the House but for half of the opposition-controlled Senate (typically, only one half of the Senate goes up for reelection at a time). Kerr, as the the official representative of the queen, who is technically still sovereign over Australia, summoned Whitlam to his office and fired him at 1:15 p.m.

Fifteen minutes later, Kerr appointed the leader of the opposition Liberal Party, Malcolm Fraser, as Whitlam's replacement. By 2 p.m., before most even realized what had happened, Fraser got his allies in the previously deadlocked Senate to push through the government spending bill. Then everything kind of fell into chaos. When the ruling Labor Party, in the House, learned about Whitlam's firing and Fraser's appointment, its members revolted with a no-confidence vote against Fraser. At 4:50 p.m., Kerr dissolved the rest of Parliament, essentially firing everyone, with a formal proclamation that ended with the words "God Save the Queen."

A month later, Australia held national elections to replace the now-dissolved government. The opposition, led by Fraser, swept to victory in both houses. Australia has not had another shutdown since.

This sort of thing, of course, could never happen in the United States. The fact that Australia could pull it off is a quirk of its history as a former British colony that, unlike the United States, never fully broke away.

Australia's governor general does not typically fire prime ministers, or do much of anything. It's a largely ceremonial position and a legacy, as the colonial title suggests, of a time when Australia was a far-flung possession of the British Empire. It's now an independent country but still a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, which means it recognizes the British monarchy as technically in charge. That monarch still has formal power over Australia's government but almost never actually uses it. The 1975 crisis was the exception.

The governor general technically acts solely on behalf of the monarch -- the office was established before telephones existed, after all. This means that, legally speaking, the 1975 Australian government funding crisis ended because Queen Elizabeth II dismissed everyone in the government. In practice, the governor general did in the actual firing.

You might find yourself wishing that the United States could follow Australia's example: Fire everyone in Congress, hold snap elections next month and restart from scratch. But we can't, because we haven't recognized the British monarchy or had a London-appointed governor -general in more than two centuries. Maybe, if we ask nicely, Britain will take us back?

This is why extremists who hate the government lose when they shut down the government

Being against “government” is generally a pretty easy gig. You just blame it for everything you don’t like.

The last week has become a spectacle of Republicans having to admit over and over again that government does good, necessary things that aren’t being funded because the House won’t even vote on the Senate’s continuing resolution. The GOP thinks that passing bills that fund slivers of government is cornering the White House in. But it’s actually just a reminder of why being anti-government means you get the blame when you shut down the government.

It’s also presents a perfect opportunity to defend what we actually do together as government, if you have the right spokesperson. Thankfully, Democrats do in Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Check out this speech she gave from the floor of the Senate on Friday:

You can do your best to make it look like government doesn’t work when you stop it from working. You can do your best to make government look paralyzed when you paralyze it. You can do your best to make government look incompetent through your incompetence, and ineffective through your ineffectiveness. But sooner or later the government will reopen. Because this is a democracy, and this democracy has already rejected your views. We have already chosen to do these things together. Because we all know that we are stronger when we come together.

When this government reopens, when our markets are safe again, when our scientists can return to their research, when our small businesses can borrow, when our veterans can be respected for their service, when our flu shots resume and our Head Start programs get back to teaching our kids, we will have rejected your views once again.

We are not a country of anarchists. We are not a country of pessimists and ideologues whose motto is ‘I’ve got mine, the rest of you are on your own.’ We are not a country that tolerates dangerous drugs, unsafe meat, dirty air or toxic mortgages. We are not that nation. We have never been that nation. And we will never be that nation.

Today a political minority in the House that condemns government and begged for the shutdown has had its day. But like all the reckless and extremist factions that have come before it, their day will pass and our democracy will return to the important work that we have already chosen to do together.

If you enjoyed that, you’ll love the speech she gave on Monday night when the GOP shut down the government because they wanted bosses to be able to decide if their female employees deserve birth control.

I might not agree with 100% of your points LornaDoone, but most of them. I have to say you a wealth of information, thanks so much. Elizabeth Warren is one smart lady and someone that is trustworthy. The damage that is being done is going to need many EWs to fix I'm afraid.

GiGi wrote:Another great article on freedomworks.org on o-care job graveyard. Its not a complete list but a good sample of results effecting so many people and their families.

Like I said, Koch Brothers funded think tanks to disinform the American people.

FreedomWorks originated from a Koch-funded conservative political group called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which in 2004 split into Americans for Prosperity, led by President Nancy Pfotenhauer, and a remainder group which merged with Empower America and was renamed FreedomWorks, led by President and CEO Matt Kibbe.[4] Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray served as co-chairmen of the new organization with Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow.[5][6][contradiction] Empower America had been founded in 1993 by Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[7] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the FreedomWorks board of directors.[8]

The ‘FreedomWorks’ name was derived from a common Armey saying: “Freedom works. Freedom is good policy and good politics.” [9]

On November 30, 2012, Armey resigned as chairman of FreedomWorks. Armey told Mother Jones, "The top management team of FreedomWorks was taking a direction I thought was unproductive, and I thought it was time to move on with my life." Armey stipulated that FreedomWorks was to immediately remove his name, image, or signature "from all its letters, print media, postings, web sites, videos, testimonials, endorsements, fund raising materials, and social media."[10] The Associated Press reported that in September 2012, Armey agreed to resign by November 2012 in exchange for $8 million in consulting fees paid in annual $400,000 installments, funded by board member Richard J. Stephenson.

Former House majority leader Dick Armey says he took an $8 million consulting deal in return for leaving the conservative organization FreedomWorks because the group was "dishonest" and because he "couldn't leave with empty pockets."

Sorry GiGi but any group associated with the Koch brothers and any information they disseminate is suspect in my eyes because their agenda is not Freedom for everyone. Their agenda is freedom for them and only them and fuck everyone else.

This is pretty much the consensus on twitter. When I say twitter I mean that you read the articles that they are posting about and not the tweet itself. They are just a starting point to getting the information. I have never read anything good about the "Koch brothers or their cohorts."

I hope you have a twitter account and are very verbal during the 2014 election. LD.

I know we've gotten somewhat off topic in this thread but yet this is all connected.

A concerted effort from people with billions to mis-inform the American people. What is scary to me is the people who take that mis-information as fact without checking for themselves.

Anyone can make a statement. But if you're going to be a citizen of this country then you should make sure the information you're getting is correct.

With the internet everyone now has access to info that was closely held and only disseminated to family or cronies. But you always have to go the extra step to check the info before you accept it as fact, and what too many people do is let someone else tell them something is the truth because they pander to their beliefs anyway. Always question.

I think this scene from Newsroom says a lot about how I feel about this country. Some of you may have seen this already, it's from the pilot and it's written by Aaron Sorkin so you know it has a liberal bent to it but what he says especially about newsmen (and the media) I agree with wholeheartedly.

I think both George and his father Nick would agree given both have such a background and history of watching the men to whom Aaron alludes in the speech Jeff gives.

Looks like Congress is set to vote on a deal. Temporary, but a deal nonetheless.

And it reinforces that the radical conservatives put millions of taxpaying, voting citizens and their family through this misery for nothing. The extortion didn't work. The ACA is intact. There are no concessions on spending levels. There was no way for the Tea Partiers to get what they wanted lawfully. They just didn't think anyone would call their bluff, and they didn't mind holding the country hostage during the grandstanding.

I hope the citizens of this country remember this come election time. Not just national elections. These people are dangerous everywhere from school boards to statehouses. Local and regional power is a springboard for their dangerous scorch-the-earth policies. They need to be stopped on every ballot they field a candidate.

I also urge you to contact your local PBS station and tell them to air the documentary about the Koch Brothers, Citizen Koch. It is not a smear job; it is the truth, and the truth apparently hurts. The Koch Brothers have threatened to pull their considerable funding from PBS stations if the doc airs, and PBS has obliged. Tell PBS you want to see it, and donate to them to help alleviate their dependency on Koch dollars. Go to MoveOn.org and sign the petition. It's information, not propaganda, and there's a reason the Koch brothers don't want it seen.