Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

fly.faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#231

Post by sagarm »

qcnguy wrote: post #219
paulryanrogers wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown. Republicans have proven they won't follow the same rules and aren't negotiating in good faith. They'll do whatever they can get away with, and if bad things happen (whether they are opposed or not) then it's anyone else's fault.

They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.

Then let Republicans remove the filibuster. They can do it with a simple majority.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#232

Post by ethbr1 »

pfooti wrote: post #71
ipython wrote: post #30

My concern is that we will end up in a state of perpetual government "shutdown". The republicans, instead of reopening the entire government, will simply choose agencies to fund in order to keep the pain felt by the American people just low enough so they don't get fired (ala office space). Once that happens, Congress has basically iced itself out. Oversight from unfriendly government agencies? No worries, they're sh…

Yeah, I think the actual underpinning support that broke this time is recission. In the past, of congress passed a budget with money for the some department or line item, that money would be spent. Now the president has claimed that he doesn't have to spend money he had been directed to spend by finding bills, and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance. This means that there is no longer the ability t…

> and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance

Caveat: on a preliminary basis in most of the decisions

Important to differentiate SCOTUS saying "there isn't a compelling reason to block this power before we decide" and "here's our decision about the legality of this power"

Rough summary of current state: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-courts-hampered-...

I'm half-curious if Roberts is playing for time to avoid a constitutional crisis, figuring it's better to cede a temporary power (and avoid the executive stuffing the bench or whatever insane shit they'd try) than to cast it in case law. Not great for the rule of law, but I can see the realpolitik (which Marbury v. Madison shows has always been a consideration for inter-branch squabbles)

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#233

Post by paulryanrogers »

mlrtime wrote: post #221
qcnguy wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.

No replies but you're right. All top comments are blaming Republicans, but the the Republican part has passed. If the Democrats sign the budget it passes. Depending on which "side" (I hate that term) you view this from, the other side is holding it up.

Which side is also withholding emergency funds meant for SNAP?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#234

Post by locopati »

ethbr1 wrote: post #232
pfooti wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think the actual underpinning support that broke this time is recission. In the past, of congress passed a budget with money for the some department or line item, that money would be spent. Now the president has claimed that he doesn't have to spend money he had been directed to spend by finding bills, and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance. This means that there is no longer the ability t…

> and (importantly) the supreme court has upheld this stance Caveat: on a preliminary basis in most of the decisions Important to differentiate SCOTUS saying "there isn't a compelling reason to block this power before we decide" and "here's our decision about the legality of this power" Rough summary of current state: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-courts-hampered-... I'm half-curious if Roberts is playi…

The Roberts courts is in on this. They know Trump won't last forever and when he's gone, they get Vance to carry on with their Dominionist project. People need to stop thinking that the branches are playing realpolitik games... the various Republicans are either all in on Christofascism or they're fooling themselves that they're not, or they're too spineless to fight back.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#235

Post by thephyber »

ssl-3 wrote: post #185
thephyber wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect this shutdown will last a while, but I don’t think Republicans will have enough votes to open anything without Democrat buy-in. R needs 20% of the Ds to vote for R bills to get anything budget-changing passed (except the 1 Reconciliation per year that only requires a simple majority). Short of Dems feeling some insane pressure (eg. Military threats or somehow defunding of core government tasks like police,…

I've mentioned it elsewhere, but: Republicans have enough votes to get moving on whatever they choose (including stopgap measures) regardless of what a minority of democrats may think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option > The nuclear option can be invoked by a senator raising a point of order that contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then overrule the point of order based on Senate rules…

It looks like they are already talking about it again in the news.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#236

Post by BergAndCo »

alephnerd wrote: post #85
Pxtl wrote: post #83

Do Americans know that other countries don't have this wierd "government shuts down if we don't pass a budget" thing?

The ground stop was due to an aircraft emergency [0] and lifted within 21 minutes of being announced [1]. There are plenty of reasons to call out the shutdown, but using disinfo is the wrong method. [0] - https://pix11.com/news/local-news/ground-stops-at-jfk-due-to... [1] - https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_list?whichAdvisories=ATCSCC&...

As always, I had to scroll to the bottom of the comments for HN to be any semblance of useful.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#237

Post by thephyber »

thetron wrote: post #49
zermelo wrote: post #40

To most of the commentators saying "why work when you're not getting paid", please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't federal employees not paid during a government shutdown getting retroactive pay once funding has been restored?

You can't buy food with an IOU from your employer.

In practice, most people in the US use credit (which means spending can go unpaid for about 25 days without any costs incurred) and most people bank with a national bank (so they are screwed if all federal employees stop paying back loans at the same time).

That said, food banks are gonna see lots more foot traffic and federal employees might start looking for other work.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#238

Post by b3ing »

mlrtime wrote: post #221
qcnguy wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.

No replies but you're right. All top comments are blaming Republicans, but the the Republican part has passed. If the Democrats sign the budget it passes. Depending on which "side" (I hate that term) you view this from, the other side is holding it up.

At the big cost of insurance premiums going up substantially

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#239

Post by locopati »

qcnguy wrote: post #219
paulryanrogers wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown. Republicans have proven they won't follow the same rules and aren't negotiating in good faith. They'll do whatever they can get away with, and if bad things happen (whether they are opposed or not) then it's anyone else's fault.

They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.

That's not the way governance works. Did you feel that way when the Democrats held all three branches and still the Republicans did everything in their power to break government? Trump won the presidency by a slim margin... the Senate Republicans represent fewer people than the Democrats do. The government is designed to work together, unless one party decides to stop playing by any rules apparently.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#240

Post by danaris »

donmcronald wrote: post #86
ares623 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speed running to become an actual developing nation. This is what millions of migrants are trying to escape from. Ironic, for all parties involved (well, except for the ones on top of course)

> Speed running to become an actual developing nation. That's what it looks like from the outside, but I can't understand what the gain is. Who benefits? The result of the middle class was massive advancement and an equally massive increase in standard of living for the wealthy who captured most of the gains. What do they gain from stagnating innovation and a lack of education, services, etc.? It makes me think of th…

> Who benefits?

In addition to what the other replies are saying (I think they're all at least partly right), Trump benefits. Right now.

He's getting to be the King he always believed was his right and due.

Post reply on HN