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

241–250 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#241

Post by danaris »

svnt wrote: post #153
Figs wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this continues for much longer, local/state governments can, should, and eventually will commandeer the taxes that currently go to the federal government. There is no point in paying federal tax if the federal government is no longer functional. States are already trying to step up with emergency declarations to enable financial support to work around SNAP being unfunded; passing state laws to redirect useless fed…

And this will work much better in most blue states than most red states, which are more dependent on federal funds. Which means the likely response is the federal government will begin funding what were formerly federal programs in select states.

I'm sorry, can you clarify that last part?

The federal government will begin funding what were formerly federal programs...?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#242

Post by danaris »

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.

Sure, it is a negotiation, and the shutdown is because neither side will agree to certain things the other side wants to do.

The Democrats won't agree to making the awful omnibus bill cuts permanent and essentially defunding the ACA, because they want to govern and actually help all our people.

The Republicans won't agree to providing and caring for Americans through programs that are already fully approved, because they want to destroy those programs without actually having the votes to repeal them, because they want to destroy the government and harm anyone who doesn't fit their particular view of what a "real American" is.

So while your words are technically true, they serve to obscure a very real difference in why each side is refusing to end the shutdown.

I don't know about you, but I think the side that actually wants to govern the country, uphold the rule of law, and help people in need, is really not the one that we should be blaming for refusing to compromise on their principles (however late they may have come to them).

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#243

Post by danaris »

UzPPw337CtTbKQd wrote: post #205
jaredklewis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation. Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It’s not remarkable. Now cite even a single case where shareholders sued and won. In reality, the “obligation” you are referencing has basically only ever been relevant in situations where the board or management is taking bribes. I’m not aware of any cases where shareholders won because the compan…

The Dodge v. Ford case is known for just that.

But there's also precedent in the other direction:

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. - https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

> While it is certainly true that a central objective of for-profit corporations is to make money, modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives. Many examples come readily to mind. So long as its owners agree, a for-profit corporation may take costly pollution-control and energy-conservation measures that go beyond what the law requires. A for-profit corporation that operates facilities in other countries may exceed the requirements of local law regarding working conditions and benefits.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#245

Post by paulryanrogers »

billy99k wrote: post #244
paulryanrogers wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They control all three branches of government. How is it anyone else's fault?

[flagged]

Republicans could revert the cuts to Medicaid or end the filibuster. They hold all the cards.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#247

Post by Pxtl »

BergAndCo wrote: post #236
alephnerd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm still confused why he replied this to me though instead of making it a top level post.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#248

Post by pfooti »

locopati wrote: post #234
ethbr1 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yeah, I think too many people (especially dem leadership, but also a lot of centrist Republican voters) are waiting for things to "go back to normal."

There's a kind of mental trap (Frances Fukuyama and the end of history) where you consider the modern liberal capitalist democracy an attractor state of such strength that anything like the current admin is a temporary aberration,that we can wait it out.

And just like the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent, I think the populist demagogue class can retain power longer than the liberal institutions can endure. I certainly hope I'm incorrect about this.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#249

Post by qcnguy »

sagarm wrote: post #231
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.

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

Yes they seem to be discussing it now. It's odd that this mechanism lasted so long.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#250

Post by qcnguy »

locopati wrote: post #239
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.

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.

What did they do in their power to break the government? They voted to reauthorize spending during Biden's presidency many times, did they not?
Post reply on HN