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

261–270 of 299 posts

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#261

Post by jrs235 »

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…

The Republicans don't want to get rid of the filibuster because they're scared of setting the precedent, they're scared because if they continue to pass bills with zero Democrat votes then they have to own full responsibility for what happens. Recession/depression is quickly approaching...

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#262

Post by mindslight »

qcnguy wrote: post #251
danaris wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Democrats might "want to govern" but they lost the election, so what they want shouldn't matter.

The United States is not an autocracy where one party wins and then gets to dictate everything. The Democrats are indeed still trying to govern, as in have the Constitutional US Government continue functioning. The Republicans are trying to destroy that system, to usher in whatever system Corporate America (ie Big Tech) wants instead. Think your rights were neutered by Xitter trying to cut down on disinformation? Try when that same account ban system is linked into your ability to post anywhere, or your ability to travel. And no, having supported it doesn't mean you will automatically get a pass to be treated well.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#263

Post by myvoiceismypass »

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]

If republicans wanted to negotiate, why did Mike Johnson send everyone home?

Why has a newly elected democrat been waiting over a fucking month to get sworn into the house?

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#264

Post by jrs235 »

atmavatar wrote: post #139
billy99k wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yes. As the majority, the Republicans in the Senate can unilaterally eliminate the filibuster rule, then pass anything they like. They don't need Democrats' votes at all. Republicans have already done this in the past when they wanted to ram through a bunch of judicial appointments and again when they wanted to get several Supreme Court justices through without any Democrat support. The only thing stopping them is th…

Republicans also don't want to be fully responsible for what happens.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#265

Post by svnt »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #200
svnt wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We passed clean government funding that cost 20 million people their health care coverage.” You are falling for semantics games.

It’s the CR that Dems passed last year. Stop. You aren’t even falling for it. They’re using shutdown as leverage to try and get something they couldn’t get when they had all three houses. You can agree or disagree that is a good idea or that it will work, but can’t pretend it isn’t what it is.

By equating it with last year you are pretending there is no context or history for negotiation and that budget resolutions are just housekeeping, which is exactly the republican talking point and is trivially shown to be untrue.

If you point your analysis at yourself you can see how you pivot perspectives in synchrony with the abusive behaviors as it supports your political alignment.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#266

Post by svnt »

danaris wrote: post #241
svnt wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...?

I am saying one likely outcome is a federal government that explicitly and openly funds social programs that were formerly available to everyone only in states where it has a political majority.

They will begin because they have presently stopped, and because it places additional taxation burden on blue states if they first allow the states to try to pick up their own slack, because generally only the blue states (Texas being the major possible exception) will be able to do so.

This results in the federal government taking care of their base and their opposition subsidizing this support for their base.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#267

Post by alephnerd »

Pxtl wrote: post #247
BergAndCo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your post was the top-level post initially.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#268

Post by pfooti »

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…

I presume that the court knows what it is doing, which is playing a partisan game. Last administration it invented a whole new legal doctrine (major questions) to fabricate a way to block the biden agenda, this administration it is doing its best to give the trump administration a huge amount of power _without_ ceding that power indefinitely to the next administration via precedent.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#269

Post by whatever1 »

moelf wrote: post #108
whatever1 wrote: post #92

Why can't the airlines pay the air traffic controllers? They pay anyway for airport fees, it should be a minimal difference in the ticket cost.

IIUC they legally can't do that. ATC are federal employees, you can't just have private companies pay off federal workers. (Well, I know Trump's friend is literally doing that for the military so idk, maybe laws are just words these days)

Companies can give gifts to individuals, as long as they report them and pay tax on them.

Re: Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

#270

Post by danaris »

svnt wrote: post #266
danaris wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, can you clarify that last part? The federal government will begin funding what were formerly federal programs...?

I am saying one likely outcome is a federal government that explicitly and openly funds social programs that were formerly available to everyone only in states where it has a political majority. They will begin because they have presently stopped, and because it places additional taxation burden on blue states if they first allow the states to try to pick up their own slack, because generally only the blue states (Te…

Gotcha, thank you; that's much clearer!
Post reply on HN