US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages • Hacker News Board

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#591

Post by busterarm » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:13 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #584

hannasanarion wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he didn't, he called Paul Ryan and said "if you don't give me XYZ demands that Mitch McConnel wouldn't let me have I'll veto the bill and shut down the government" and then Ryan flopped around like a fish and then the shutdown started. It was still Trump's veto that started the whole thing, the fact that it was threatened instead of exercised makes no difference.

That's a complete fabrication. Paul Ryan and the House passed a budget bill that included wall funding. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/20/678602214/senate-approves-tem... The Senate failed to pass a compatible budget bill because Democrats refused to include any funding for a wall. > Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, of New York, pledged to continue the discussions, but said it was clear there are not enough vote…

Thank you for trying. We're in the post-facts era of journalism and most people just recite what supports their worldview.

I don't even support Trump, but I can't simply state facts anymore because they don't support the mainstream narrative. The emperor has no clothes.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#592

Post by hannasanarion » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #585

hannasanarion wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the point in the process where we are stuck now, but not where the sticking began a month ago. Trump had a perfectly good budget on his desk, written by his allies and passed by Republicans, and it even had wall funding in it, and he vetoed it because it wasn't enough. Then the government shut down. Then the Democrats took control.

You posted a similar fiction more than once so I'll post the same correction in both places. The House passed a budget bill that included wall funding. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/20/678602214/senate-approves-tem... It never reached the President's desk because the Senate failed to pass a compatible budget bill when Democrats refused to include any funding for a wall. > Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, of New…

The house only passed that bill because Trump called Paul Ryan personally and said he would veto the bipartisan budget that was on the table and passed by the Senate. This is no fiction, it is Trump's shutdown

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#593

Post by torstenvl » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #584

hannasanarion wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he didn't, he called Paul Ryan and said "if you don't give me XYZ demands that Mitch McConnel wouldn't let me have I'll veto the bill and shut down the government" and then Ryan flopped around like a fish and then the shutdown started. It was still Trump's veto that started the whole thing, the fact that it was threatened instead of exercised makes no difference.

That's a complete fabrication. Paul Ryan and the House passed a budget bill that included wall funding. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/20/678602214/senate-approves-tem... The Senate failed to pass a compatible budget bill because Democrats refused to include any funding for a wall. > Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, of New York, pledged to continue the discussions, but said it was clear there are not enough vote…

I think you're mostly right, so please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you might be overstating your case to say that GP's take is a complete fabrication. There were veto threats involved that led directly to the shutdown, specifically pertaining to a stop-gap that would have run till February 8th.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/26/trump-says-he-will-wait-to-g...

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#594

Post by ConceptJunkie » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #515

czbond wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that it isn't understood that people make different lifestyle and economic decisions and we all pay for our decisions somehow no matter what they are; The sensationalism, victimization blaming, and "woe is me" that a small minority and media raise. No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. It is a "take the lump, become stronger, make a plan for now and later, a…

> No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the USA is a signatory, they do. Namely: Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State,…

I think you read this too quickly. It doesn't say anything about being entitled to a job. It says people have the right to work.

It's not saying the government owes you a job, but that the government can't stop you from working. There is protection against unemployment, but that does not imply the protection must be absolute because, of course, that's impossible.

It's a big difference.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#595

Post by leereeves » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

hannasanarion wrote: post #592

leereeves wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You posted a similar fiction more than once so I'll post the same correction in both places. The House passed a budget bill that included wall funding. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/20/678602214/senate-approves-tem... It never reached the President's desk because the Senate failed to pass a compatible budget bill when Democrats refused to include any funding for a wall. > Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, of New…

The house only passed that bill because Trump called Paul Ryan personally and said he would veto the bipartisan budget that was on the table and passed by the Senate. This is no fiction, it is Trump's shutdown

Everyone knows Trump's refusing to sign a budget without wall funding, that's no secret.

The part you left out is that the Democrats blocked a bill with wall funding, even before they took over the House. Trump never "had a perfectly good budget on his desk, written by his allies and passed by Republicans".

Both parties put this issue ahead of the continued operation of the government and both are responsible for the shutdown.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#596

Post by nybble41 » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

TelmoMenezes wrote: post #515

czbond wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that it isn't understood that people make different lifestyle and economic decisions and we all pay for our decisions somehow no matter what they are; The sensationalism, victimization blaming, and "woe is me" that a small minority and media raise. No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. It is a "take the lump, become stronger, make a plan for now and later, a…

> No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of which the USA is a signatory, they do. Namely: Article 22. Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State,…

That might be relevant if the things enumerated in the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights were actually rights. Or universal. Or at least not riddled with internal contradictions and subjective qualifiers...

Article 22

> in accordance with the organization and resources of each State

So basically each State decides how serious it is about this. Apparently the organization of this State permits shutdowns and furloughs, which is enough to satisfy Article 22.

> of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality

Subjective to the point of meaninglessness, but there is plentiful evidence to support the notion that one's dignity and personal development can survive in the absence of a government job. Or any job, for that matter.

Article 23

> Everyone has the right to work

No one is being told they aren't allowed to work. The right to work does not guarantee gainful employment in your preferred field or with any specific employer.

> to free choice of employment

Neither is anyone being told they must perform any particular job; everyone is free to choose from among the positions available in the open job market. At this time that simply doesn't happen to include any government jobs, at least not if you want to get paid. There are plenty of private positions available, though.

> to just and favourable conditions of work

Subjective. Unless you're being coerced, your choice to remain is sufficient evidence for me that you consider the conditions "just and favorable" compared to your next-best alternative, which is all that anyone can reasonably expect.

> and to protection against unemployment.

Here's the first part that might actually be considered a statement of entitlement to income and/or having others pay your expenses. It would be unreasonable to expect this protection to last forever, though. It comes with the expectation that one is actively seeking new employment. "Protection against unemployment" is not UBI.

> (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

Non-discrimination does not guarantee income, a job, or paid expenses, so long as these are doled out (or not) equitably, so this part not applicable.

> (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration

There's that subjective "just and favorable" language again. No one reasonable is going to guarantee a livable income for yourself and your family merely on the basis of effort without regard for whether the work is actually productive. If you and your employer come to a voluntary agreement on the terms of your employment, that proves the resulting terms "just and favorable" enough to suit you—and no one else's opinion matters.

> and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

The conditions to make this "necessary" are not defined, so we can just say it's never necessary and ignore this clause altogether. There is always another option.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#597

Post by leereeves » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:39 PM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #593

leereeves wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a complete fabrication. Paul Ryan and the House passed a budget bill that included wall funding. https://www.npr.org/2018/12/20/678602214/senate-approves-tem... The Senate failed to pass a compatible budget bill because Democrats refused to include any funding for a wall. > Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, of New York, pledged to continue the discussions, but said it was clear there are not enough vote…

I think you're mostly right, so please don't take this the wrong way, but I think you might be overstating your case to say that GP's take is a complete fabrication. There were veto threats involved that led directly to the shutdown, specifically pertaining to a stop-gap that would have run till February 8th. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/26/trump-says-he-will-wait-to-g...

Thank you, you're right, that's important to include.

But that's the only detail of the story told above that's true.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#598

Post by ConceptJunkie » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:49 PM UTC

HarryHirsch wrote: post #534

ConceptJunkie wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're drawing the wrong conclusions. Christianity teaches the duties of people towards others, including people are slaves. It doesn't talk about rights, because it's smart enough to understand you can't have a right to a finite resource. Christianity always only talks about what you need to give, and never says anything about what you need to get, including anything you get from God, which is always undeserved and…

You could say that every human being is entitled to dignity because we are all descended from Adam, who was created in the image of God. Whoever acts as if that weren't the case is a serious blasphemer. Somewhere the Jewish Sages made that argument because someone considered the weakness in the Golden Rule: what if someone treats everyone with meanness and expects the same in return? It would make an awful society.

Sure, but any material effects of being entitled to dignity require a positive action from others.

We are still talking about the responsibilities of people to treat others in this way. I think it's much more important in some circumstances to think less of rights and to think more of responsibilities.

It would be equivalent to say you have the right to be treated with dignity by other human beings, but again this is saying other human beings have a responsibility to treat you with dignity. If other human beings didn't exist, then you couldn't be treated with dignity by them, hence it's a responsibility of them, and not something inherent to your own being.

The "inalienable rights" to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, don't require other people to do anything for you to retain those rights. It only prohibits them from doing certain things to you. It's a restriction on them, rather than a responsibility, and therefore, your right isn't contingent on them existing in the first place.

I don't think you and I are in disagreement.

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#599

Post by ConceptJunkie » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 10:59 PM UTC

mike10010100 wrote: post #510

czbond wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is that it isn't understood that people make different lifestyle and economic decisions and we all pay for our decisions somehow no matter what they are; The sensationalism, victimization blaming, and "woe is me" that a small minority and media raise. No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. It is a "take the lump, become stronger, make a plan for now and later, a…

> No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. So no life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for these folks? Got it.

You can't be "entitled" to a finite resource. It's a logical contradiction. Any rights you might have can only restrict others in preventing you from trying to obtain those things.

You don't have a right to a job, but I also don't have a right to try to prevent you from getting a job.

This is obvious in the phrase "pursuit of happiness". There's no right to happiness. You can't be restricted from pursuing happiness, but there can be no guarantee you'll get it.

Similarly, you can't be restricted from trying to get a job, but there can be no guarantee you'll get it.

So, no, no one is _entitled_ to income, a job or having others pay for their expenses. If there are no jobs, or no income, or no others to pay, how can you be entitled? That's the logical contradiction.

A right isn't something that forces someone else to do something. That's the definition of slavery. If you have the right to receive something from someone, then that someone is, at least in part, your slave.

But if you have the right to pursue your own ends, no one has a right to try to stop you. These rights are restrictions on what people can do to you, not things they are forced to do for you.

They can't just walk up and kill you for no reason. They can't just lock you up, or enslave you, for no reason. They can't stop you from doing what you want to do, for no reason.

And again, the only reason is if you, in turn, are infringing on the rights of others, and even then only in way that is governed by the rule of law.

See how that works?

Re: US shutdown: Flight delays caused by staff shortages

#600

Post by ConceptJunkie » Fri, Jan 25, 2019, 11:00 PM UTC

czbond wrote: post #531

mike10010100 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one is entitled to income, a job, or having others pay for their expenses. So no life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for these folks? Got it.

I used the word "entitle" - which I'm not discussing rights. Nor really, broadly applying to any group. I simply mean we're all on our own, responsible for ourselves, nothing is due anyone (not applying to federal workgroups) - but we have the capabilities and rights to pursue our personal best interest (within the law/morality)

This understanding is perfectly correct. Entitlements are not, and cannot be, rights.