Get Kennedy Steve back in there!
replies(2):
i.e. a plane for one route might go between various different cities in 24 hours, with different crew each time of course before it gets back to the first route.
They are considered essential. That means they have to work, but not be paid.
https://time.com/7329683/government-shutdown-flight-delays-c...
Until UBI is a thing, they (necessarily) need to be very cognizant of where they spend their time in relation to where they make their money.
Republicans should propose a reasonable solution that will get the votes to pass, otherwise, this will continue.
>Before 1917, the U.S. had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed the Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave the Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued.[25] The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.[26][27]
>In 1953, the U.S. Treasury risked reaching the debt ceiling of $275 billion. Though President Eisenhower requested that Congress increase it on July 30, 1953, the Senate refused to act on it. As a result, the president asked federal agencies to reduce how much they spent, plus the Treasury Department used its cash balances with banks to stay under the debt ceiling. And, starting in November 1953, Treasury monetized close to $1 billion of gold left over in its vaults, which helped keep it from exceeding the $275 billion limit. During spring and summer 1954, the Senate and the executive branch negotiated on a debt ceiling increase, and a $6 billion one was passed on August 28, 1954.[28]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling#Leg...
But I don't think I was wrong. Work is fundamentally a business transaction; I sell my time and expertise and they give me money and benefits. Ultimately for any job I've had, even jobs that I really loved, if they stopped paying me I'd stop showing up [1]. It's nothing personal, that's just the transaction that I agreed to.
If I had some bloviating wannabe-demagogue telling me that I should keep working and to not expect backpay, I am quite confident that I would quit, or at least keep calling in sick. I am not going to blame anyone who would do the same. I have no fucking idea why half the country voted for this.
[1] This has actually been tested for one job.
Once that happens, Congress has basically iced itself out. Oversight from unfriendly government agencies? No worries, they're shut down because they're unpaid. And clearly this demonstrates the executive needs more power, since Congress is completely frozen. Finally, the Supreme Court is no longer an issue either, since that's not funded either.
Someone tell me why this couldn't happen.
We never really fully recovered from that. We took away the power of employees in a high stress job to voice their concerns and needs which, as a result, made the job extra hard to hire for.
I think thats due to the 27th Amendment [1]
> No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
can't change (or stop) congressional pay until an election. guess it's a double-edged sword they can't give themselves in immediate pay raise, which I think was the point of ratification in 1992, but also can't cut their pay for failing to pass a budget.
[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-27/
Shutdowns happen when Congress hasn't appropriated new money by passing a budget. The shutdown failure mode is "there isn't enough money to pay for existing programs."
If you don't like it, working at a BigCo could be quite soul-draining.
"Funding gaps have led to shutdowns since 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring it. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown. As of October 2025, 11 funding gaps have led to federal employees being furloughed."
https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_otherdis?adv_date=10302025&a...
>MCO GROUND DELAY PROGRAM WAS ISSUED AND USERS CAN EXPECT A PERIOD OF TIME LATER IN THE EVENINGWHEN NO ARRIVALS WILL BE ABLE TO LAND AS THERE WILL BE NO CERTIFIED AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS AVAILABLE AT MCO.
It's like telling your girlfriend you're dating her because she's really hot. I'm sure that factored in, but she might get annoyed if that's the only reason you can come up with.
This has been a known problem for a very long time and Congress has continuously refused to do anything about it.
Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.
So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.
Therefore, it will never happen.
So yes: I'd like to suggest that organ transplants may be in fact be luxuries.
(If the question were instead worded as "Should organ transplants be considered luxuries?" then my answer would be written very differently.)
And as others are saying, plenty of people can't afford to work for no pay indefinitely.
In any case, many Americans have no appreciable savings. Getting paid someday when Congress gets its head out of its ass doesn’t feed your kids today.
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.
I happen to agree on the object level issue of maintaining the Medicaid funding. Thanks for talking down to me, though.
-------------------
ATCSCC ADVZY 027 JFK/ZNY 10/31/2025 CDM GROUND DELAY PROGRAM CNX MESSAGE:
CTL ELEMENT: JFK ELEMENT TYPE: APT ADL TIME: 0252Z GDP CNX PERIOD: 31/0252Z - 31/1517Z DISREGARD EDCTS FOR DEST JFK COMMENTS: EFFECTIVE TIME:
310256-311617 SIGNATURE:
25/10/31 02:56
This means that there is no longer the ability to negotiate a budget in good faith. The Dems can fight for more health care funding (or whatever) and the compromise can happen, and then the president can just say "sike!" And not do it.
And, political leanings aside, this president has shown that he will indeed break any agreement he decides to, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to negotiate. So I'm thinking this shutdown lasts a Long time.
BigCo
To Investors : We are in it for money. We will earn you money. It is money we dream, covet and will go to any lengths for. Ethics, Integrity, Truth, all those don't matter in the long term.
To Society : We do CSR, we are a good for society, we are ethical, we have integrity, we value society, we care much more than just money.
To Employees : We are family, if one of us is hurt everyone is hurt, we believe in work-life balance, we believe in fairness, equality, openness, transparency.
BigCo is a liar and a hypocrite.
[0] - https://pix11.com/news/local-news/ground-stops-at-jfk-due-to...
Beware the ides of march.
During a constitutional crisis that doesn't seem to have an immediate resolution political violence should be expected from the inside as an attempt to reach a resolution. The last line of defense is that military leadership actually do have a pretty solid loyalty to the constitution and soldiers are pretty well trained to follow the chain of command.
nobody can gain loyalty anywhere near trump nor does anyone have close to the unhinged charisma
but the government is shut down there should be no expectation that there will be any agreement to half fund it and absent that there's not really any foreseeable mechanism for the treasury to start operating on a large scale entirely outside of the law
so i guess the other last line of defense is the bond market and foreign exchange markets which wouldn't respond well to dictatorial control of the treasury and the fed
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
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&...
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 the old Olympic and sports videos. The participants basically suck because they're coming from a small pool of people wealthy enough to not need a job. Do they really want the pool of candidates competing to become doctors, etc. to be smaller which will end up lowering the overall quality for them?
Or do they think they'll simply hire the best and brightest from other countries that are investing in their citizens?
Time to put the finishing touches on the costumes and carve the last pumpkins.
https://rollingout.com/2025/10/30/jfk-airport-frontier-fligh...
The democrats won't do that because that would lose them the only leverage they have in a government where republicans hold majorities in all three branches.
We've had rivers catch fire because poisoning the water is profitable.
We all exist in a society. However, the people most likely to own businesses and be successful at it seem to have no moral qualms about harming society so long as it personally enriches themselves.
... But they're hurting for recruits in a big way so even at their size their negotiating position isn't as strong as they might want.
Actually good attitude often == not honest.
Our military is over extended, science has been flipped over and defunded, and that alone will settle it.
Now add unreasonable volatility from tariffs, and wait, give it time, wait some more until it’s impossible to unwind, then if we’re not in a major war, economy crashes, chaos ensues.
The out of power party gets a little veto power here. The republicans know the day will come they want that, so they won’t change the rules even though they have the power to do so (theoretically… there are republicans that will never compromise on this). Unfortunately they can’t get on the same page with their lame duck leader
That's it, that's the only goal.
But we are in a de facto junta if the military refuses to take orders from a president, at least for the duration of the presidency. It’s pretty hard to run a free and fair election under those conditions (we dealt with that in The South in the early Reconstruction years).
Republicans have 50% of votes in both the House and Senate, but they can’t convince even 20% of the most moderate Democrats in red states (to get the last 10% needed to pass a budget bill). Why is that?
A solution might be somewhere in the middle. LLMs aren’t going anywhere, and they will only become more invisible.
Passed by Congress in January 2019 and signed by Trump. " Employees furloughed as a result of a lapse in appropriations shall be compensated for the period of the lapse on the earliest date possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates. "
The executive branch is applying various tricks to keep some absolutely critical departments going but they can't just fund anything they like. At least, not according to the Constitution, which is very explicit that you can't spend money without Congressional approval. But we'll see how much of a difference that makes.
I'm happy these posts aren't getting flagged any longer, though. For the centrality of the United States in the tech industry (and vice versa), US politics are unfortunately also the most relevant story in the tech industry for any time horizon of a month or longer. Even Trump's "Long Live the King" announcement from near the start of his term was not taken seriously. It was quickly flagged here.
It sucks, but Trump is just the biggest tech story of the day every day, by virtue of being the latent factor.
There is no reason that can't happen. But consider also what it will mean if the government does re-open. I think it's much more likely than not that it reopens under Republican terms.
It sounds dramatic but it is worth describing plainly: This administration is destructive, and it has already been the end of many things as we know it.
There's enough republicans in the House of Representatives for a vote amongst party lines to pass a budget there. That's not a problem for them
There's also enough republicans in the Senate to make it happen with a simple majority, which they posess. They surely know this.
Republicans can end the debate and vote on a bill -- including one that can temporarily get things moving -- any time they want to. They've got the numbers to do that.
It's not a theory. There's precedent. They've made that shift previously[1] in the not-so-distant past.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ground-delays-issued-sh...
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 that the Republican party wants this shutdown to happen. It gives them another example to point to when they want to claim that government never works, license to harm government workers they don't like, an easy way to have government workers leave on their own, an excuse to fire government workers they want to get rid of, and another thing to blame on Democrats (because their base doesn't know any better).
This time, negotiations seem to have entirely stalled.
Again, to be clear, I said all this at the time.
I don't think the hot girlfriend analogy applies in this case; if I had a hot girlfriend and she stops being hot, if I liked her I probably wouldn't up and leave her. If a company stops paying, I will absolutely leave.
For now, it remains a luxurious and unattainable concept to me.
We’re staring down the barrel of two missed paychecks though. If you're living paycheck to paycheck you’re getting desperate. If you’re living with about 1 month of emergency buffer… that buffer is one paycheck away from gone. It’s a cash flow issue
So this means the Supreme Court has unilaterally implemented the line item veto ? So much for "balls and strikes" eh.
I have worked and done well at BigCos where they were a little less intellectually dishonest, so I don't actually think it's intrinsic to big companies.
Essential employees were already guaranteed backpay, but in 2019, on day 26 of the 35-day shutdown during his first term, Trump signed GEFTA into law, guaranteeing that furloughed employees also got backpay.
But earlier this month, the White House issued a memo contradicting that, saying furloughed workers aren't entitled to backpay, and the OMB edited articles to delete references to the GEFTA.
Even though the GEFTA is law, we're seeing the Trump administration break laws all the time with no accountability, and so a broke federal employee would reasonably not anticipate a realistic, timely, and achievable legal recourse for a GEFTA violation while they're just trying to feed their family.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2025/10/state-lawmaker...
(it's a really interesting situation since I think I read somewhere that the reason federal income taxes are directly remitted to the federal government today, is specifically to disallow this kind of state retaliation)
When Democrats had the Admin, Senate, and House, they put the ACA provisions on sunsetting subsidies in. How dastardly are the Republicans that they forced Democrats to do that when it was done with almost zero Republican votes?
Your post is just game. “My side is good and their side is evil”… don’t you get tired of that?
He thought I was being extremely cynical (and I suppose I kind of was) and he disagreed with me.
About a year later, he felt screwed over by the company, and admitted that maybe I was right. I mentioned it is just a conclusion that nearly anyone comes to when working for the corporate world long enough.
"Use it as a tool" is always the line from LLM advocates. Okay. If you used a search engine as a tool to find some source, you don't need to say "I used google to find this," you just present the link as your contribution. You found the source. If it is a bad source, you can't get away blaming the search engine. You fucked up the source.
Same with LLMs. If you actually use it as a tool and not an outsourcing of your own role, then you shouldn't need to disclose. But using it as a tool means more than just typing "summarize this for hackernews" and mindlessly copy pasting. If they summarized, validated, and was confident enough in the summary that they felt they didn't need the "I asked an LLM" disclaimer, then that's a contribution. Maybe it is still wrong. As you say, there is a lot of that on the internet.
So yes, we should be shaming those who admit using it to outsource their role. People who want to make contributions when they are completely unqualified to distinguish between a good and bad contribution will learn to hide their use. Good. People who are both attention addicts needing to always make a contribution and who are now cognitive addicts should live their lives in fear over knowing if what they are saying under their own name will get them ridiculed.
It didn't occur to me that people would say I had a bad attitude because I did think that literally everyone I was talking to would agree and I didn't see why they'd be bothered.
The days of Henry Ford capitalists who think their workers should be paid enough to buy their products seems to be unfashionable (even though he was a Nazi supporting racist, he had his head screwed on better than they do).
The end game of full on narcissistic capitalism is coming. Hopefully the Henry Ford types wake the fuck up and do something about their peers losing the fucking plot entirely.
* excepted (essential) employees (including ATCs) are required to work, are not getting paid, but will be paid back for their work when Congress passes a new appropriations bill
* furloughed (non-essential) employees are told not to work, are not getting paid, but will be paid back under GEFTA once the shutdown ends, without any new law.
To be clear, I'm trying to state the facts, not my opinions.
Trump has already shown his willingness to flout that. If he does it again, who's going to stop him? Congress?
> 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 and precedents; this ruling would then be appealed and overturned by a simple majority vote (or a tie vote), establishing a new precedent. The nuclear option is made possible by the principle in Senate procedure that appeals from rulings of the chair on points of order relating to nondebatable questions are themselves nondebatable. The nuclear option is most often discussed in connection with the filibuster. Since cloture is a nondebatable question, an appeal in relation to cloture is decided without debate. This obviates the usual requirement for a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture on a resolution amending the Standing Rules.
My point is that if you go around and tell everyone at work that you're doing it because of the money, you're... not coming off particularly well? A statement like that comes off a bit odd and socially tone-deaf? And yes, I understand that it's true that you would quit your job if they stopped paying you, but things can be true and still not a great idea to say out loud. It can be an objective fact that my manager is ugly; it's not a good idea to say this during a meeting.
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 company was too nice to customers, the environment, or whatever.
For whatever reason, “shareholders” live rent free in the heads of Internet commentators, but it’s hard to understate their actual influence.
The closest I could find was Burton v. U.S., where the court declined to rule, since the law in question didn't apply to senators at the time.
BTW the not passed continuing resolution only goes through November 21st.
Trump has done a number of monumentally stupid things over the past 10 months, but publicly threatening his generals takes the cake.
Donald. Sweetie. Pumpkin. What were you thinking? These men are career military men who are not impressed or intimidated by you or your bone spurs.
You can negotiate a budget during a shutdown. You can't negotiate if you sent everyone home.
It wasn’t like I just blurted it out when people were deciding which database to use, it was relevant to the discussion. I can’t remember the exact conversation but IIRC we were having trouble hiring someone for a role and the topic of compensation came up. I felt my comment was relevant, and I genuinely didn’t even consider that people would have issue with it because I thought it was borderline tautological.
Congress has had problems for decades (thanks to Newt and the childish boomers), which is what has been accreting so much power in the Presidency to begin with. But there is still time to pull up by Congress reasserting its authority as an institution, and that time is now.
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.
What I was going to say before was: Remember when air traffic controllers went on strike, and Reagan killed the future of unions in the USA by firing all the striking workers and banning them from ever having a government job? This is the legacy of that action. Never underestimate the lasting impact of an incompetent entertainer made President.
Actually, soldiers mostly follow the money. In Rome the the Praetorian Guard realized their power and started installing leaders. In developing nations with military coups, the soldiers back whoever will pay them. Yes, ideologically soldiers will follow a chain of command and conservative-anything; but practically speaking, they will follow whoever lets them rape and pillage and retire to a villa.
Trump famously wanted to privatize the ATC in his first term. But now all the industry veterans are saying they'd much rather have the modernizations proposed for the government system (https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5442651/privatizing-air...) than switch to a private model.
What's funny is, we're gonna fuck it up either way.
Terminal ATC in the UK is a competitive market. Each airport is free to tender for private companies to operate the service.
En route ATC remains a government-granted monopoly awarded to NATS, which is the privatised former national provider.
Actually, that was Joe Lieberman, not Obama if memory serves. And apparently it does.
According to Wikipedia[0]:
The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option
or the public option, is a proposal to create a government-run health
insurance agency that would compete with other private health insurance
companies within the United States. The public option is not the same as
publicly funded health care, but was proposed as an alternative health
insurance plan offered by the government. The public option was initially
proposed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but was removed
after the independent US senator for Connecticut Joe Lieberman threatened a
filibuster.[1][2]
What's more, even if you could, who is going to take a job for which they will not be paid as long as the shutdown continues?
I'm not a Federal employee and I don't know the details, but there's a banner on my bank's (Chase) website (after you log in) suggesting that they have mechanisms to assist those who aren't getting paid.
What those are, I have no idea. It may well be high interest loans or no interest loans. Or it may waive fees on overdrafts. Again, I don't know. But banks are taking note and communicating with their customers about it.
Try talking to a kid who used to be beat by their parents, at least the company is up front (usually).
There are 1000's of qualified people wanting to apply but the government bureaucracy halts it.
What is the median time from application to FTH for a ATC?
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234358133/exxon-climate-chan...
Then the president is on his way out, and Republicans start looking for and building favor with the next person.
(Which is really what all the "third term" BS is about. Trump has no intention, age-wise, of running for a third term, but talking about it keeps the lame duck calculus on ice. Hence why there aren't any details about "how", just a vague "we have a plan")
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)
That said, food banks are gonna see lots more foot traffic and federal employees might start looking for other work.
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).
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.
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.
> Among non-experts, conventional wisdom holds that corporate law requires boards of directors to maximize shareholder wealth. This common but mistaken belief is almost invariably supported by reference to the Michigan Supreme Court's 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
Or
> Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate.
An extended shutdown, an actually refusing-to-function House of Representatives, and a president with not even the slightest respect for the Constitution... the comparisons to first century BCE Rome exaggerated or metaphorical.
Trump got someone to donate $130 million as an obvious symbol to try to buy military loyalty by paying salaries (nevermind it's about enough to cover a single nice lunch)
Just keeping the lights on shouldn’t require a 60% consensus (it should be the default). This is represented by the reconciliation process, which is some budget related voting process that only requires a majority in the senate. But the reconciliation process was used up to pass the “one big beautiful bill.”
On the one hand, I've been saying this for two decades, in small and large cos. I've never been promoted in title, but I've also never been fired and generally been given more and more people to manage. I'm too direct and honest, but as I got older I learned to own it and do it smoothly without disrupting too much.
But the 'consultant mentality' helps me maintain my sanity, sleep a little better at night and never get married to a company. I wish I put my money where my mouth is, though, because peers who move every 2-3 years make significantly more than me despite being more junior.
On the one hand, the FounderSpeak about internalizing the job, loving what you do, and work life balance being bad business nauseates me... On the other hand, some of my high performing workaholic friends are not only richer than me, they seem like they're more purpose driven in their lives as their corporate jobs give meaning it doesn't give me.
It seems then that, for me, self-honesty and work life separation achieve less satisfaction and a lot less pay (and perhaps delayed early retirement).
Why has a newly elected democrat been waiting over a fucking month to get sworn into the house?
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.
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.
The Democratic Party is not seeking to rule. They are seeking to have the government do its damn job.
The Republican Party is seeking to rule, but not govern: that is, they get to be in charge, but they take no responsibility for anything that happens under their rule. (Most especially Trump and his administration; Congressional Republicans are a bit less of the former and a lot more of the latter.)
Instead, I think that crash-and-burn, and then blame the other guy, was the plan all along.
Deflecting all blame towards the other guy has been the standard practice for at least multiple decades now. It's not something that is kept in the pocket and used for special occasions; that play has instead been a constant in US national politics for a rather long time now.
The only new part with this administration is actively throwing monkey wrenches into the works and then acting all surprised when things break, or just failing to admit that they've broken a thing. (But they're not stupid; they knew that doing this would break stuff.)
(Current Airline Pilot here, definitely NOT in favor of privatizing ATC, but historically breaking things on purpose is the usual path politicians take to privatize)
So yes, this is not going to be resolved in a matter of weeks. But something has to happen in order for it to resolve one way or another, and one of those possibilities (that you should be championing if you appreciate our Constitutionally-limited government!) is for Congress to start exerting their authority independent of Dear Leader's grip on the Party.
The Republican aversion to governing is a very new thing.
Like, sure, the "government small enough to drown in a bathtub" philosophy is not particularly new, but the idea that Republicans in Congress should actively oppose any and all attempts to make government function at a basic level? That the executive should be actively dismantling his entire branch?
None of that is even old enough to vote.
If what you say were true, then it would have happened back under GWB.
That’s a mistake that business leaders have long since learned from. Wanna drop a billion dollars to add legs to your metaverse characters? Do whatever you want and just present a plausible argument that it serves shareholders. You don’t need evidence, any rationale is fine as long as you don’t explicitly state that you don’t care about shareholder value.
Another similar case might by something like eBay v Newmark, in that to the extent shareholders got relief it was because of things the business leaders said about shareholder primacy, rather than any actual actions taken by the company.
I guess that’s the real influence of shareholders: boards and executives can do whatever they want as long as when they talk, they don’t speak ill of shareholder primacy.
Where did you get that idea? That's never been true. You may just have been hoodwinked by their "Two Santas" strategy.
Republicans have been explicitly playing that game as promoted by Jude Wanninski[1] since the late 1970s, and it's been loudly touted as quite successful by Republicans.
The idea is to cut taxes and spend like drunken sailors when Republicans are in power, then cry poverty and austerity when Democrats are in power, loudly calling for incredibly popular Democratic programs to be slashed.
I'm not making this up. See the links below. It's not like this has been a secret for the past fifty years or anything.
[0] https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/featured/two-santas-str...
That said, there does seem to be something which has thus far kept them from changing the cloture/filibuster rules to pass bills with a simple majority. I’m curious if the “Freedom Caucus” is fearful of Republican leadership so they are still holding the Sword of Damocles over the role of the Speaker of the House.
I am curious why Republicans have not changed the parliamentary rules for cloture. The party seems to be pushing states to gerrymander to benefit their Congressional power as early as the next Congressional election. My best guess at the moment is there are a few Republican members who fear what the party leadership does with no opposition party constraints.
Start with DOGE and Russel Vought’s actions. Then look at Congressional Republican’s recision bill, their lack of Article 1 oversight of what Trump’s Executive is doing, their consistent support of the Executive against any attempt by the Judicial to enforce the law.
But those registered warrants aren’t abstract expectations of future payment, but debt instruments with a fixed interest rate when issued.
For latest example of a stupid lawsuit where this has happened, see Justin Baldoni v. Blake Lively. Baldoni sued Lively and others. After a lot of legal maneuvering, a judge dismissed the case.
But even if it was dismissed, it’s still a fact that Baldoni did sue Lively. You can sue anyone for anything. Doesn’t mean you will get any relief, but you can do it anyway, and in our age of dumb performative lawsuits, many do.
Fundamentally, Republicans just want tax breaks and judicial appointments, and the filibuster already doesn't block those. So it hasn't really been a problem for them. Since Dems in theory want the government to work, they can keep things working well enough to let the Dems deal with their time bombs like expiring ACA subsidies and middle class tax breaks.