←back to thread

Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

(www.fly.faa.gov)
202 points akersten | 10 comments | 31 Oct 25 01:48 UTC | HN request time: 1.064s | source | bottom
Show context
ipython ◴[31 Oct 25 03:05 UTC] No.45767903[source]▶
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 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.

replies(15): >>45767921 #>>45767930 #>>45767964 #>>45768038 #>>45768054 #>>45768058 #>>45768067 #>>45768110 #>>45768248 #>>45768276 #>>45768281 #>>45768283 #>>45768674 #>>45768884 #>>45775389 #
pfooti ◴[31 Oct 25 03:25 UTC] No.45768054[source]▶
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 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.

replies(4): >>45768087 #>>45768269 #>>45768331 #>>45770971 #
1. bee_rider ◴[31 Oct 25 03:30 UTC] No.45768087[source]▶
Yeah, that seems like a pretty major problem. It isn’t even clear really how negotiations should start, without any ability to make binding deals.
replies(1): >>45768153 #
2. mindslight ◴[31 Oct 25 03:39 UTC] No.45768153[source]▶
Impeachment. Negotiations should start with impeachment. The President is not faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress, and the Supplicating Council has decreed that the only remedy is impeachment. It's time to impeach and convict.
replies(3): >>45768367 #>>45768545 #>>45772973 #
3. collingreen ◴[31 Oct 25 04:15 UTC] No.45768367[source]▶
The third time will totally be different guys!
replies(1): >>45768418 #
4. mindslight ◴[31 Oct 25 04:23 UTC] No.45768418{3}[source]▶
It's one of the very few remaining in-system ways for the Constitutional US Government to continue existing. So yes, I would say it's worth banging that drum again. Maybe Susan Collins has even learned a lesson of her own.
replies(1): >>45768454 #
5. ◴[31 Oct 25 04:31 UTC] No.45768454{4}[source]▶
6. aidenn0 ◴[31 Oct 25 04:50 UTC] No.45768545[source]▶
When about half of congress is more okay with the executive collecting power than with impeaching the executive, that threat is meaningless.
replies(2): >>45768650 #>>45770888 #
7. mindslight ◴[31 Oct 25 05:13 UTC] No.45768650{3}[source]▶
Well yes, the follow up to my point is that every member of Congress who is not currently supporting impeachment/conviction is complicit in this abject failure of governance.

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.

8. ethbr1 ◴[31 Oct 25 11:35 UTC] No.45770888{3}[source]▶
The balance shifts after the midterms, even if the Republicans win big.

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")

9. bee_rider ◴[31 Oct 25 15:16 UTC] No.45772973[source]▶
Sure, but they won’t actually do that. So, indefinite shutdown I guess?
replies(1): >>45775215 #
10. mindslight ◴[31 Oct 25 18:36 UTC] No.45775215{3}[source]▶
I think the top level comment really sets a great context for discussing this. The Republican goal has been to destroy, part out, and sell off our Constitutionally-limited government. Whether the government is nominally "shut down" or not doesn't really matter to that overall plan.

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.