←back to thread

Ground stop at JFK due to staffing

(www.fly.faa.gov)
202 points akersten | 3 comments | 31 Oct 25 01:48 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
Figs ◴[31 Oct 25 04:00 UTC] No.45768283[source]▶
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 federal taxes to fund state food programs in order to prevent the alternative of immediate violent revolution as millions of people go hungry is an obvious course of action when they exhaust that capacity...
replies(3): >>45768343 #>>45768360 #>>45768380 #
pickledish ◴[31 Oct 25 04:17 UTC] No.45768380[source]▶
Sadly I don't think it works this way, at least IIUC -- the state can't withhold taxes from the federal government, because those taxes (from biweekly paychecks anyway) don't go through the states -- they go directly to the federal government. Some states are trying to pass laws to still make headway in this area, for reasons like you suggest, for example NY:

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)

replies(1): >>45772412 #
1. bee_rider ◴[31 Oct 25 14:36 UTC] No.45772412[source]▶
Although, Republicans would ostensibly like to shrink the size of the government and Democrats would probably at this point prefer their money to go to an entity that will actually provide services. So I don’t really see why there isn’t a broad consensus for implementing this idea.
replies(2): >>45772922 #>>45776763 #
2. mindslight ◴[31 Oct 25 15:13 UTC] No.45772922[source]▶
Because Republicans don't want to shrink the size of government as a whole, rather they want most funding to go to a massive domestic paramilitary terror squad to keep citizens in line.
3. nobody9999 ◴[31 Oct 25 21:12 UTC] No.45776763[source]▶
>Although, Republicans would ostensibly like to shrink the size of the government

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...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_Wanniski