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.
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.
> 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"
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)
The Roberts courts is in on this. They know Trump won't last forever and when he's gone, they get Vance to carry on with their Dominionist project. People need to stop thinking that the branches are playing realpolitik games... the various Republicans are either all in on Christofascism or they're fooling themselves that they're not, or they're too spineless to fight back.
Yeah, I think too many people (especially dem leadership, but also a lot of centrist Republican voters) are waiting for things to "go back to normal."
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.
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.
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")
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.
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.
> 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.
So this means the Supreme Court has unilaterally implemented the line item veto ? So much for "balls and strikes" eh.
Recalling congressional representatives is probably not allowed. AFAICT, however, there has never been a federal court ruling on the (likely) exclusive right of congress to expel members.
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.
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...
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:
(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)
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.
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.
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.
Is the Air Force still being paid? We've seen a complete willingness to have the military turned against the people and the tech gap between us citizens and the fully equipped military is staggering. A couple drone swarms and even hungry folks will have to take permanent cover and that's just the stuff declassified. It's an interesting time where a very small number of folks can effectively hold off the entire citizenry for long enough that the "millions of people go hungry" problem solves itself. Pick which regions get food first and you wont even have to bother with things like gerrymandering anymore.
Not the Air Force but forces in direct control of the president like ICE/Secret Service are being paid in advance to ensure their continued service https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/1978925656785457247
Speed running to become an actual developing nation. This is what millions of migrants are trying to escape from. Ironic, for all parties involved (well, except for the ones on top of course)
> Speed running to become an actual developing nation.
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?
The ridiculously wealthy view the system as a strictly zero-sum game, and they want to keep everything they have, and deny the rest of the population of everything. They understand this isn't sustainable, so they're fortifying bunkers and buying up islands.
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.
It's double speak to call it a "clean CR" when there was just a huge bill changing a ton of tax code, budget, and increasing ICE's budget by 10x.[1] Passing the CR would have approved those spending changes as if they were in an appropriations bill.
'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown.
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.
Rammed through, is an interesting way to write that they had the votes and passed HR1.
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?
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.
Dems voted for the BBB under threat of worse cuts coming with a shutdown. The cuts and illegal actions continued. Going along with the bullies only proved that the bullies can push further.
They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.
The filibuster has essentially become a mechanism to ensure you have a somewhat broad consensus among the states, instead of being able to ram things through with a 51% majority.
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.”
That's not the way governance works. Did you feel that way when the Democrats held all three branches and still the Republicans did everything in their power to break government? Trump won the presidency by a slim margin... the Senate Republicans represent fewer people than the Democrats do. The government is designed to work together, unless one party decides to stop playing by any rules apparently.
No replies but you're right. All top comments are blaming Republicans, but the the Republican part has passed. If the Democrats sign the budget it passes. Depending on which "side" (I hate that term) you view this from, the other side is holding it up.
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 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).
What does this mean? If youre implying "clean CR" is perfectly fine can you just say that? If you don't think it's perfectly fine what ARE you trying to say?
There is no reason it could not happen, our country (the United States) has rapidly and radically changed in the past 10 months and 10 days. The only longer shutdown was in 2018-2019 during Trump's first term, and this shutdown is looking to blow past that milestone.
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 is only limited legal ability to fund departments outside of an appropriations law. Republicans could pass one if they eliminated the filibuster, but that's a nuclear option they haven't leaned on yet.
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 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, education, medical, Social Security), I don’t see that happening right now.
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 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.
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
It’s hard to foresee how close to accurate your forecast is.
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).
The First Reconstruction was a very different civ-mil scenario. The military protected freedmen from the various insurgent and paramilitary groups that sought to deprive freedmen of rights.
To be more clear than my vague references, 60 to 70 senators cornered Caesar and stabbed him to death to protect the republic. They killed him but didn't succeed in protecting the republic.
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)
> soldiers are pretty well trained to follow the chain of command
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.
> 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.
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.
Maybe if the shutdown goes to the midterm, we’ll send representatives who’ll lower federal taxes to a pittance. Then Trump can try his experiment of running the government on tariffs instead (good luck) and we all get to hope our states can fill the gap.
It won't happen that way because in a couple of years they will give Trump unlimited power the same way they did Hitler in the 1930s. From democracy to dictatorship in less than a decade.
The last funding approved was passed through reconciliation with zero democrats. There is no “voting for funding they supported in the past” that spending plan is gone
And the republicans could just vote to change the rules of the senate.
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
Sometimes I do think the Democrats should just let Republicans ruin themselves on this issue. Make a fuss, make it clear you're worried about increasing health costs and are trying to stop it, but eventually, you might just have to let people experience the consequences of the party they elected.
The Democrats care about healthcare costs increasing like remember when Obama caved on the public option because he sold out to the insurance companies?
>The Democrats care about healthcare costs increasing like remember when Obama caved on the public option because he sold out to the insurance companies?
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]
I would say that at the time of the election, the idea of funding ICE at the level of the third largest military in the world would be considered a conspiracy theory.
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.
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).
I don't think you understand how the US government works.
The Democrats have no other power and aren't negotiating or trying to work with the Republicans to pass these bills. They are using this tactic to hurt the Republicans and win in state/local elections coming up.
If the Republicans could just end it as you say with no discussions with Democrats, they would have done it weeks ago.
What have Republicans offered in negotiations to help unblock the logjam?
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?
Are they all of a sudden powerless? "Oh noes! we control the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government, but those meany liberals won't let us balance the budget" ?
I got in trouble at a BigCo because I said "we all do this for the money", and they claimed that I had a "bad attitude".
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.
>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.
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).
It's not just wrong, if a company is registered as "commercial" (as opposed to non-profit or public-benefit), then "for the money" is a legal obligation.
Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.
> Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.
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.
Some of the law professor quotes in Wikipedia's "Significance" section may be of interest as far as "Known For" vs "Means":
> 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.
> 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.
Profit is not the only obligation. We all exist in a society. Poisoning the water can be very profitable, and yet shareholders cannot sue to force management to do it.
Management is often shareholders themselves and you can bet that if the fine is lower than the money saved they'll poison the water for 1000 years.
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.
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.
It was one of those things, I didn't even consider that it would upset people. Like, maybe it's something on the spectrum for me, but when I said it I assumed it was effectively a truism and I didn't think I'd get any pushback because everyone already knew and agreed with it.
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.
I'm very bad at that kind of dishonesty. It's not like I'm some hyper-ethical straight-edge nerd, I'm just really bad at the corporate propaganda stuff.
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.
I mean, if I heard you say that, I would probably think you had a "bad attitude" as well. Yes, getting paid is an important part of your job, but presumably you could get paid at many different places, and you choose the one you work at because it has additional benefits on top of a purely transactional relationship.
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.
I have a friend who's a few years younger than me, and he was a coworker with me at a previous job. He was fresh out of his masters and this was his first job out of school. We became friends fairly quickly, and during lunch one day I mentioned the above "business transaction" stuff, and mentioning that corporations are not your family. It's fine if you like your job, that's a good thing, but just keep in mind that love you show the job will not be reciprocated.
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.
And so will a SO if they're needs are not being met anymore. Family has to be family by definition if you're using blood lines. But families can often be MUCH worse than a company.
Try talking to a kid who used to be beat by their parents, at least the company is up front (usually).
I didn't say it was the only reason to take a job, and I clarified that even at the time. It's perfectly fine to factor in other benefits to the job, (e.g. how much you like the work, how much you like your coworkers, etc.). I actually quit that BigCo and took a paycut to work at a different company because it was soul-draining. When I say "we all do this for the money", I'm saying that this is a necessary component for the job, and ultimately if they stopped paying me then I would not work there anymore, even if I otherwise love the work and environment.
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.
In your OP, your primary argument, as I read it, was that business is fundamentally a business transaction. When I pointed this out, you changed your argument to how there are other benefits to a job.
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.
I said “they give me money and benefits”, and I didn’t define what those benefits were. As I said, I hated working at that BigCo and took a pay cut to work with people I liked more to do work I thought would be more fun. To me the benefit was being able to do work I enjoyed more. I apologize if that wasn’t clear, obviously there are more categories to choosing a job than net pay; if there weren’t we wouldn’t have any teachers.
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.
No? But there's a difference between knowing that (which is an obvious fact that anyone would agree with) and walking into your job one day and reminding them you're only there to get paid.
It is a failed state, and we have seemingly overnight given Russia and China the biggest beautiful gift they could have asked for.
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.
Mix in telling people the news is the enemy of the state and everything bad is because of their neighbors and you have quite a lot of opportunity for chaos.
We almost certainly could have floated through this had Reagan not gutted the ATC union (while firing a huge amount of staff) with congress neutering their negotiation power.
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.
ATC is severely understaffed nationwide and it's particularly bad in the New York area even without a government shutdown. It's a difficult, stressful job and was already even harder because mandatory overtime has been the norm for quite a while. So it's not surprising that when you stop paying people... some of them will start finding reasons they can't make it to work.
This has been a known problem for a very long time and Congress has continuously refused to do anything about it.
I once landed a GA airplane in a very busy uncontrolled class C airport that closed its tower at 4pm due to staff shortage, but was still operational. Since then I have a tremendous respect for aviation resilience to any single point failure. I imaging having entire JFK on CTAF isn't an option though.
The things that are and aren’t considered essential enough to fund during a government shutdown are insane. Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).
>Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).
They are considered essential. That means they have to work, but not be paid.
But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one). Who would argue that air traffic controllers shouldn’t be on that rarefied list?
> But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one).
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.
But they’re not the only ones - apparently federal judges and some high-level political appointees are authorized to be paid during the shutdown. There’s some other mechanism for not rug-pulling federal paychecks.
Nothing happens to them. They can't be jailed for taking their PTO or sick leave, they are free to quit and there are not enough recruits in the pipeline to backfill them en masse. They could be put on a PIP, or fired for not showing up, or some other retaliatory and childish Trump action, but what is the government realistically going to do to fix this? Fire them for poor performance and make sure that a short term shortage becomes permanent? How do you even recruit backfills when the entire world knows you fucked over the previous crew and promise to do it to the next batch too?
Lots of things enshrined in statute (appropriations, prohibitions on impoundment, the name of the Department of Defense) have been disregarded in this year of our lord 2025.
Isn't the point of the government shutdown to be painful? It's a self-imposed failure condition, we could "optimize" it by removing the shutdown entirely.
Agreed, but the people who can legislate away shutdowns are the same ones who are currently using shutdowns as a political tool. There's no chance the current climate would do that.
Not if you want the economy to keep functioning. A lot of people doing real work (e.g. engineers flying out to fix medical devices) rely on air travel.
More people will die if the democrats capitulate, than those from malfunctioning medicals devices (or other reasons). I think you should do more research to understand the true cause and effect of the decisions in the current situation the U.S. finds itself in.
Capitulate? That sounds like rhetoric that somehow blames democrats for the state of this mess, but the truth is that there aren't enough democrats in congress for them to matter.
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.
I’m not arguing they should capitulate - I’m arguing that we should fund ATC (and some other things) like we do Congress’s salaries. Or just authorize current spending levels by default if Congress shits the bed and simply not have this insane brinksmanship.
I happen to agree on the object level issue of maintaining the Medicaid funding. Thanks for talking down to me, though.
If an organ transplant means I have to live on the street, I’ll still take the transplant. It may not be nearly as accessible as it should be, but that doesn’t really mean we can blow it off as unnecessary.
I'm an American, and I'm absolutely certain at this point in my life that I will never be able to afford to pay for an organ transplant to benefit myself or anyone that I know, regardless of any compatibile combination of need and availability that may arise.
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.)
You may never be able to afford it, and your private insurance may not pay for it, but Medicare will without much fanfare. So if you’re planning on living past 65 it could happen.
There's a completely non-zero chance that I won't be able to afford to live to reach 65 and will be therefore will never gain the availability of the possibility of receiving an organ transplant.
For now, it remains a luxurious and unattainable concept to me.
Shutdowns used to not exist because Congress would authorize the President to spend at existing levels (but not the army, for reasons). This changed in the 1970s.
>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]
"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."
That an AG just came up with this in the 1980s based on an interpretation of an 1884 law (Antideficiency Act) is fascinating, thanks for sharing this. I always assumed this was an explicit own-goal by Congress like the debt ceiling, but it seems like it’s an unintended side effect.
Debt ceiling is different than a shutdown. Debt ceiling negotiations are about raising the debt limit to pay for spending Congress has already appropriated. The debt ceiling failure mode is "the US defaults on its debt."
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."
To most of the commentators saying "why work when you're not getting paid", please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't federal employees not paid during a government shutdown getting retroactive pay once funding has been restored?
A lot of commenters are focusing on the legalities and likelihood of backpay, which is relevant but I tend to agree with you… it’ll get paid because it’s in the interest of both parties to pay their employees what they’re owed.
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
In practice, most people in the US use credit (which means spending can go unpaid for about 25 days without any costs incurred) and most people bank with a national bank (so they are screwed if all federal employees stop paying back loans at the same time).
That said, food banks are gonna see lots more foot traffic and federal employees might start looking for other work.
Sometimes you can. A decade or so ago when California ran out of money, they issued warrants to their payees, and lots of banks accepted those at face value.
Practically speaking, you are correct, but interestingly all dollars are literally an IOU from the US government, so you do buy food with an IOU from their employer. Debt from or to a sovereign is the basis for all money.
As others have pointed out, this has gone on for a full month and this is increasingly unsustainable for people.
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.
The Republicans are working on not paying many of federal employees. Plus, the federal employees that use them will lose SNAP benefits/food stamps tomorrow.
>Citation? Who is giving unsecured pay day loans on unknown payday? If they did what would the interest be? 1000%?
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.
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.
"
* 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.
It's hard to eat retroactive dollars today. While some organizations are trying to make this sorta possible (specifically, I've heard that some banks are giving out loans to federal employees), why deal with all that and take out a loan when you could jump to that private sector job that your buddy's been trying to poach you for, for years? Y'know, the one that pays a lot better?
>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.
Maybe they could take the money to keep "essential" ICE thug^H^H^H^Hagents grabbing people off the street, to fund the truly essential ATCs that make air travel possible.
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)
In previous shutdowns, Congress passed temporary funding bills to keep paying certain functions such as ATC for a few weeks while negotiating the budget.
This time, negotiations seem to have entirely stalled.
Any flights that are to depart for JFK but are still on the ground must stay put until the expiration or cancellation of the stop. No, it doesn’t impact other airports.
Any disruption at one major airport affects pretty much all the airports, if it lasts long enough. Those grounded planes will soon be expected elsewhere.
Flights are delayed, however since planes are choreographed by airlines for maximum utilization, long enough delays and you will see mass cancellations, potentially across large swaths of the country.
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.
Another fun "quirk" of Hacker News: this post has been unlinked from all front pages (you can't find it by hitting "More" from front page) even though it was on the front page very recently.
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.
Why are ATC paid by the federal government anyway? As far as I understand airports are separate private heavily regulated entities. Seems like thus should be trivial to solve by having airports/municipalities pay for their ATC. Might also improve the pay if they have to compete and take blame for this kind of stuff, instead of passing the buck.
Simple: even in the 1930s, it was obvious that a private corporation would prioritize profit over safety. At the time it was mostly rich people who could afford to fly. So, miraculously, the government decided it needed to ensure the safety of air travel.
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.
Safety always comes first. Good call! I wouldn’t want to travel without proper staffing in place. Do you think other airports will follow suit? I hope so.
I think even Kennedy Steve wouldn't do it just for the love of the game. At this point you have to figure a lot of the people calling out "sick" are just doing it so they can Uber or door dash or something like that to come up with money for a car payment or rent/mortgage.
All you’re encouraging is for users to not acknowledge when they use an LLM. You’ll get the same stuff added to threads. Even now, humans contribute unverified slop to threads too - have we ever had a way of verifying what someone contributes other than the occasional citation?
A solution might be somewhere in the middle. LLMs aren’t going anywhere, and they will only become more invisible.
Good. The shame is the point. If you're going to rely on an LLM, then take ownership over the words you post under your own account. Just posting "this is what the LLM said" with no other content means they take no responsibility for what they say, but still think they are making a contribution.
"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.
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.
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.
> 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 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)
The Roberts courts is in on this. They know Trump won't last forever and when he's gone, they get Vance to carry on with their Dominionist project. People need to stop thinking that the branches are playing realpolitik games... the various Republicans are either all in on Christofascism or they're fooling themselves that they're not, or they're too spineless to fight back.
Yeah, I think too many people (especially dem leadership, but also a lot of centrist Republican voters) are waiting for things to "go back to normal."
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.
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.
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.
Sure, but they won’t actually do that. So, indefinite shutdown I guess?
When about half of congress is more okay with the executive collecting power than with impeaching the executive, that threat is meaningless.
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")
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.
The third time will totally be different guys!
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.
> 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.
So this means the Supreme Court has unilaterally implemented the line item veto ? So much for "balls and strikes" eh.
Frankly, it's time to look into seeing how recall elections work in various states.
"Our legally elected representative directly refuses to represent us" should be plenty of grounds.
Recalling congressional representatives is probably not allowed. AFAICT, however, there has never been a federal court ruling on the (likely) exclusive right of congress to expel members.
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.
The Constitution forbids states from recalling Congressional representatives.
Which part?
Citation needed, as I can’t find evidence of this.
They aren't wrong: https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/98-R-1540.htm
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...
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)
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.
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.
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...?
Is the Air Force still being paid? We've seen a complete willingness to have the military turned against the people and the tech gap between us citizens and the fully equipped military is staggering. A couple drone swarms and even hungry folks will have to take permanent cover and that's just the stuff declassified. It's an interesting time where a very small number of folks can effectively hold off the entire citizenry for long enough that the "millions of people go hungry" problem solves itself. Pick which regions get food first and you wont even have to bother with things like gerrymandering anymore.
Not the Air Force but forces in direct control of the president like ICE/Secret Service are being paid in advance to ensure their continued service https://x.com/Sec_Noem/status/1978925656785457247
Speed running to become an actual developing nation. This is what millions of migrants are trying to escape from. Ironic, for all parties involved (well, except for the ones on top of course)
> Speed running to become an actual developing nation.
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?
"better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" is the expression and idea you're looking for.
Alternatively "better to rule among the miserable than to serve among the great."
It's a consistent theme with most autocracies.
Short term profit extraction for the already obscenely-wealthy.
That's it, that's the only goal.
> Who benefits?
People who would rather be kings of shit mountain, than rich and powerful but bound by law in a functional society.
> Who benefits?
In addition to what the other replies are saying (I think they're all at least partly right), Trump benefits. Right now.
He's getting to be the King he always believed was his right and due.
The ridiculously wealthy view the system as a strictly zero-sum game, and they want to keep everything they have, and deny the rest of the population of everything. They understand this isn't sustainable, so they're fortifying bunkers and buying up islands.
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.
It’s a failed state and people need to get out.
That's exactly the plan. Not only this, but Republicans don't want to have congress working again. So their king will operate with zero oversight.
I think if this was the plan, the right would be insisting on something more outlandish than a clean CR.
It's double speak to call it a "clean CR" when there was just a huge bill changing a ton of tax code, budget, and increasing ICE's budget by 10x.[1] Passing the CR would have approved those spending changes as if they were in an appropriations bill.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
with a clean CR we can open the government temporarily and pass a budget, right? the whole CR thing is terrible, we need single subject bills
They aren't negotiating. They went home. Their job is to come up with a budget but once this didn't go through they just... went home.
BTW the not passed continuing resolution only goes through November 21st.
the government doesn't need to be opened for a budget to pass though, "clean CR" is not a prerequisite for anything
You still take Republicans in Congress at their word?
Look at the actions of Russell Vought, not the words of Ted Cruz.
> clean CR
So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.
'Clean' CR after they already rammed through their whole agenda in a huge bill that threatened worse cuts if the government shutdown. Yet it seems they cut with or without a shutdown.
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.
Rammed through, is an interesting way to write that they had the votes and passed HR1.
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?
“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.
Dems voted for the BBB under threat of worse cuts coming with a shutdown. The cuts and illegal actions continued. Going along with the bullies only proved that the bullies can push further.
They have a majority and campaigned on doing those things. They have a right to do it. The Democrats don't have a majority and it's bizarre/dysfunctional that they can force the entire government to shut down to try and get their agenda implemented, even though they lost the election.
Then let Republicans remove the filibuster. They can do it with a simple majority.
Yes they seem to be discussing it now. It's odd that this mechanism lasted so long.
The filibuster has essentially become a mechanism to ensure you have a somewhat broad consensus among the states, instead of being able to ram things through with a 51% majority.
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.”
That's not the way governance works. Did you feel that way when the Democrats held all three branches and still the Republicans did everything in their power to break government? Trump won the presidency by a slim margin... the Senate Republicans represent fewer people than the Democrats do. The government is designed to work together, unless one party decides to stop playing by any rules apparently.
What did they do in their power to break the government? They voted to reauthorize spending during Biden's presidency many times, did they not?
No replies but you're right. All top comments are blaming Republicans, but the the Republican part has passed. If the Democrats sign the budget it passes. Depending on which "side" (I hate that term) you view this from, the other side is holding it up.
Which side is also withholding emergency funds meant for SNAP?
At the big cost of insurance premiums going up substantially
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 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).
The Democrats might "want to govern" but they lost the election, so what they want shouldn't matter.
What does this mean? If youre implying "clean CR" is perfectly fine can you just say that? If you don't think it's perfectly fine what ARE you trying to say?
There is no reason it could not happen, our country (the United States) has rapidly and radically changed in the past 10 months and 10 days. The only longer shutdown was in 2018-2019 during Trump's first term, and this shutdown is looking to blow past that milestone.
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.
HN admins have some of the most influential in this administration on speed dial, the flagging and non-reversal of flagging was not due to ignorance.
There is only limited legal ability to fund departments outside of an appropriations law. Republicans could pass one if they eliminated the filibuster, but that's a nuclear option they haven't leaned on yet.
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.
> not according to the Constitution, which is very explicit that you can't spend money without Congressional approval.
Trump has already shown his willingness to flout that. If he does it again, who's going to stop him? Congress?
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, education, medical, Social Security), I don’t see that happening right now.
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 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.
It looks like they are already talking about it again in the news.
My point is that they won’t feel the need to ever “officially” re open the government.
(we need to talk about your TPS reports)
>Someone tell me why this couldn't happen.
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
It’s hard to foresee how close to accurate your forecast is.
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).
The First Reconstruction was a very different civ-mil scenario. The military protected freedmen from the various insurgent and paramilitary groups that sought to deprive freedmen of rights.
To be more clear than my vague references, 60 to 70 senators cornered Caesar and stabbed him to death to protect the republic. They killed him but didn't succeed in protecting the republic.
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)
> soldiers are pretty well trained to follow the chain of command
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.
> military leadership actually do have a pretty solid loyalty to the constitution
Even if so, the tricky part of course is the SCOTUS that declares anything that Trump wants "constitutional".
> 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.
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.
Maybe if the shutdown goes to the midterm, we’ll send representatives who’ll lower federal taxes to a pittance. Then Trump can try his experiment of running the government on tariffs instead (good luck) and we all get to hope our states can fill the gap.
I think ATCs will have resigned en masse long before then.
It won't happen that way because in a couple of years they will give Trump unlimited power the same way they did Hitler in the 1930s. From democracy to dictatorship in less than a decade.
[flagged]
The last funding approved was passed through reconciliation with zero democrats. There is no “voting for funding they supported in the past” that spending plan is gone
And the republicans could just vote to change the rules of the senate.
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
Sometimes I do think the Democrats should just let Republicans ruin themselves on this issue. Make a fuss, make it clear you're worried about increasing health costs and are trying to stop it, but eventually, you might just have to let people experience the consequences of the party they elected.
The Democrats care about healthcare costs increasing like remember when Obama caved on the public option because he sold out to the insurance companies?
Yeah, we need some better Democrats, and some better Republicans would be nice too. More populists, fewer protectors of the billionaires.
>The Democrats care about healthcare costs increasing like remember when Obama caved on the public option because he sold out to the insurance companies?
Actually, that was Joe Lieberman, not Obama if memory serves. And apparently it does.
According to Wikipedia[0]:
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_optionWhat was the date that you imagine that Democrats all gathered together and voted for a budget under Trump?
I would say that at the time of the election, the idea of funding ICE at the level of the third largest military in the world would be considered a conspiracy theory.
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.
[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 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).
They control all three branches of government. How is it anyone else's fault?
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/10/28/congress/se...
I don't think you understand how the US government works.
The Democrats have no other power and aren't negotiating or trying to work with the Republicans to pass these bills. They are using this tactic to hurt the Republicans and win in state/local elections coming up.
If the Republicans could just end it as you say with no discussions with Democrats, they would have done it weeks ago.
Republicans could revert the cuts to Medicaid or end the filibuster. They hold all the cards.
What have Republicans offered in negotiations to help unblock the logjam?
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?
https://youtu.be/_QL7G9_GPaE?t=410
I’m not American. Help me understand?
They control the body. Their solution to not passing a budget, nor a continuing resolution was... to just go home.
You can negotiate a budget during a shutdown. You can't negotiate if you sent everyone home.
Are they all of a sudden powerless? "Oh noes! we control the judicial, executive, and legislative branches of government, but those meany liberals won't let us balance the budget" ?
Who knew electing shitty representation leads to a shitty environment and economy? I wish those effected by the shitty government the best
Forcing people to work and not pay them is slavery!
I got in trouble at a BigCo because I said "we all do this for the money", and they claimed that I had a "bad attitude".
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.
>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.
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).
It's not just wrong, if a company is registered as "commercial" (as opposed to non-profit or public-benefit), then "for the money" is a legal obligation.
Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.
> Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.
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 Dodge v. Ford case is known for just that.
Some of the law professor quotes in Wikipedia's "Significance" section may be of interest as far as "Known For" vs "Means":
> 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.
But there's also precedent in the other direction:
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.
Profit is not the only obligation. We all exist in a society. Poisoning the water can be very profitable, and yet shareholders cannot sue to force management to do it.
Management is often shareholders themselves and you can bet that if the fine is lower than the money saved they'll poison the water for 1000 years.
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.
My point isn't that shareholders have pure motives. It's that they are not obligated to harm society in the name of profit.
How about management suing the shareholders that want less climate destruction?
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/1234358133/exxon-climate-chan...
You should ask BigCo if they're only providing goods/services to their customers "for the money."
If they are not doing just for money. Surely you should be able to give very good discounts to customer. After all why are profits aka. money needed?
> "we all do this for the money"
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.
Bad attitude != incorrect, of course.
Actually good attitude often == not honest.
It was one of those things, I didn't even consider that it would upset people. Like, maybe it's something on the spectrum for me, but when I said it I assumed it was effectively a truism and I didn't think I'd get any pushback because everyone already knew and agreed with it.
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.
If they don't do it for the money, then presumably the execs won't mind if you swap your pay package with theirs.
Surviving at BigCo is all about saying one thing, and often doing quite the opposite to advance your career.
If you don't like it, working at a BigCo could be quite soul-draining.
I'm very bad at that kind of dishonesty. It's not like I'm some hyper-ethical straight-edge nerd, I'm just really bad at the corporate propaganda stuff.
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.
I mean, if I heard you say that, I would probably think you had a "bad attitude" as well. Yes, getting paid is an important part of your job, but presumably you could get paid at many different places, and you choose the one you work at because it has additional benefits on top of a purely transactional relationship.
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.
The company is not family, will never be family, and will chew you up and spit you out the moment it is better on net for them.
I have a friend who's a few years younger than me, and he was a coworker with me at a previous job. He was fresh out of his masters and this was his first job out of school. We became friends fairly quickly, and during lunch one day I mentioned the above "business transaction" stuff, and mentioning that corporations are not your family. It's fine if you like your job, that's a good thing, but just keep in mind that love you show the job will not be reciprocated.
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.
And so will a SO if they're needs are not being met anymore. Family has to be family by definition if you're using blood lines. But families can often be MUCH worse than a company.
Try talking to a kid who used to be beat by their parents, at least the company is up front (usually).
I didn't say it was the only reason to take a job, and I clarified that even at the time. It's perfectly fine to factor in other benefits to the job, (e.g. how much you like the work, how much you like your coworkers, etc.). I actually quit that BigCo and took a paycut to work at a different company because it was soul-draining. When I say "we all do this for the money", I'm saying that this is a necessary component for the job, and ultimately if they stopped paying me then I would not work there anymore, even if I otherwise love the work and environment.
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.
In your OP, your primary argument, as I read it, was that business is fundamentally a business transaction. When I pointed this out, you changed your argument to how there are other benefits to a job.
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.
I said “they give me money and benefits”, and I didn’t define what those benefits were. As I said, I hated working at that BigCo and took a pay cut to work with people I liked more to do work I thought would be more fun. To me the benefit was being able to do work I enjoyed more. I apologize if that wasn’t clear, obviously there are more categories to choosing a job than net pay; if there weren’t we wouldn’t have any teachers.
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.
There are a few privileged folks that get to work a job for those other benefits. The majority take whatever they can get because they need to eat.
Let's not pretend that HN is full of blue collar workers. Most of us here are in software development and have options.
Would you have have chosen to work at your job if you were never going to get paid?
No? But there's a difference between knowing that (which is an obvious fact that anyone would agree with) and walking into your job one day and reminding them you're only there to get paid.
It is a failed state, and we have seemingly overnight given Russia and China the biggest beautiful gift they could have asked for.
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.
Mix in telling people the news is the enemy of the state and everything bad is because of their neighbors and you have quite a lot of opportunity for chaos.
We almost certainly could have floated through this had Reagan not gutted the ATC union (while firing a huge amount of staff) with congress neutering their negotiation power.
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.
ATC is severely understaffed nationwide and it's particularly bad in the New York area even without a government shutdown. It's a difficult, stressful job and was already even harder because mandatory overtime has been the norm for quite a while. So it's not surprising that when you stop paying people... some of them will start finding reasons they can't make it to work.
This has been a known problem for a very long time and Congress has continuously refused to do anything about it.
Not paying is just 1 of the reasons. There are many stressful important jobs in America. ATC is in a unique position of getting squeezed at all ends.
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?
This was canceled 21 minutes after it was issued. https://www.fly.faa.gov/adv/adv_list?whichAdvisories=ATCSCC&...
Sounds performative
Disgruntled employee(s)?
[flagged]
I flag everything that feels like a veiled swipe at bad orange man bc the comments are never interesting
Makes sense. Why would ATC go to work when their employer says they won't get paid?
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.
I once landed a GA airplane in a very busy uncontrolled class C airport that closed its tower at 4pm due to staff shortage, but was still operational. Since then I have a tremendous respect for aviation resilience to any single point failure. I imaging having entire JFK on CTAF isn't an option though.
This is Alaska 37, wings up turning base over Coney Island...
The things that are and aren’t considered essential enough to fund during a government shutdown are insane. Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).
>Is this enshrined in a statute somewhere? Feels like adding air traffic controllers to that list should be a no-brainer (and broadly politically popular).
They are considered essential. That means they have to work, but not be paid.
https://time.com/7329683/government-shutdown-flight-delays-c...
But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one). Who would argue that air traffic controllers shouldn’t be on that rarefied list?
> But it seems like certain jobs are funded for the duration anyway (infamously, members of Congress are one).
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/
But they’re not the only ones - apparently federal judges and some high-level political appointees are authorized to be paid during the shutdown. There’s some other mechanism for not rug-pulling federal paychecks.
Apparently it can also depend how funds were sent and if they have other sources.
IIRC the term of interest is "permanent appropriation".
So what happens if they don't show up? Are they at risk of jail or at risk of being fired and replaced by the new recruit, Michael McDoesnt-Exist (https://www.aviationtoday.com/2025/07/25/americas-atc-meltdo...)?
I could imagine some sort of loss of seniority or pay level, even if they’d hire them right back because we already have an ATC shortage.
Well, that's certainly a negotiation standpoint the government can start from.
... 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.
Nothing happens to them. They can't be jailed for taking their PTO or sick leave, they are free to quit and there are not enough recruits in the pipeline to backfill them en masse. They could be put on a PIP, or fired for not showing up, or some other retaliatory and childish Trump action, but what is the government realistically going to do to fix this? Fire them for poor performance and make sure that a short term shortage becomes permanent? How do you even recruit backfills when the entire world knows you fucked over the previous crew and promise to do it to the next batch too?
>How do you even recruit backfills when the entire world knows you fucked over the previous crew and promise to do it to the next batch too?
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?
Today in "blatant constitutional violations specified by law" ...
What's insane is just accepting that government shutdown is a thing. Determining what is and is not essentially is just splitting hairs.
Lots of things enshrined in statute (appropriations, prohibitions on impoundment, the name of the Department of Defense) have been disregarded in this year of our lord 2025.
Isn't the point of the government shutdown to be painful? It's a self-imposed failure condition, we could "optimize" it by removing the shutdown entirely.
Agreed, but the people who can legislate away shutdowns are the same ones who are currently using shutdowns as a political tool. There's no chance the current climate would do that.
Meh, flying is a luxury. We can all stay put until the government pulls its head out of its ass.
Not if you want the economy to keep functioning. A lot of people doing real work (e.g. engineers flying out to fix medical devices) rely on air travel.
More people will die if the democrats capitulate, than those from malfunctioning medicals devices (or other reasons). I think you should do more research to understand the true cause and effect of the decisions in the current situation the U.S. finds itself in.
Capitulate? That sounds like rhetoric that somehow blames democrats for the state of this mess, but the truth is that there aren't enough democrats in congress for them to matter.
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.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
I’m not arguing they should capitulate - I’m arguing that we should fund ATC (and some other things) like we do Congress’s salaries. Or just authorize current spending levels by default if Congress shits the bed and simply not have this insane brinksmanship.
I happen to agree on the object level issue of maintaining the Medicaid funding. Thanks for talking down to me, though.
Planes transport more things than people, like organs for transplants. Are those a luxury too?
Can't tell if joking, healthcare is essentially a luxury now. An organ transplant could very likely lead to someone becoming destitute.
If an organ transplant means I have to live on the street, I’ll still take the transplant. It may not be nearly as accessible as it should be, but that doesn’t really mean we can blow it off as unnecessary.
That just goes to show how big the rift in the western world has grown. I'm European, so to me healthcare is not a luxury no.
I'm an American, and I'm absolutely certain at this point in my life that I will never be able to afford to pay for an organ transplant to benefit myself or anyone that I know, regardless of any compatibile combination of need and availability that may arise.
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.)
You may never be able to afford it, and your private insurance may not pay for it, but Medicare will without much fanfare. So if you’re planning on living past 65 it could happen.
There's a completely non-zero chance that I won't be able to afford to live to reach 65 and will be therefore will never gain the availability of the possibility of receiving an organ transplant.
For now, it remains a luxurious and unattainable concept to me.
Air cargo is also going to be impacted.
Shutdowns used to not exist because Congress would authorize the President to spend at existing levels (but not the army, for reasons). This changed in the 1970s.
Source? Wikipedia contradicts you.
>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...
That's the debt ceiling, which is a different weird quirk of how the USG is funded. The relevant page for shutdowns is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...
"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."
That an AG just came up with this in the 1980s based on an interpretation of an 1884 law (Antideficiency Act) is fascinating, thanks for sharing this. I always assumed this was an explicit own-goal by Congress like the debt ceiling, but it seems like it’s an unintended side effect.
Debt ceiling is different than a shutdown. Debt ceiling negotiations are about raising the debt limit to pay for spending Congress has already appropriated. The debt ceiling failure mode is "the US defaults on its debt."
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."
Advisory 27, Ground stop was lifted, Disregard Expected Departure Clearance Times for flights destined to JFK.
-------------------
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
To most of the commentators saying "why work when you're not getting paid", please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't federal employees not paid during a government shutdown getting retroactive pay once funding has been restored?
In theory, yes. But with this administration, who knows?
A lot of commenters are focusing on the legalities and likelihood of backpay, which is relevant but I tend to agree with you… it’ll get paid because it’s in the interest of both parties to pay their employees what they’re owed.
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
You can't buy food with an IOU from your employer.
In practice, most people in the US use credit (which means spending can go unpaid for about 25 days without any costs incurred) and most people bank with a national bank (so they are screwed if all federal employees stop paying back loans at the same time).
That said, food banks are gonna see lots more foot traffic and federal employees might start looking for other work.
Sometimes you can. A decade or so ago when California ran out of money, they issued warrants to their payees, and lots of banks accepted those at face value.
Practically speaking, you are correct, but interestingly all dollars are literally an IOU from the US government, so you do buy food with an IOU from their employer. Debt from or to a sovereign is the basis for all money.
> You can't buy food with an IOU from your employer.
Historically in times of war or civil disorder it's often been possible.
New startup idea?
As others have pointed out, this has gone on for a full month and this is increasingly unsustainable for people.
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.
The administration has posited that they don’t have to do backpay for many positions. Currently, there is no reason anyone could expect norms to hold.
The Republicans are working on not paying many of federal employees. Plus, the federal employees that use them will lose SNAP benefits/food stamps tomorrow.
Yes, but if you decide to leave your job during the shutdown (say to find more stable work), you do not get paid for the unpaid hours you worked.
And as others are saying, plenty of people can't afford to work for no pay indefinitely.
Of course they can. A bank would have no problems giving out loans given the pay is coming eventually.
I hope these hypothetical banks will also be giving these theoretical indefinite loans interest free.
Citation? Who is giving unsecured pay day loans on unknown payday? If they did what would the interest be? 1000%?
I worked at a payroll backed loan company and can say there is not many people in the space, for many good reasons.
These banks do not exist.
>Citation? Who is giving unsecured pay day loans on unknown payday? If they did what would the interest be? 1000%?
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.
I see. I imagine its good PR like that cafe giving free lunches in DC.
This administration is just as likely to provide back pay only to ATC employees in states which voted for our God Emperor.
[flagged]
Could be wrong, but IIRC congress has to explicitly approve the back pay. So, who knows if it’ll happen…
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/24
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. "
Note that the White House issued a memo contradicting GEFTA, and the OMB removed references to it. Federal workers are spooked.
Thanks for bringing it up. Link if someone is interested: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/trump-administratio...
"Furloughed" is the key term, there. Have they been?
My understanding:
* 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.
Why work in current job when you cant pay your rent today. Why not get a different job so you can.
Just mozy on down to the job orchard and pick off a new job from the ATC career tree!
I don't think anyone knows.
Only if you are an actual employee. If you are a contractor, probably not.
And a lot of the government is contractors.
They’re supposed to. I think even legally required to. But this administration doesn’t seem to care much about what it’s required to do.
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.
It's hard to eat retroactive dollars today. While some organizations are trying to make this sorta possible (specifically, I've heard that some banks are giving out loans to federal employees), why deal with all that and take out a loan when you could jump to that private sector job that your buddy's been trying to poach you for, for years? Y'know, the one that pays a lot better?
anyone have any apps they use to follow FAA ground stops? maybe I'll put a link to https://nasstatus.faa.gov/ on my phone
MCO ATCSCC ADVZY 151 DCC 10/30/2025 OPERATIONS PLAN
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.
Maybe they could take the money to keep "essential" ICE thug^H^H^H^Hagents grabbing people off the street, to fund the truly essential ATCs that make air travel possible.
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)
Why hire private? Why not fund the existing federal ones?
In previous shutdowns, Congress passed temporary funding bills to keep paying certain functions such as ATC for a few weeks while negotiating the budget.
This time, negotiations seem to have entirely stalled.
What does this actually mean? All flights around JFK are cancelled until further notice? Can someone translate? Does this affect EWR and LGA?
Any flights that are to depart for JFK but are still on the ground must stay put until the expiration or cancellation of the stop. No, it doesn’t impact other airports.
Any disruption at one major airport affects pretty much all the airports, if it lasts long enough. Those grounded planes will soon be expected elsewhere.
Agreed - but they’re not directly impacted by this ground stop.
Flights are delayed, however since planes are choreographed by airlines for maximum utilization, long enough delays and you will see mass cancellations, potentially across large swaths of the country.
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.
Is this due to funding and government shutdown? Or just people unable to make it to work due to severe flooding?
Probably stressed out people aren't so keen to work for free.
https://youtu.be/YeABJbvcJ_k
Probably both tbh. I'm sure they are less motivated to deal with today's torrential downpour with no pay.
Another fun "quirk" of Hacker News: this post has been unlinked from all front pages (you can't find it by hitting "More" from front page) even though it was on the front page very recently.
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.
Why are ATC paid by the federal government anyway? As far as I understand airports are separate private heavily regulated entities. Seems like thus should be trivial to solve by having airports/municipalities pay for their ATC. Might also improve the pay if they have to compete and take blame for this kind of stuff, instead of passing the buck.
Simple: even in the 1930s, it was obvious that a private corporation would prioritize profit over safety. At the time it was mostly rich people who could afford to fly. So, miraculously, the government decided it needed to ensure the safety of air travel.
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.
For comparison:
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.
Private corporation seem to be doing fine with pilots though, both for rich people, and for commercial aviation. Doesn't seem that different
Safety always comes first. Good call! I wouldn’t want to travel without proper staffing in place. Do you think other airports will follow suit? I hope so.
The ground stop mentioned ended 7 hours ago and seemed to be due to an airplane emergency [0].
[0] - https://pix11.com/news/local-news/ground-stops-at-jfk-due-to...
Get Kennedy Steve back in there!
I think even Kennedy Steve wouldn't do it just for the love of the game. At this point you have to figure a lot of the people calling out "sick" are just doing it so they can Uber or door dash or something like that to come up with money for a car payment or rent/mortgage.
Also, tomorrow's Halloween and folks have kids.
Time to put the finishing touches on the costumes and carve the last pumpkins.
Kennedy Steve is a legend, loved listening to JFK when he was on. Here's an interview with him for the fans if they have missed it [0].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1cKfZatlQ4
ATC should be a computer at this point.
Do Americans know that other countries don't have this wierd "government shuts down if we don't pass a budget" thing?
The ground stop was due to an aircraft emergency [0] and lifted within 21 minutes of being announced [1].
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&...
Other ground delays due to ATC staffing issues, though.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ground-delays-issued-sh...
Then post and report about that incident, not the JFK incident.
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.
[flagged]
If you can't understand the article, how do you know the LLM did?
Delete this unverified hallucinated slop. Then delete your HN account.
If people want an LLM summary of an article, they can do it themselves.
All you’re encouraging is for users to not acknowledge when they use an LLM. You’ll get the same stuff added to threads. Even now, humans contribute unverified slop to threads too - have we ever had a way of verifying what someone contributes other than the occasional citation?
A solution might be somewhere in the middle. LLMs aren’t going anywhere, and they will only become more invisible.
Good. The shame is the point. If you're going to rely on an LLM, then take ownership over the words you post under your own account. Just posting "this is what the LLM said" with no other content means they take no responsibility for what they say, but still think they are making a contribution.
"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.
Except the ground stop was due to an emergency with a flight from Puerto Rico
https://rollingout.com/2025/10/30/jfk-airport-frontier-fligh...