i.e. a plane for one route might go between various different cities in 24 hours, with different crew each time of course before it gets back to the first route.
They are considered essential. That means they have to work, but not be paid.
https://time.com/7329683/government-shutdown-flight-delays-c...
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 hurting for recruits in a big way so even at their size their negotiating position isn't as strong as they might want.
>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...
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."
"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."
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.)
For now, it remains a luxurious and unattainable concept to me.
I happen to agree on the object level issue of maintaining the Medicaid funding. Thanks for talking down to me, though.
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.
Forcing people to work and not pay them is slavery!
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.
If you don't like it, working at a BigCo could be quite soul-draining.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.
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.
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.
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.
Actually good attitude often == not honest.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Alternatively "better to rule among the miserable than to serve among the great."
It's a consistent theme with most autocracies.
That's it, that's the only goal.
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.
People who would rather be kings of shit mountain, than rich and powerful but bound by law in a functional society.
So dastardly that no one seems to be able to explain how dastardly it is.
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
BTW the not passed continuing resolution only goes through November 21st.
Look at the actions of Russell Vought, not the words of Ted Cruz.
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.
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.
"Our legally elected representative directly refuses to represent us" should be plenty of grounds.
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.
So this means the Supreme Court has unilaterally implemented the line item veto ? So much for "balls and strikes" eh.
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
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).
Even if so, the tricky part of course is the SCOTUS that declares anything that Trump wants "constitutional".
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.
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 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.
Trump has already shown his willingness to flout that. If he does it again, who's going to stop him? Congress?
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.
> 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.
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)
Historically in times of war or civil disorder it's often been possible.
And as others are saying, plenty of people can't afford to work for no pay indefinitely.
In any case, many Americans have no appreciable savings. Getting paid someday when Congress gets its head out of its ass doesn’t feed your kids today.
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.
And a lot of the government is contractors.
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
Essential employees were already guaranteed backpay, but in 2019, on day 26 of the 35-day shutdown during his first term, Trump signed GEFTA into law, guaranteeing that furloughed employees also got backpay.
But earlier this month, the White House issued a memo contradicting that, saying furloughed workers aren't entitled to backpay, and the OMB edited articles to delete references to the GEFTA.
Even though the GEFTA is law, we're seeing the Trump administration break laws all the time with no accountability, and so a broke federal employee would reasonably not anticipate a realistic, timely, and achievable legal recourse for a GEFTA violation while they're just trying to feed their family.
https://www.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.
This has been a known problem for a very long time and Congress has continuously refused to do anything about it.
-------------------
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
[0] - https://pix11.com/news/local-news/ground-stops-at-jfk-due-to...
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&...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ground-delays-issued-sh...
This time, negotiations seem to have entirely stalled.
https://rollingout.com/2025/10/30/jfk-airport-frontier-fligh...
Trump famously wanted to privatize the ATC in his first term. But now all the industry veterans are saying they'd much rather have the modernizations proposed for the government system (https://www.npr.org/2025/06/27/nx-s1-5442651/privatizing-air...) than switch to a private model.
What's funny is, we're gonna fuck it up either way.
Terminal ATC in the UK is a competitive market. Each airport is free to tender for private companies to operate the service.
En route ATC remains a government-granted monopoly awarded to NATS, which is the privatised former national provider.
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.
slater•5h ago
bragr•5h ago
shadowgovt•4h ago
Time to put the finishing touches on the costumes and carve the last pumpkins.
sgloutnikov•4h ago
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1cKfZatlQ4