Yes, but they declined to expand the federal debt or increase taxes.

For people who wanted a more expanded set of social services it is really striking that they declined to provide any financing for it, which led us to this situation.

Democrats could have and should have provided financing for their priorities, one way or another, but apparently their priorities were not committed enough to actually do that.


Well keep in mind that the marketing would only be effective if it resonated with his base.

If Republicans were so opposed to social programs, even though they strangely keep voting to fund them, then why in the world would a Republican politician advertise himself in a way that would turn off Republicans?

And more, how in the world has he been successful in appealing to voters using positions that voters dislike?

What you’re saying here just doesn’t make any sense against what we see. It requires us to discount all of this evidence and instead jump through many hoops to maintain these claims that just don’t square with reality.


It’s a serious question with a serious answer: people will move when the user experience is sufficiently better to overcome the effort it takes to move.

A serious answer because it emphasizes that we can complain about corporations all day, but until the platform actually has such a better user experience, none of that matters to most people.

They must be won over with a higher quality offering, not ideology.


Do you happen to know how reporting works with the protocol? Is it part of the protocol, or something added on, or is it part of the protocol but just transmitted through a standard bit of content addressed to the admin?

I’d go look it up myself but I am on my phone right now, so I’d be interested if you happen to know.



I don’t know where you are getting your information, but mainstream Republicans flat out campaign on preserving and expanding social services before putting their pins to paper to vote on funding social services.

I think you’re buying into a theory that just doesn’t match reality when we pull up the record.

Didn’t I share you a link above where even one of the hardcore Republicans was releasing a statement in which he was adamant that social services be preserved? I think it was this thread.


To be clear, debt is not necessary, only better, in light of most transactions.

We absolutely could have economies that operate with zero debt at all, and we would still have economic growth and value for those involved. We could, but it would be far far less growth and less value. We choose to engage debt because it provides that much more value over the alternative.

It’s like, sure we could have a society without mechanized transport. The reason we choose to engage cars and trains and everything else isn’t because they are required, but because they make our lives so much better, enabling so much more.

We apply debt because it so exponentially expands the economic options for us all. And banks help coordinate that technology. But it’s all optional nonetheless.


According to the civil servants at the Treasury, they were bringing in plenty of revenue to service the debts regardless of the debt ceiling, so no, Republicans did not and could not have threatened the credit standing of the country.

That was all up to the administration. It already had the borrowing power to maintain the credit standing of the country.

But even setting that aside, you’re still brushing right past the way that it was Democrats who set this up. You can talk about how Republicans responded to the situation, but even so, Democrats set up the situation through their legislation and executive action.

Don’t like that Republicans used this situation to press for change? Fine, but let’s be clear that Democrats actively gave them that opportunity. Let’s hold them accountable for it.


If a parliament passes a budget then lord knows the US president should ignore it since there is no parliament involved in the US system of government :)

The US does not have a parliamentary system of government. The one has nothing to do with the other.

The US system is fundamentally different from a parliamentary system for better or worse.



When the people we’ve elected pass laws that are impossible to execute, as is the current situation, that doesn’t grant the president extra power.

Rather it means the laws themselves are subject to nullification. And yes, we should vote all of the clowns out. But we reelected them, so shrug

The last Congress voted to authorize the president to spend a bunch of money that wouldn’t exist. “Out of the $10 in your pocket, you may spend $20.”

That’s not license for the president to mug someone to acquire the extra $10. It means the $10 of spending can’t happen, so the president is right to ignore the impossible action.



The debt ceiling is a requirement of the US Constitution, so it’s pretty off the mark to compare the US against parliamentary systems that, firstly, are parliamentary systems, and secondly, aren’t subject to the US Constitution.

No, the debt ceiling isn’t literally the USA deciding to order but not pay. The US can, must, and will pay its debts regardless of the debt ceiling. Treasury takes in plenty of revenue to pay its debts regardless of the debt ceiling.

That’s a flat out false claim and we shouldn’t put up with it when politicians start going on about it.

No, the debt ceiling is merely an expression of the idea that the representative branch of the federal government gets final say over whether the whole country will obligate itself to paying back debts.



But the GOP voted against this crisis.

Democrats voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set this budgetary crisis up while Republicans voted against it.


Exactly, so costs WOULD BE cut, just like I said.

If they only have $10 to spend then they won’t spend $20. They would cut costs because it would be mathematically impossible not to.

A more responsible administration would have already cut costs to avoid this precipice, but unfortunately Biden’s in the White House and he was eager to spend us into this crisis.


Biden has no authority to issue any executive order that would have undermined the Constitution to get rid of the debt ceiling.

It would have been absolutely illegal.

Presidents don’t have the unilateral authority to just do what they want. They aren’t kings. They can’t just ignore the law, ignore the Constitution, when their obligations become inconvenient to them.

But most of all keep in mind how anti-democratic what you are saying is. You are talking about removing from the people the vote as to whether generations of Americans should be beholden to debt obligations.

I keep in mind just how extreme your proposal really is.



Well really it’s that debt ceiling fights come out of dumb execution of dumb laws.

When Congress tells you that you can spend $100 million out of the $50 million dollars in the bank, so you go ahead and spend and run out, that is just dumb. And that is where the debt ceiling comes in.

When the president agrees to spend more than he has, well that is dumb and that is the core of what has happened here.


The Democrats really need to get their message together.

Half of them are saying there are no real cuts at all and this is a tremendous success over the Republicans, and then you have people like this saying there are serious reasons to protest cuts coming on the back of black women.

Which is it? Did Biden pants the Republicans or did the legislation seriously harm the people?

The political spin is all over the place.


That’s not what the ruling says. I’ll link it below so you don’t have to trust places like vice.com

What the ruling said was that the union can’t use a particular federal act to shield itself against the normal court processes. That’s it.

That doesn’t mean the union has to ensure the company won’t lose any money since the court didn’t comment on any such law.

If the union operates in a state where this action is legal, great! Go for it. If that sabotage is illegal, though, it has to face the courts and be held accountable. That’s not up to the Supremes, though.

The precedent is merely saying that “the NLRA did not preempt Glacier’s tort claims”



I mean, I assumed Biden’s months of demands for expanded borrowing power without any conditions was his prediction that he’d give up a lot less…


The Supreme Court invented this notion that executive branch agencies can’t claim power that’s not granted by law?

Quite a new weapon, that.


Your point number 1 is incorrect. The Treasury’s daily reporting showed that revenues coming in were sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the US government regardless of the debt ceiling.

AND, if revenues were insufficient, then current expenditures would be adjusted accordingly.

The Treasury can’t spend $20 of $10. Current expenditures are limited by holdings, not the other way around.

Your point number two doesn’t match the legislation they passed, but that’s a different issue.


Your theory doesn’t make mathematical sense.

if the GOP doesn’t desire balanced budgets then they would simply lower those taxes without bothering with spending since they wouldn’t care about the deficits.

The fact that you say there is a drive to reduce expenditures undermines the rest of your theory.

Show more
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.