volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
Also keep in mind that hashtags are a good way for people to filter their feeds.
For example, when I write about US topics I include appropriate hashtags so folks from around the world who aren't interested in that can filter them out.
Keep in mind that there's a well-known strategy that presidents have often employed where they will choose to shut down high-profile things like national parks and blame Congress for it, all to get the public to turn against legislators, forcing them to bow to the president's demands.
This is a case of that.
If the Treasury doesn't have the money to continue spending on all of the executive branch's programs, then it chooses for itself which ones to pull back on.
If the Treasury is tapping retirement funds instead of, I don't know, the defense budget or travel budgets, then that's on them.
It's a political stunt that the president is engaging in, and we all need to keep that in mind.
That's a complicated relationship, and the independence of the Federal Reserve means that going that route becomes legally fraught, fully embracing the idea that not even the executive branch, much less the more democratic legislative branch, should have control over the country's finances.
Maybe you haven't heard much about the fairtax plan, but it was designed to be emphatically progressive, explicitly against a giant tax shift from the well-off to everyone else, by including a part that mails out checks to people to not only reimburse them for taxes on essentials, but to even give them money ahead of time for that.
In other words, the fairtax proposal explicitly and actively transfers money away from the rich and to everyone else.
Well that's not true.
The Treasury has enough money flowing in throughout the year to cover bills it's already taken on regardless of the debt ceiling.
Politicians (and corporate media) do try to confuse that by misleading people into thinking the bills are all taken on the moment an appropriations bill is signed, though.
That misconception needs to be corrected, as the federal government takes on bills throughout the year.
@victorwynne@ruby.social
It's worse than that, and if you'll pardon my bolding, **there isn't even a way to make your future posts viewable by followers only**.
This is a drum I beat because more people need to know about how privacy works around here, because people are putting out content thinking it's more private than it is.
#Fediverse operates by marking content with audience, sending it out left and right, and just trusting that all of those different programs jacked in to the system will carefully take the audience markings into account when showing it to different people.
To be fair, most of those programs will probably do what you expect and only show the content to the people you expect, but it's entirely their call.
A solution in search of a problem? :)
Because enough of them are sufficiently sane and informed to realize that unilateral control over the money supply, with democratic processes cut out of the discussion, is bound to be catastrophic in the long run?
Congress COULD just authorize issuance of more debt as they pass appropriations, but I do think there are a few practical advantages of having them as separate processes.
One big one is that funding is authorized based on certain estimates of the amount of revenues that the Treasury will be taking in throughout the year.
If something happens and tax revenues begin falling short, the debt ceiling provides a warning sign requiring Congress to reconsider their authorizations, to decide whether those programs should really be funded given this unexpected downturn in revenues.
The debt limit acts as a backstop against unexpected economic scenarios that would otherwise leave the US far more in debt than Congress would have wanted.
Well, aren't you just a great font of reasoned discourse.
Where's that eyeroll emoji... is there one of those on this platform?
I think you should reach out if it's not too inconvenient for you, and you could put it politely as, "Hey, I noticed that you blocked out your address so you must care about your privacy, but I wanted to make sure you knew that the tracking number defeats that."
You don't have to say anything about whether YOU tried to defeat it.
> "Now as your first video points out we could raise taxes to the point that income = spending"
This is so key when addressing MMT. We see that, for all practical purposes, we can't actually do that :)
MMT seems to rely on that being true, but it isn't practically true now, and won't be any time soon.
Maybe when that world arrives we can consider the MMT form of fiscal governance, but until then, we need to clearly say that MMT cannot work because it misses this key piece.
To be clear, the debt limit can't be abolished since it's really just the term for the total amount Congress has authorized to be borrowed.
However, Congress *could* include borrowing authority in every spending bill that it passes.
In other words, yes, the Democrat controlled Congress could have raised the debt ceiling alongside their spending authorizations, but it didn't.
This is a common misconception, but no, Congress only appropriates money, giving permission for it to be spent.
The actual spending takes place throughout the year as the Executive Branch pays bills and buys things.
The US Government has plenty of ongoing income to pay its debts. It cannot legally default as it is legally required to service debts first.
It doesn't take two to play chicken?
Another practical way to think about the #debtceiling is as providing a halftime checkup of how budgetary estimates are actually working out, and one that gets triggered sooner the farther the Treasury is falling from those estimates.
If the government is running out of money faster than expected, you WANT that alarm to go off sooner so the situation can be addressed.
Remember, after spending is authorized the Treasury spends it throughout the year even as tax revenues continually come in. The Treasury's balance changes from day to day based on both flows out and in.
Congress authorizes spending based on estimates of both flows, what projects will cost AND how much will come in over time. That makes federal budgets doubly uncertain.
Should receipts fall far short of estimates, Congress would need to reevaluate as its planning was faulty. The #debtlimit would be triggered more quickly as a warning that couldn't be legally swept under the rug until it's too late.
It's vital that people understand the different roles of the different branches here. People are acting as if it all happens in Congress, but in reality, that's the other branch of government.
Not quite.
US debt is only increased by having the Treasury actually issue bonds and such.
Even after Congress votes authorize borrowing, the debt isn't increased until the Treasury actually goes out and borrows. Until then, it has legal authorization, but the debt hasn't changed.
The Treasury is part of the Executive branch, like all other executive agencies. So yes, the Executive Branch is responsible for increasing US debt; all the Legislative Branch can do is sign laws.
(And conduct oversight of how the Executive Branch is executing its laws.)
To put it a different way, it's not Congress saying that there is a debt ceiling but rather the Constitution creating a debt ceiling that Congress is to manage.
Since the Constitution specifically says Congress is the one with the authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States", then the total that they've borrowed IS the debt ceiling.
And again, Congress authorizes spending. That's disconnected from the actual spending that the Executive does, which is why the amount spent never matches the amount Congress has budgeted.
Right, I know about the setting, but I'm wondering why the content was indexed despite the setting.
The Treasury issues debt.
The Treasury is not part of the legislative branch of government.
So the way it works in the US government is that Congress writes legislation authorizing the coequal executive branch to take on certain amounts of debt.
I know, I really do wish reporters would be more clear about how the government actually functions and who's responsible for what.
But no, the legislative branch only legislates. The executive branch actually makes stuff happen.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
