volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@darlulittledeer@universeodon.com

Wow, that's quite the conspiracy theory they have there.

@tallship @nova @derekprior

Whatever you linked here is showing up as not available.

@stopgopfox@libretooth.gr

Well it's about democracy.
You might not like these people, but they were elected by their constituents to be representatives in the democratic institution.

When you talk about a powerful nation being powerless in contrast to these democratic results, well it comes across as awfully authoritarian, maybe even fascist.

I'm sorry you don't like how the democratic process worked out, but to use rhetoric about the power of the state to oppose democracy? That's troubling.

@david @tedcurran

Say I wanted to follow your content and you are posting both micro blog posts through one program and videos through another. I could use your certificate to follow you and know that both the microblogs and the videos are actually coming from the same identity even if they are coming from different instances.

It's not about proving who you are as a person.
It's about your being able to brand your content across platforms, if you want to put it like that.

@Nonilex

We really need to push back on this story about the possibility of default. It's fear mongering plain and simple.

The Treasury brings in enough revenue to service its debts, and it is legally obligated to do so. There is no legal chance of a default regardless of what happens with the debt ceiling.

Politicians trying to hold up default as a threat are misleading the public, and we need to call them out on that.

@david @6al@misskey.social @tedcurran

Well it's up to each user. It's up to you. Do you want to see posts from people who aren't verified?

For some users they will say no, they only want to see content from verified people. Other people, myself included, will be interested in seeing even what unverified posters are posting.

One of the main benefits of this is empowering users, giving them more information and more control over their experiences on the platform.

You choose what you want to see. Not everyone has to be verified, and it's up to you whether you want to see only verified people or not.

@wdlindsy

Right, but the debt ceiling was already raised to cover those bills. They have been taken care of.

This is about finding ways to pay for new spending since Trump left office.

As for the 2017 tax reforms, according to the Treasury they brought in more tax revenue after the reforms, exactly as proponents of the reforms predicted.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

Yeah, as I said, maybe in the morning I can pull up specific citations, but in the meantime, do you really doubt the concept of separate but equal branches of the government?

I would think that such a concept is very basic civics education with required to the US government.

And really that's all that's needed to support what I'm saying here. If you have separate but equal branches then that means the executive branch cannot be subservient to the legislative branch.

This is all part of the checks and balances involved in the US government design. To have the legislative branch authorize and the executive branch execute is a check to make sure that both sides are in agreement ask for any expenditure.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

You seem to be saying that the executive branch must spend money that the legislative branch authorizes to be spent even if it doesn't exist.

You seem to be saying that Congress can order the executive branch to spend five trillion dollars even if the treasury will only take in two trillion dollars.

Congress is entirely able to pass a law saying such a thing.

And yet, by the design of the US government and simple mathematics the executive cannot be forced to do that whether that deficiency is based on chain of command or the mathematical impossibility.

It's pretty ridiculous to say otherwise.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

Well with a post like this you are just talking stupid, pardon my French.

The legislative branch cannot legally obligate spending, and it absolutely can't lead to anything being spent. That's just the entirely wrong branch of government. It's just entirely wrong based on how the US government is set up to function.

But yes, a whole lot of politicians are lying about how it works, and you seem to be promoting those lies. Congratulations. You are being used as a tool of liars.
I'm using harsh words right now because this is a harsh situation.
Those liars need to be called out for misleading the public; their lies should not be promoted.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

Congress has no ability to override the Constitution through statutory text. That's really the whole point.

To impose checks and balances between the different coequal branches of government, no branch is able to do something that is not allowed by the Constitution that sets the ground rules for the US government.

And so, the legislative branch cannot force the executive branch any more than the executive branch can force the legislative branch. They each have their role to play, and anytime one tries to violate their limits, the other is entirely right to recognize that overreach.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

Yes, the modern idea of mandatory versus discretionary is nothing new, but it is also little more than rhetorical games that congresspeople play to try to avoid accountability and score points for the next election cycle, and we really really need to spend more time calling them out on it.

It is politicians spending money while claiming they have no choice but to spend tax dollars in ways that a lot of us are uncomfortable with. It is an excuse. And we need to call them out on it, not promote the powerful people using their excuses for exerting their power.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

Again, Congress has no authority to obligate the executive to spend as that would be a violation of the separate but equal design of the US government.

You keep talking about political parties, but this has nothing to do with political parties. He has nothing to do with the GOP or Democrats. It is flat out the design of the US government regardless of who might be passing legislation or executing laws.

Honestly, it sounds like you are a little bit obsessed with political party strategies, but you should not let that cloud the issue.

The US government was designed to ignore that kind of thing and it is really interestingly neutral to that kind of thing. It doesn't matter what party might be in Congress and what party might be in the presidency, the rules still apply, and that is part of what makes it work so well.

The checks and balances of the US government are pretty interesting and pretty effective, as long as we don't try to short circuit them through partisan bias.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

You're also making an error of conflating appropriating funding versus increasing authorized debt. Those two things are, both in terms of accounting and in terms of the Constitution, independent actions.

Congress can authorize the executive branch to spend, tax, and borrow, three different things.

Consider what happens if Congress authorizes spending that they expect to be completely covered by the authorized taxing, but throughout the year there is an economic downturn so that tax revenues fall short. Separately Congress may or may not choose to authorize borrowing to cover the shortfall.

So these are different and independent choices that Congress may or may not make. The executive is bound by what Congress chooses to do, but it is still in the hands of the executive to act within the bounds that Congress sets.

The US design of government is actually really interesting and really useful, really practical. Far too few people really appreciate how it works.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

According to the Treasury's monthly reports, it absolutely DOES have the revenue and credit to pay all of its debts and obligations.

Again, I can pull up the report in the morning, or you can pull it up yourself from the Treasury's website.

The Treasury might not have the authority to borrow a bunch more money to fund future obligations that have been authorized by Congress, but it does have the money to service its debts as they stand.

By its own numbers the Treasury is in no danger of defaulting on its obligations. It should not obligate itself into the situation where it might be, but if the president wants to go that direction, he can, and he stands to be impeached over it.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

If you're really interested I can pull up the Social Security act in the morning. It defines all of that stuff in statute, but I don't have my computer handy at the moment.

I really don't care about parties and who does what would debt. The two major parties screw it up enough on their own.

But the Constitution has really interesting things to say in terms of checks and balances to make sure there are interests challenging each other to make sure no one has too much power over any of this.

The legislative branch legislates, granting authority to the executive branch to execute, but only within the bounds of both legislative grant and, you know, math, and that's really the main thing I'm pointing out here.

If the Congress appropriates more money than exists, which it is free to do, what do you think happens then? The executive can't spend more money than exists. That would be mathematically impossible, and yet Congress is free to do that.

It all goes to show that with separation of powers Congress only authorizes, it cannot obligate, since that would open the door to obligating impossible things.

So really I'm appealing to the same logic that the design of the federal government was based on. Simple ideas of different sides performing different jobs in a system of co-equal branches that cooperate to get things done.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

Well right, that's why this is so important that Congress cannot obligate or mandate that the executive branch must pay out.

This is why it is so important to remember that the co-equal branches design of the US government prevents exactly that situation.

The Treasury has enough revenue to service its debts, so as per the 14th there should be absolutely no question about defaulting. That the executive branch is even talking about defaulting is really out of line. The president is threatening explicitly to violate the Constitution.

That's a big deal to me, but apparently we're cool with it.

@abolitionbb

Again, my point was that seat belts actually do kill people.

I think you missed the point.

@csgordon@zirk.us @gwaldby

You are mistaken, and in a way that's very troubling because it is based on generations of outright lies by politicians.

Programs like Social Security are just other programs of the US government. By law. They are designed that way, and they're emphatically designed that way, they are no different from funding a road or a research project.

Again I emphasize that yes, politicians have been lying about this very very troublingly.

We even have the people administering the programs, the Social Security administration, emphatically sounding the alarm that their programs are in trouble specifically because they are not obligations. The administrators have been writing report after report trying to get attention as to the fiscal issues they are going to be facing, but we have politicians ignoring all of that and insisting that there's no problem here.

This is a huge deal!

I'm repeating myself, but politicians are insisting that programs like SS are guaranteed, even as the people running SS are warning that the program will fail, and all of the people counting on it are being misled by the politicians.

At any point Social Security payments can be ended. When the program runs out of money they will be ended. That fact is very significant and it is very very unhealthy that the politicians have denied that reality.