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
@TCatInReality @crooksandliars
You're missing that it's not a case of one law taking precedent over other.
Congressional appropriation laws are permission to spend what is there. The president still has permission to spend even if he mathematically can't.
It's like, I can write a law giving you permission to flap your arms and fly around the room, and even if that's not possible, it's still the law. You still absolutely do have that permission. That you can't actually use that permission doesn't mean you don't have permission.
So really it's not one law taking precedent over another. It's economic reality, math, taking precedent over legislation, and that's exactly how it is supposed to work.
@TCatInReality @crooksandliars
Why couldn't it possibly be constitutional? Rather, it absolutely IS constitutional!
It's just the democratic process at work.
If we elect people to shut down the government, well, that is the word of the people. We get what we vote for.
@StOnSoftware @LFpete @rbreich
It's not, though, and that's the whole issue here.
The federal government never knows exactly how much tax revenue it will bring in every year. If nothing else, the unpredictability of the economy means it might bring in a lot more this year or a lot less this year.
So deficit spending is linked to unpredictable levels of taxation, so borrowing levels cannot be derived from other decisions Congress makes.
That's why the power to borrow has to be separate from anything else.
@cathyginter@universeodon.com
Most of those are state programs, so it's a bit silly to point to the federal Congress as impacting them.
Well yeah, but given that the Treasury will have the income to pay the debts, they would be horrified that the president is proposing not paying them and threatening the country with default as a rhetorical stunt.
And so many politicians and people are buying into that rhetoric.
Right, carrying too much debt should be addressed while making budgets, but the last Congress didn't do it, so what do we do now? That's the big question we are dealing with now.
The last Congress really let us down. This Congress is dealing with the mess left over.
Anyway, we cannot do away with the debt ceiling stuff since the debt ceiling is simply the word we use to describe the permission the legislative branch gives to the executive branch to borrow money. It is just the word for permission being granted.
The Treasury has plenty of revenue incoming to pay its debts, so defaulting is not on the table unless the president decides to default.
The GOP isn't pursuing default, and doesn't even have the ability to pursue it since Democrats hold the White House.
Whether or not the debt ceiling is raised, the Treasury can pay its debts. The rest is up to the Democrat in charge of the executive branch.
@TCatInReality @crooksandliars
The problem is that the laws the last Congress passed are impossible to execute.
The last Congress ordered the president to spend a bunch of money that doesn't exist. So what is he supposed to do with that? If I give you $20 and order you to spend $50 of it, what do you do?
Well fortunately with a system of coequal branches the president doesn't actually have to execute impossible laws. He just does his best, and is subject to impeachment anyway.
But there is no room for a SCOTUS challenge there.
The thing is, the US Treasury will have enough revenue to pay its debts, so defaulting is absolutely not on the table unless the president decides for himself to default.
@StOnSoftware @LFpete @rbreich
The debt ceiling is just what we call the amount of money that Congress has authorized the president to borrow.
You say the ceiling needs to go away, but really it can't go away because it is simply the power that one branch of government gives to another.
The Treasury says the Treasury payout doesn't match how much Congress budgets.
On their website they release monthly numbers showing so.
Congress doesn't have to raise the debt ceiling. That's the whole point.
That the credit rating was downgraded shows that the debt ceiling doesn't have to be raised. So your own observation disproves the claim.
If the debt ceiling had to be raised and the Treasury had to pay these debts then there would not have been a downgrade. That there was a downgrade shows that the story isn't true.
Or to put it another way, this is not a question of politics, it's a question of law, and the FDA broke the law.
The FDA is free to put peer-reviewed data to the forefront any day now, but under this president so far it is declining to do so.
So we're left with courts having to deal with an administration acting in violation of law, and putting politics aside, there is no good solution to that mess.
The Treasury absolutely does pick and choose what government spends money on.
Keep in mind that every single year the Treasury does not spend exactly what Congress has appropriated.
That fact alone disproves the idea that Congress spends money.
Congress has the power to control access to the purse, but once Congress authorizes access to the purse, it's an Executive Branch function to actually spend money.
In short, what you're saying can easily be debunked by simply looking at the difference between what Congress appropriates versus what the Treasury spends.
The problem with that is that it speaks to normalizing an administration being above the law.
When a president is breaking the law, that shouldn't be off limits to the courts. That's why we have courts in the first place, to rule on laws, especially those created by our democratic processes.
And to emphasize based on that point, if the law is bad then we need to change the law. If it shouldn't have been illegal for the FDA to approve this drug despite its own scientific misgivings, then we should put forward legislation to change those legal protections against questionable drugs.
But as it stands, that is the law on the books, and it's tough to say that judges should not be enforcing those laws, that presidents should be able to just ignore them.
I think the key there is the word "budget".
A budget is a plan. Sometimes plans don't work out. Often in the US government plans don't work out.
Just because they budget for something doesn't mean it will work out, and when you review the treasury reports it never ever does.
The Treasury never actually spends what is budgeted.
So no, when Congress budgets more spending than revenue, it's not only true that Treasury must raise money to cover that deficit, constitutionally the Treasury cannot raise money to cover that deficit without additional legal action.
It's not that the executive branch can't simply decide to spend less; constitutionally it has no choice but to spend less.
@StOnSoftware @LFpete @rbreich
That is not at all what is going on here in US politics.
The government bondholders are going to be paid, one way or another, since the president has the money to pay them.
The president is threatening not to pay them, but that is not his option. Joe Biden cannot legally refuse to pay bondholders when he has the money in the treasury to pay them, but he is bluffing about that very thing.
This is all ridiculous rhetoric, and Biden needs to be called out, and he needs to knock it off.
So if you read the ruling they cite FDA officials showing that the FDA did not follow their own procedures that are legally mandated.
If the drug has proven itself over decades, great! The administration should simply move forward to approve the drug under the legally mandated procedures. That would solve this whole mess.
Really, I have no idea why the administration is not doing that. It makes me think it is political, that the administration would rather fight this out in court rather than just have the FDA sign the paperwork It is legally required to sign.
Of course the Treasury can pick and choose what it spends money on, because that is how the separations of power of the US government is designed.
If Congress authorizes the Treasury to spend money that it does not have, then it is implicitly all about letting the executive branch pick which things it wants to spend money on.
If I tell you that you can spend $10,000 but you only have $1,000 to spend then mathematically there is no choice but for you to pick and choose what to spend money on.
That is what we are facing now.
You have that exactly wrong! This whole case is about people questioning the FDA procedures for two decades!
The issue of timing is a core part of this entire dispute!
@StOnSoftware @LFpete @rbreich
Representatives decide how much the executive branch may borrow, and that amount is the debt ceiling.
To say the debt ceiling does not exist is just flat out ignoring how the federal government works.
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:
