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
Yeah definitely, regardless of whether I cite my sources, have personal expertise, or make solid arguments, yeah just ignore me because I am a "sub-50 follower troll".
Hello Idiocracy 
Keep in mind that according to the Treasury it has enough money to service its debt. That's what they say in their monthly statements. They don't need to borrow more in order to service their debt, again by their own words.
So this has absolutely nothing to do with servicing existing debts, since according to the Treasury they have enough money to service their existing debts.
I just want to restate that: Biden's own Treasury reports that it has enough money to service the existing debts.
Yes, politicians are being misleading about this subject. They are lying to us. As politicians do when they seek more power.
Anyway, yeah we absolutely have to call these people out on what they are doing. If Biden wants more power to borrow money against the US population then he needs to work with Congress to get it.
That is not relevant really.
The question is, if they are 10% government funded, is that 10% so important to them?
If it is so important to them, then I guess they are subject to being influenced by the government to keep it. If it is not so important to them, then maybe they ought to not take it.
It just comes down to their choice.
B government funded or don't be government-funded. It's up to them to decide how important that is, and if it is important then they are signing that deal.
They just need to be honest about it.
Right but they can't have it both ways.
Either they are government funded to a significant amount or they're not.
If the funding is significant great! They need to own that they are government funded. If the funding is not significant, then they need to cut it off because it doesn't matter because it's not significant.
They just can't have it both ways.
Well the case of that is understanding that the federal government doesn't incur debts all on a single day.
Every single day throughout the year the federal government buys things, and bills are created by that buying process that happens on a daily basis.
There has been a lot of misinformation based on the idea that the federal government creates bills all at once, but that's just not how it works.
So these bills have not yet been accumulated. It's not a question of I won't pay the bills we have already accumulated, because those bills don't actually exist yet.
Unfortunately the administration is trying to accumulate power based on that claim, and we really need to call them out on it being just plain false.
Not only is the debt ceiling constitutional, but it is constitutionally mandated.
The Constitution assigns to Congress responsibility for borrowing on the nation's credit, which makes sense because if generations might be on the hook to pay the money back, it makes sense to be sure that the representatives of the people really are on board with committing the people to that debt.
The debt ceiling is merely the shorthand we use to refer to what Congress has decided to borrow.
Far from irrelevant, the debt ceiling is a critical part of the operation of the US system of government.
volkris
boosted
"Please Stand By - Jacking In..."
Last night at the spooky goth club, someone handed me a floppy disk with a zine on it! I'm living the dream, you guys. It was quite a journey getting it to run. Is there a decent HyperCard player (vintage 1991) that...
https://jwz.org/b/yj_2
"The Congress shall have Power [..] To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;"
Article I section 8
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
The excuses that NPR has been putting out have been particularly silly.
It just always strikes me that, if the government funding is so miniscule then the journalistic organization should stop accepting it just to kill that as a controversy.
But I guess the contributions must not be so minuscule since they keep accepting the controversy to take the money.
I don't know what makes her think lower court judges weren't constrained or that Supreme Court wasn't constrained. It clearly is.
What in the world is this person talking about?
It's funny that you would call for the abolition of the Senate since that is the chamber not subject to gerrymandering.
But no, our democracy is not dysfunctional. Our population is dysfunctional. Throughout the country we have serious disagreements in the population. The representative Congress is just representing the people and showing the very real disagreements that the people have.
Congress is working perfectly, in a way, really representing that people have very strong and honest disagreements.
It would be a malfunction if given the disagreements in the population somehow Congress was all in the same side. In that case it would not be representing the people.
No!
Well I'm slightly joking, but this is part of my point here, being specific about what science is. I say that science is a process, not any sort of concrete thing. It doesn't correct itself; it is the thing that does the correction.
It would be like saying sanding wood correct itself.
No, sanding wood is not the thing that is being corrected, it is the process by which wood is smoothed.
It's sort of like saying science is a verb, not a noun.
Science, as I promote the term, is a way of uncovering wrong ideas about how the world works. Science is not corrected. It is the thing promoting correction.
That wouldn't resolve the crisis because no matter what the tax rates are a year from now the president is still demanding to borrow more money today.
Also, mathematically, it wouldn't raise that much money compared to the total deficit.
Again you're overlooking the democracy part of the system.
Voters are very polarized, so we elect polarized representatives to represent our polarization.
There is not consensus throughout the country that any justice has misbehaved to the point of needing to be removed, so the democratic process reflects that by declining to impeach.
But no, we cannot treat justices like federal employees in other branches of government without violating the judicial independence of the Supreme Court.
Once the legislative and executive branches are allowed to punish a justice the justices become beholden to the other branches, which is exactly what is not supposed to happen in our system of government.
Why skip the democratic process of the impeachment vote?
Impeachment is there specifically to hold officials like justices accountable.
It's the only way to enforce accountability without sacrificing judicial independence.
@Ruthie@mstdn.social
People are really off the rails talking as if the president has a choice about whether or not to abide by constitutional requirements like the 14th Amendment.
No, the president MUST apply the 14th Amendment and service debts, or else he should face impeachment for intentionally shirking his constitutional duty.
Yep, that's exactly my point. Science is only one out of many tools in our toolbox, and that's part of why it's useful to be specific about what science is.
@JohnShirley2023 @luckytran
volkris
boosted
Friend texting me: I could SWEAR I saw you just now at the airport carrying a duffel bag.
Me: I am here! Terminal A?
Friend: No! Terminal D!
Me: Huh. Must be my duffelganger.
@Ruthie@mstdn.social
No, I mean I would ask Jeffries to support his claim.
That math doesn't seem to work, so I'd want to see how he arrived at this claim.
Right, but you go a step farther when you say the other orgs get nothing back.
Well, they definitely do, and understanding that is key to seeing why the situation is like it is, and it's key to working with them to bring them over here.
Knowing what they get out of the other system is key to competing against it for their efforts.
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:
