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
But it was a lurch to the left that threatened default: Democrats and Biden passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set this situation up, and then Biden threatened a default unless he was given expanded borrowing power.
Those on the far right demanded a lot to clean up the mess, and moderates won the day, solving the problem caused by the left while squashing demands of the extreme right.
There was a lurch to the left in this controversy followed by a return to the center despite the demands of the right.
I just hope people notice how the rescission clauses in bill pretty much debunk the rhetoric we've been fed for months about how this is about paying our bills.
Those of us who are familiar with that term and familiar with how federal financing works have been trying to spread the word that politicians are either lying or ignorant about how their own government works.
(Take your pick)
If the debt ceiling was about paying bills then rescission would leave bills unpaid, so it wouldn't be a solution.
But BECAUSE those aren't bills to be paid, because it's merely spending authority, not actual spending, rescission helps solve the gridlock.
The press has really carried the administration's water, misleading the public on this one.
@alfredo_liberal@universeodon.com
You're misunderstanding, talking like there's one central organization that should be deciding who runs or doesn't run.
No, #Republicans are absolutely aware of what you're bringing up. Mainstream conservatives have been talking about it for a year.
It ends up being an issue of each candidate thinking that yeah, it's bad when there's too many candidates, so all of THOSE OTHERS should drop out.
Everyone knows there should be only one strong challenger. The problem is that all of the serious challengers believe they're the one that should stay.
There's game theory in there.
That's not how federal financing works, though.
The shortfall has nothing to do with taxes since the president already signed legislation that countenanced this level of taxation, which along with his spending, lead to this shortfall.
Biden already accepted this level of taxation. He put his pen to paper approving it through the CAA... which was passed over GOP objections, mind you.
So at this point the president is demanding power to borrow more because the bill he signed was mathematically unworkable given the level of taxation he accepted alongside his level of spending.
Taxation is not the problem here. It has nothing to do with this dispute.
No, it's the exact opposite.
The Supreme Court unanimously--conservative and liberal sides--voted to *reinforce* the Clean Water Act, pointing out that the EPA was misreading the Act.
They were emphatic that the CWA must be enforced as passed by the democratic system in the US.
See for yourself straight from the Court to bypass these reporters with axes to grind:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
The holdouts say the opposite. Take this statement from Chip Roy, just to grab one of them at random to grab his stance.
He's calling for discretionary spending at 2022 levels, and the US certainly did spend on more than the military then.
This isn't about budget victory, though, since this isn't about the budget.
The budget talks came last year and concluded with the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
All of this is just dealing with the fallout from that mess of a bill.
I disagree.
It sounds to me like your complaint is that the standard simply doesn't do what you want it to do, doesn't have the features that you wish it had.
Great! Work on improving the standard. Personally I'm pretty critical of ActivityPub.
But what I'm hearing you describe sounds like exactly a good faith implementation of what the standard is aimed at providing.
ActivityPub doesn't provide two way communication, and as far as I can tell isn't supposed to. I would not fault Facebook for implementing that exact same focus.
From what I've heard from the holdouts, their concerns tended to focus on spending, not taxes.
The numbers tell others things about the account, though.
Chances are someone who's being followed by many people has content that's worth following (circularly :) )
Also, large numbers suggest opportunities to engage with more people through that profile.
It's been a long time since I read through the history of it in the courts and US regulatory system, but it was sort of the unintended consequence of a collision of individually well-meaning left-leaning positions.
Something like:
(allow detainees to stay to argue for asylum instead of shipping them out immediately) + (make sure children are held in age-appropriate settings) = (separate children while they're being allowed to stay in detention)
As I recall from the standard, it's not so much about ambiguities as much as it's that ActivityPub simply doesn't have a built in concept of two-way communication.
An actor posts things to an audience. An audience of one is simply a subset of posting in that system. Two-way communication is at most two people making posts with each other as audiences.
ActivityPub is just not really built to be a messaging platform, so it would be in good faith for Facebook to implement it accordingly.
The whole idea of Fediverse is that there won't be one whole idea of Fediverse :)
I joke, of course, but this platform is built around instances being whatever they want to be, each with the [rather popular] option to exchange content with others, if that contributes to the direction the particular instance wants to go in.
Democrats actively passed laws recognizing student debt, including it in budgets.
That's what they *did*.
Student debt cancellation was never legal in the first place.
Congress has been legally relying on those payments for years as part of the budgetary process, leaving the president no legal authority to unilaterally waive it away.
It's not dead now... it was never alive.
No, not blackmail.
The president is requesting additional power to borrow money, and as per checks and balances, he only gets that power if our representatives agree that it's for the best for the country.
It has nothing to do with fault. It's just how the US was designed to work: if generations of Americans are going to be on the hook for paying off that debt, we want to make sure the public is really in agreement with it, through our democratic process.
If the president can't make his case for more borrowing to the elected Congress, then checks and balances means he can't borrow on our dime.
Listening to Republicans today debating among themselves over the #DebtCeiling deal, there's a big problem that the hardliners literally don't know how federal finances work, and so they vastly overestimate #GOP power in this situation.
If Biden can't borrow money to pay for programs that the #GOP likes, then he won't, and their favorite projects will be harmed. This *empowers* Biden, but they have no idea.
Today's debate on the right was all about the moderates trying to inform their young colleagues as to the actual rules of the game, to inform strategy, but the hardliners weren't interested in learning... unsurprisingly.
Just goes to show how important civics education is, especially for those actually in government.
We had a unanimous Supreme Court, composed of justices with approaches that come from many different angles, all agree that the agency was wrong.
In the face of that, what makes you think that the agency, with its own self interests, was right?
Where exactly do you think the Court got it wrong?
Yes, it is unrelated, so we need to call this administration out for trying to distract from its faults with such unrelated things.
Yes, I'd fault politicians of the past for the debts they racked up irresponsibly. But that has nothing to do with the irresponsible actions of THIS administration, that we should hold accountable.
Now this is the administration in power. They must own their actions and not be allowed to fingerpoint at the past to skirt accountability.
Oh, I see! So the TX Senate passed one version, the House took it up and made some changes, including that one, passed it, and the Senate rejected the House amendments, so it's in conference.
Unfortunately I don't see a record of any House speeches explaining their changes.
Well, we'd both agree that there are problems with giving the governor's administration too much power, right? So this legislation doesn't give them a choice. It directs the Sec. of State to act, regardless of their feelings, which is one safeguard against abuse of power.
It's part of what looks to me like a reasonable approach with guardrails preventing abuse.
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:
