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
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
Keep in mind also that the US government was designed to have different interests vying for power against each other, which we politely call checks and balances.
The executive branch is supposed to be always trying to get more money to spend and Congress always trying to check that, scrutinizing and refusing to authorize spending that's not worth it.
So the Treasury is spinning the situation trying to get more money, trying to get more borrowing authorized, using this fearmongering, but we should all be skeptical of their claims knowing they're just pursing their interests, as is their job.
We can see in their legal reports that they have enough money, though. We do know enough about this topic to push back on their demands.
Since Congress can't spend money itself--the Treasury lives in the executive branch--its budgeting is effectively the ficticious thing here.
Congress only authorizes spending of money that may or may not exist.
It's up to the Treasury to come up with and implement the real budget based on what Congress has authorized it to spend out of what it actually has.
Congress's budgeting, such that it is, is largely aspirational. The executive branch has to actually deal with budgeting based on real world realities.
@kathrynlaskey @rmaloley That misunderstands how the US government is set up, though, confusing the roles of the separate branches of government.
Congress only authorizes spending; it doesn't agree to pay anything. The other branch, the executive branch, is the one that actually agrees to pay bills based on money available in the Treasury.
Congress tells the executive branch, "IF you can afford it, then you may buy a new missile."
Legally the executive branch MUST pay debts before anything buying anything new. That's up to the president, though, so it's he, not the GOP, that's threatening to violate the 14th Amendment.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
Sure, that's one way the Treasury can move money around, so long as it's acting within its authority, but it can also service debt by simply retiring it.
It has the resources, so legally it must.
It cannot legally just stop paying debts so long as it has tax receipts and other resources to pay debt coming due.
And it does have those resources, so it must.
@rmaloley You have it backwards, though: the Constitution *requires* the debt ceiling.
The Constitution grants to Congress authority "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" and that's for a very good reason: if the country is going to obligate itself to debt, that could involve generations of citizens having to work to pay it off. Therefore, the representatives need to affirm that we're really all into it.
What we refer to as the #debtceiling is simply the amount that our representatives have so far agreed to obligate the country to.
As for authorizing said spending, remember that authorizing something doesn't mean it's possible. It's only a permission. Huge difference.
The Treasury brings in enough to pay US debts. There is no legal risk of default.
There is only a case where past Congresses authorized the spending of money that doesn't actually exist.
I think you're missing that he seems to be framing this as a feature, not a bug.
Yes, it's a deliberate choice. As he indicates, that's what users want, so they choose to serve those users.
I find it kind of uncomfortable the extent to which EVERYTHING on this platform is effectively public, and how people don't really talk about it.
This is kind of a symptom of that design, and it also makes funny the fight over a #RT feature, because you're not supposed to talk about someone behind their back.
Anyway, it's a drum I beat because I don't think people really consent to the wide open nature of the platform as they use it.
Ahhh, US Press Secretary asserting that her untrue statements to journalists just goes to show how much the White House respects the independence of the Department of Justice.
I don't know what's worse, that spin, or her not seeming to know that the DoJ isn't independent but a key part of her branch of government.
All she had to say was that she was given outdated/inaccurate information to pass along. The reporters seemed to be fishing for that answer.
What times we live in...
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
YES! The threat of default is political! That's my whole point.
The Treasury has enough to pay its debts. It cannot legally default so long as it has resources by which to pay its debts.
It is pure political posturing to talk as if default is on the table. Legally, it is not.
And if a president chooses to stop paying debts legally owed, not only would that president be choosing to blow up the economy (as they say), but I'd consider that an immediately impeachable, clearly unconstitutional decision for him to make.
But so long as the executive branch has those resources to pay the debts, which is absolutely mathematically does, it is the president's decision.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
The Constitution assigns Congress the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;" to ensure that the executive branch isn't obligating the country, and future generations, to paying back creditors without the consensus of the country that it should be done.
The debt ceiling is not placing a limit on how much the Treasury may pay to service debt. Not at all.
The debt ceiling is merely the amount that Congress has authorized to be borrowed.
(And it's amazing how many people are citing Wikipedia as authoritative this time.)
Right, but it's self-inflicted as previous congresses promised spending of money that they not only didn't have but didn't even plan to finance.
We need to blame those representatives that we somehow keep reelecting for putting us in this situation.
They had every chance to authorize debt to fund their programs, and it was clear they'd need to, but they didn't.
So here we are.
Democrats had every chance to authorize the borrowing needed to fund their spending bills when they had majorities in Congress and the presidency.
That they continued to authorize spending of money everyone knew they wouldn't have even with current borrowing levels is something they shouldn't be left off the hook for.
A pox on both their houses.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
Yes. Since the Treasury brings in enough money to pay its debts, it can pay its debts, and so legally it must.
For the Treasury to not pay debts that it has the ability to pay runs directly afoul of the 14th Amendment, and would be a really big deal.
It's the US saying that sure it COULD pay what it ows... it's just not going to.
There's a really good reason that' idea was important enough to include it in a constitutional amendment.
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @flexghost
Keep in mind that any legislation, or legislative interpretation, that would prevent the US from servicing its public debt would run directly afoul of the 14th Amendment, and so would be unenforceable.
The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned, even if Congress really really doesn't want the executive branch to pay it.
If Congressional authorization of spending provides authority to borrow then we wouldn't be in this situation.
The reason the administration is going back to Congress for legislation to raise the debt ceiling is precisely because authorization to spend was not authority to borrow.
No, the debt ceiling is the limit of debt that has been authorized by law.
They issue debt securities, with permission of Congress, to obtain the money to spend.
They are two different processes that Congress by tradition treats as separate matters.
They could always authorize deficit spending and authorize new debt issuance in the same legislation, but they don't, which is how we end up in these situations.
In the clip Greenspan says there's nothing preventing the federal government from creating more money. That is of course true.
But it's not relevant here, since we're not talking about creating more money; this isn't legislation on the table "To coin Money" as Article I provides for.
Congress COULD legislate and the president execute a law to count another trillion dollars tomorrow. But that's not what the debt ceiling is, nor is it what an appropriations bill says.
Thank goodness.
An appropriations bill merely authorizes the spending of existing money. That's it.
You can see for yourself directly from the Treasury.
They publish their balance sheets transparently and continuously.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/daily-treasury-statement/operating-cash-balance
If only there was a way to see highlighted the things you're interested in; maybe an algorithm... ;)
The debt ceiling is merely the way we describe the idea that the US can't take on longterm debt without general agreement of the population.
We shouldn't be obligating future generations to paying off debts without agreement of the population in general, right? Presidents should not have unilateral authority to commit the country for decades to working to pay off a debt?
So the Constitution puts it to our elected representatives "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"
That's all the #debtceiling is, the amount of money our democratic process has agreed to borrow.
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:
