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
The BIG reason to be skeptical is to realize that presidents have every incentive to spin up fears, to get the public to pressure Congress to give them more money.
In this case the Treasury has plenty of ongoing income to service debts so there is absolutely no legal chance for the US to default.
Presidents like to put out that fear because it serves their strategic interests, but it's simply not true.
Democrats had every chance to authorize borrowing to pay for their spending packages, but they didn't.
It's worth holding them accountable for bragging about programs that they left without funding, for putting us in this situation, and hoping that Republicans would fix their mess.
volkris
boosted
#DebtCeiling UST can still use funds from Treasury General Account #TGA, the federal Govt’s operational account at #Fed, and it can implement “extraordinary measures” to continue to meet its obligations, chart @JPMorganAM
And they would be right to do so.
The Democrats had every opportunity to authorize borrowing to fund the spending they called for, but they didn't.
They need to be held accountable for their actions in office as well.
But how would you design such a protocol to address those problems?
I wouldn't be so quick to accuse the WEC of being particularly familiar with reality...
I never said they were the same thing.
In fact, I switched to talking about the second specifically because they weren't the same thing, as the relationship between the Fed and the Treasury is a complicated one that it wasn't really necessary to address here.
But having the Feds override the fiscal checks and balanced between the legislative and executive branches is a dangerous direction to go.
Just to make sure people are aware, Fediverse platforms not only still collect that information, but they broadcast the information to any third parties who would also like to have it, including commercial actors who don't even have to identify themselves to you.
Fediverse is absolutely not built on privacy.
Heck, even Twitter and Facebook could be hoovering up data from the Fediverse.
It's up to each #Fediverse program to handle all of the content it's receiving, as best it can, in whatever way it thinks best for its users.
So yep, go ahead and post whatever you want in the format that makes the most sense for the content.
To hold yourself back for the sake of #Mastodon is to deprive all of the other clients of better content, while also maintaining that same, crippled status quo.
Also keep in mind that hashtags are a good way for people to filter their feeds.
For example, when I write about US topics I include appropriate hashtags so folks from around the world who aren't interested in that can filter them out.
Keep in mind that there's a well-known strategy that presidents have often employed where they will choose to shut down high-profile things like national parks and blame Congress for it, all to get the public to turn against legislators, forcing them to bow to the president's demands.
This is a case of that.
If the Treasury doesn't have the money to continue spending on all of the executive branch's programs, then it chooses for itself which ones to pull back on.
If the Treasury is tapping retirement funds instead of, I don't know, the defense budget or travel budgets, then that's on them.
It's a political stunt that the president is engaging in, and we all need to keep that in mind.
That's a complicated relationship, and the independence of the Federal Reserve means that going that route becomes legally fraught, fully embracing the idea that not even the executive branch, much less the more democratic legislative branch, should have control over the country's finances.
Maybe you haven't heard much about the fairtax plan, but it was designed to be emphatically progressive, explicitly against a giant tax shift from the well-off to everyone else, by including a part that mails out checks to people to not only reimburse them for taxes on essentials, but to even give them money ahead of time for that.
In other words, the fairtax proposal explicitly and actively transfers money away from the rich and to everyone else.
Well that's not true.
The Treasury has enough money flowing in throughout the year to cover bills it's already taken on regardless of the debt ceiling.
Politicians (and corporate media) do try to confuse that by misleading people into thinking the bills are all taken on the moment an appropriations bill is signed, though.
That misconception needs to be corrected, as the federal government takes on bills throughout the year.
@victorwynne@ruby.social
It's worse than that, and if you'll pardon my bolding, **there isn't even a way to make your future posts viewable by followers only**.
This is a drum I beat because more people need to know about how privacy works around here, because people are putting out content thinking it's more private than it is.
#Fediverse operates by marking content with audience, sending it out left and right, and just trusting that all of those different programs jacked in to the system will carefully take the audience markings into account when showing it to different people.
To be fair, most of those programs will probably do what you expect and only show the content to the people you expect, but it's entirely their call.
A solution in search of a problem? :)
Because enough of them are sufficiently sane and informed to realize that unilateral control over the money supply, with democratic processes cut out of the discussion, is bound to be catastrophic in the long run?
Congress COULD just authorize issuance of more debt as they pass appropriations, but I do think there are a few practical advantages of having them as separate processes.
One big one is that funding is authorized based on certain estimates of the amount of revenues that the Treasury will be taking in throughout the year.
If something happens and tax revenues begin falling short, the debt ceiling provides a warning sign requiring Congress to reconsider their authorizations, to decide whether those programs should really be funded given this unexpected downturn in revenues.
The debt limit acts as a backstop against unexpected economic scenarios that would otherwise leave the US far more in debt than Congress would have wanted.
Well, aren't you just a great font of reasoned discourse.
Where's that eyeroll emoji... is there one of those on this platform?
I think you should reach out if it's not too inconvenient for you, and you could put it politely as, "Hey, I noticed that you blocked out your address so you must care about your privacy, but I wanted to make sure you knew that the tracking number defeats that."
You don't have to say anything about whether YOU tried to defeat it.
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:
