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
@retrohondajunki@mstdn.social
What? Purchasing is an executive branch task.
If there's a bill to pay, it's because Biden's branch of government bought something.
With the way the federal government is structured there is nobody else's bills. There are only the transactions that the executive branch engaged in.
@retrohondajunki@mstdn.social
Kevin McCarthy has nothing to do with it. Wrong branch of government.
The Treasury is an executive branch agency, and Biden already has permission to spend money out of the Treasury to pay bills. The Congress, and McCarthy, aren't involved in that at this stage.
It's pretty funny when people start going down those roads of name calling, as if only right wingers know their basic civics?
No I'm liberal. It's just that I'm familiar with how the US government functions, and we need to work with the rules to have our policy preferences reflected in government operation.
But name calling is certainly not a way to get anything done.
But so many high profile cases before the Supreme Court don't affect ambassadors, public ministers and councils, or states.
So that clause isn't all that broad of a grant of power to the Congress over the judiciary.
But it's not an interesting show.
People spouting out slogans that were tired the day they were invented is just boring, the same old nonsense.
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
Yes but Biden's own Treasury says that it has enough money to service its debts, so this has nothing at all to do with the legislative branch.
Yes, Biden is threatening to default on debts. Biden is threatening and unconstitutional outcome. He really needs to be held accountable for that. He is really screwing up the presidency, and we need to call him out on that.
All of this stuff about McCarthy is a side show because the Treasury does not need his permission to the legal thing.
If Biden pushes the country unnecessarily into default (again the Treasury says it can service its stats) that is an impeachable offense, and we need to be very very clear about that.
Where in the world do you get the impression that I claimed that they can't decide when to pay bills?
I point out that that is irrelevant, and you say that somehow be irrelevant point is what I'm arguing?
I honestly wonder if maybe we have a language issue here.
The problem with that statement is that the choice of whether or not to default is purely up to the executive branch, which is controlled by Democrats.
The GOP has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the president decides to default.
Well, I guess unless we bring up the issue of impeaching a president based on that violation of law, but hopefully it won't come to that.
The thing that is so misreported these days is that these are not expenses.
Expenses are incurred when the executive branch actually signs a contract or writes a check, not when Congress authorizes any sort of spending.
So far, according to the Treasury, they expect to have enough revenue coming in to pay the expenses without borrowing more money. Yes, that is the opposite of what so many sensationalist outfits have been breathlessly reporting, and what so many politicians have been breathlessly reporting, but that's what the Treasury's own numbers say.
Of course it's only natural that a president wants to be able to spend a lot more money, so every administration pushes for the authority to borrow more to spend more.
But we really need to call this misunderstanding out for what it is. All too often it comes down to simple misunderstanding of the fundamental idea of the separations of power in the US government system.
@retrohondajunki@mstdn.social
What in the world are you talking about?
Biden is the one talking about holding debt payments hostage even though the treasury has the revenue to service them unless the legislature grants him additional power to borrow against obligations of future generations.
You are misidentifying the hostage takers here.
I keep having to laugh that "show most recent post first" is an algorithm.
It's a dumb algorithm, in the sense that it doesn't take much processing, not that it's bad or anything, but it is definitely an algorithm.
People who talk about coming here to escape algorithms might miss that they are still just under the finger of a different algorithm.
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
That's not how the funding of the US federal government works, though.
The Treasury is an executive branch institution, and it says it has enough money to service its debt. Yes the president seeks power to borrow more money to spend more money, but that's not about a cliff, that's about a normal politician wanting to have more power.
The president is the one using an illegal negotiating wedge here, claiming that he might not pay off debts that he is legally required to pay off unless he gets more power.
We really need to be clear about what's going on here in the US government. That is vital to holding these politicians accountable for their actions.
Ha! What dog whistle? I strongly suspect that you don't realize my screen name is an extremely nerdy Star Trek reference :-)
But now I'm curious as to what significant misinterpretation you have for about it?
You are entirely missing the point. This has nothing to do with the timing of the payments.
It doesn't matter whether the executive branch agrees to pay up front or after delivery; the issue is whether the executive branch agrees to the transaction at all.
If the executive branch doesn't have the money to pay for a fighter jet, then it should not order a fighter jet, regardless of whether the payment will be up front, or 50% upfront, or to be paid for on delivery. That has absolutely absolutely nothing to do with it.
The question is whether the executive branch has the financing to pay for some transaction that it might be interested in seeking.
You have really missed the point here once again.
If the president wants to buy a billion dollar piece of equipment, but it doesn't have a billion dollars to pay for it, then there's no dispute here over when it should pay, it's simply a matter that it should not buy the piece of equipment at all.
No I didn't follow that list. Please post a link so I can see it!
Well, what exactly do you see in the Constitution that gives the legislative branch immense power over the judicial branch?
That seems like quite a statement in a system of co-equal branches that have checks on each other's powers!
Please quote.
No Independence of the court does not mean they get to dictate to the other branches what they may or may not do. Anybody who thinks that does not know how courts work.
Courts issue opinions. Nothing more. If we want to all ignore the opinion of the court, well, there we go.
I am glad you are so amused at the hindering of the democratic process.
Perhaps we shall have more of it to keep you entertained for the next season of the reality TV show!
What are examples of many other worst instances of similar things?
In the US system, the US Treasury balances its books with a constitutional restriction on creating new currency.
That's really fundamental to the US system of government.
@AstroAttorney @PBruce @DrALJONES
Yes but correct for population size and diversity
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:
