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
@TruthSandwich@toad.social
From the look of things, it seems you block reality.
I always find it funny when "fascist" is apparently the term for someone pointing out simple facts or science or math.
It's one of those things where you can see that name calling doesn't promote any argument, when it ends up being that whatever derogatory term is conflated with people who actually know things.
"Oh you can do calculus? Well you must be a <insert slur>!"
Well apparently those <slur> people are pretty smart and informed! Go figure!
@TruthSandwich@toad.social
Except, it's a Democrat in the White House who is threatening not to spend the money he has on servicing the debt.
Again, the Treasury has plenty of money to service its debt regardless of this debt ceiling thing. If it defaults, that's purely because the Democratic president chose to blow up the economy, as you put it.
The Treasury says it has the money to service the debt. This is a power play of the president trying to get more borrowing authority, which is exactly what a president is supposed to do, but we need to be clear about how it's working.
No, it's part of the checks and balances in the US system of government.
It's one thing to spend money, but for the government to borrow money will generally imply the commitment of generations of citizens to pay that money back, so it takes a second act of Congress to authorize that borrowing.
That kind of generational commitment is important enough that our representatives need to approve it.
The debt ceiling is merely the result of requiring democratic approval for borrowing.
@TruthSandwich@toad.social
No that's not how the federal government works.
Congress gives permission to spend through appropriations bills, but the executive branch is the one that spends money throughout the year.
Just because Congress gives the president permission to spend doesn't mean the money is spent or legally promised.
Those are two different actions as per the checks and balances of the US system of government.
But that version of the story is completely at odds with how the US government is organized.
The Treasury is an executive branch department, and it will have plenty of revenue to service its debts regardless of the debt ceiling.
Therefore it has nothing to do with the legislative branch of government whether a default would be on the table. That is purely up to the president, and it would be an impeachable offense should he choose to not pay the debts as he is threatening.
So yes, let's be clear about who is actually threatening default. And that is the president. And he needs to knock it off.
That's not quite right.
The Treasury will not run out of funds since more money will come in throughout the year. The Treasury always collects money throughout the year, even if it will collect less than expected.
The issue is that the Treasury is spending faster than It should considering the lower income.
And that's really up to the president to fix. He really needs to rein in spending that is on course to outpace income to prevent this running out of money.
@gwfoto@newsie.social
We need to be clear that this is all up to Biden.
The Treasury says it will have enough money to service its debts, so should Biden choose to default despite having money to pay, regardless of his constitutional obligation, that would be clear grounds for impeachment.
Yes, if he wants the power to borrow more than he needs to work with Congress to get that power. He has to come to the table.
But all of his talk about defaulting should be met with pushback of the illegality of that position.
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
Wow, that strikes me as the statement of someone who doesn't know how the Supreme Court actually works in the US judicial system.
No, the Supreme Court is not in crisis.
That a whole bunch of news outlets are getting clicks by being sensational about irrelevant drama doesn't actually impact the work of the court all that heavily
Those strike me as pretty different from this blatant violation of the rules of the chamber and interfering with the democratic process.
It's one thing to be a jerk. It's another to so flatly interfere with the institution one is a part of.
You know, I had forgotten about exactly how that clause worked, so you guys have a good point, and I need to think about that more.
@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.
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:
