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 House GOP are the only ones so far to have addressed the issue, having passed legislation to authorize borrowing.
The last Congress really left a mess here, that Biden signed off on to be sure, promising to spend money that they knew didn't exist and that they declined to provide. We really need to call these politicians out for having created that mess in the first place.
And now Biden is threatening to order a default unless he's given additional power to get out of the crisis he signed into law?
No, Biden is the slime here. The rest of us are just trying to figure out how to deal with his crisis.
Of course there's a conflict of interest! They are reporting on the government that is giving them money. That is absolutely a conflict of interest, regardless of whether it was intentional or not.
Whether they are or are not is a separate question.
I just focus on the simple fact that they are accepting funding from government, and if the amount is so small has to be irrelevant then why take it at all? Unless it's enough to be significant, in which case why deny it?
They are trying to have it both ways, and we should call them out on that.
If they are accepting a significant amount of government funding then they should own it, they should proudly say that the public is supporting them and they are doing good work with that public funding.
Or if they are not accepting a significant amount of government funding then why accept it at all?
It's in Article I section 8:
“The Congress shall have Power [..] To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;”
The debt ceiling is simply what we call the arbitrary amount that Congress has ordered to be borrowed.
So you can see on the left hand side the treasury reporting $1.4 trillion in tax receipts alone, while on the right hand side it's spent less than $400 billion servicing the debt.
$1.4 trillion is a whole lot more than the $400 billion It took to pay those debts.
Treasury has the money.
Oh no I am happy to publicly say it sounds like you are a bootlicker based on what I understand that term to mean, somebody who is really trying hard to support authoritarian efforts.
And based on what you are saying, you are trying hard to support authoritarian efforts.
So yeah, maybe I'm wrong, maybe boot licking isn't supporting authoritarian efforts the way you are, but it is worth a shot. I think it is. Maybe I'm wrong. But for goodness sake stop bootlicking.
You don't think it's kind of silly the phrase you've misunderstood yourself?
You don't see any irony in that?
I mean that's nice, but if this money is so irrelevant then they should let it go.
But if it is so important for them to keep, then they are beholden to the government.
You can say whatever you would like, but I'm just talking about the conflict of interest involved in this funding.
Ha! Sounds like you are saying that you don't want to be casually referred to the information that disproves whatever it is you believe.
Just because it's easy to debunk what you've been told, well, why should that stand in the way?
@professorhank@sfba.social
It ends up being an exercise in gaslighting as I am literally reading the health care plan even as I have the radio on where journalists are letting me know that the plan that I'm reading doesn't exist.
Journalism is in a really bad place these days, flat out denying reality, and unfortunately a lot of people get misled because of it.
Although, just a little aside, the idea of "boot licker" does come to mind when I hear somebody trying so hard to justify the nonsense coming out of such an authority.
Well this is social media. You can consider whatever the hell you want to.
But if you want to approach the real world, as you can see from the treasury departments report, as it says, it has plenty of money to service it's debts.
What you do with that is up to you. None of my business whether you want to promote the political spin of the party currently in power.
No I am all about the 14th!
Biden keeps threatening to default, but the 14th Amendment is very clear that to default would be a deer election of his constitutional duty. There's no choice there. He cannot default, as per the Constitution, as per the 14th Amendment, Biden must pay the debts.
I'm happy to keep reading because this emphasizes my point. Biden should not be threatening to default, as that would be honestly and impeachable offense
If you check out the report there's no mystery to this: Yes the money has to come from somewhere and this report lays out exactly where it comes from, the Treasury says that the money mostly comes from tax receipts, and those tax receipts are more than enough to service the debt.
Also, no, raising the debt limit is the opposite of printing more money. If Congress were to authorize it the Treasury could print money instead of raising the debt. You have that backwards too.
If you check out the graph on page 4 of the document that I shared with you it shows that the Treasury brings in more than enough money to service it's debts every month.
Farther down in the report it puts numbers to it, quantifying this fact, that again to restate, the treasury brings in enough money every month two service it's debts.
Regardless of what the political talking points may be.
For example, check out page four, I believe, to see how much more the Treasury has coming in compared to how much it needs to spend servicing its debts.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0423.pdf
Yeah definitely, regardless of whether I cite my sources, have personal expertise, or make solid arguments, yeah just ignore me because I am a "sub-50 follower troll".
Hello Idiocracy 
Keep in mind that according to the Treasury it has enough money to service its debt. That's what they say in their monthly statements. They don't need to borrow more in order to service their debt, again by their own words.
So this has absolutely nothing to do with servicing existing debts, since according to the Treasury they have enough money to service their existing debts.
I just want to restate that: Biden's own Treasury reports that it has enough money to service the existing debts.
Yes, politicians are being misleading about this subject. They are lying to us. As politicians do when they seek more power.
Anyway, yeah we absolutely have to call these people out on what they are doing. If Biden wants more power to borrow money against the US population then he needs to work with Congress to get it.
That is not relevant really.
The question is, if they are 10% government funded, is that 10% so important to them?
If it is so important to them, then I guess they are subject to being influenced by the government to keep it. If it is not so important to them, then maybe they ought to not take it.
It just comes down to their choice.
B government funded or don't be government-funded. It's up to them to decide how important that is, and if it is important then they are signing that deal.
They just need to be honest about it.
Right but they can't have it both ways.
Either they are government funded to a significant amount or they're not.
If the funding is significant great! They need to own that they are government funded. If the funding is not significant, then they need to cut it off because it doesn't matter because it's not significant.
They just can't have it both ways.
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:
