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
I really think the public would remain quite interested in elections regardless of PACs.
No, that's not how either the legislative function or the executive branch works.
The Treasury brings in money throughout the fiscal year, and it spends money throughout the fiscal year.
Appropriations and borrowing authority are two separate processes because they address different part of Treasury operations.
So firstly that debt has not already occurred. That's an executive branch function, distinct from the legislative branch. Congress doesn't technically require funding; it doesn't have such authority. Wrong of the coequal branchs.
But more importantly, as head of the executive branch, Biden is largely responsible for setting up this position.
Reading the legislation, I don't see why there would be no opportunity for appeal.
The bill seems to go out of its way to make sure an accused election official gets to give their side of the story, and removal wouldn't be legal or valid without a record of there being a problem.
It sounds to me like a reasonable way to address a complicated issue.
Well, the numbers suggest an unsustainable trajectory as the Treasury looks to borrow more and more, with requires more and more sacrifices from other government programs to service those increasing debts as they come due.
And that's not even touching on specific issues like the Social Security Administration's yearly forecast of insolvency.
I wouldn't accuse Graves of being particularly bright, but he does reflect the longterm trendlines with this one.
Far too few people are seeing this side of the story.
And politicians are being let off the hook as they are pointing fingers at others for the choices they themselves made.
Of course Biden has threatened to default. And his treasury secretary has as well. On a daily basis, it has seemed, for months now.
I'm glad he seems to be walking those threats back a bit this week, but we wouldn't be talking about default now without Biden having put that on the table. Unconstitutionally, I might add.
The legislative branch declined to provide funding for these expenditures, and that was their choice. Had they wanted to see the spending happen then they should have offered the funding along with their appropriations. They didn't.
So no, the president doesn't have the authority to override that legislative choice, especially after he signed the legislation himself. That would be flat out clearly illegal for him to violate the law like that.
Well, he was just going through the ceremony, saying the thing that a person is expected to say, for the formality.
It's simply empty rhetoric.
@gwfoto@newsie.social
Meh, it would have no chance of passing, so it's just political rhetoric. We need to keep that in context.
If it was serious legislation that would be different, and it would be reigned in to go through the actual legislative process.
But this will simply be a gimmick for both sides to manipulate their own choirs.
@ubergeek I think you misunderstand capitalism.
The entire core of capitalism is going beyond zero-sum games. Capitalism emphasizes mutual benefit over winners and losers.
If I make a trade with you, why would you accept it if it left you a loser? Why would I offer if it left me a loser? The only way any trade happens is due to mutual benefit, us both becoming better as a result.
We should be open to capitalism engaging in this community specifically because it would serve our interests... or else those associations wouldn't happen anyway, so it's moot.
And just remember, every single instance is running on a server that required investment. #Capitalism is pretty much at the core of #Fediverse, and we are experiencing that benefit first hand.
Republicans trigger this meltdown?
Democrats are the ones who passed the appropriations bills above GOP opposition, there's a Democrat in the White House who's spent months threatening default, and finally it was Republicans who passed a way out of the mess.
You're looking at the wrong party acting in this farce.
volkris
boosted
Made this to show my impression of the new #Thunderbird #logo. Suffice to say, it's not great.
#foss #opensource #software #marketing #branding #design #linux #freesoftware #libre
Yeah? Now tell us about the price of tea in China, as they say :)
Presidents are elected by majorities of the EC, not by majorities of people. Like many other parts of the US system it's structured based on majority of representation, not population, for very good reasons.
Popular vote has nothing to do with presidencies. They don't get to override the majority rule of electors.
The piece is kind of all over the place, skipping back and forth between the debt ceiling argument, tax policies, and spending policies.
And yet it ignores the most straightforward part of the whole story, the appropriations legislation passed by the last Congress and the president that set this situation up.
The author seems too busy grinding a favorite ax to really consider where we are today and why.
I've always thought settling on tagging with, for example, USPolitics or UKPolitics, etc, would be a reasonable norm.
I mean yes, any and every American can refuse a request like this. That's always been the case, hence a long history of showboating around empty chairs in hearings, for example.
Congress has always been limited in its authority to haul people in as congresspeople see fit.
The post seemed to be all over the place, jumping around from the current debt ceiling issue to taxation and then over to spending and back again.
I found it really striking that it didn't mention the Democratic legislation that set this situation up. That's a far more straightforward description of where we are.
Anyway, yes, Biden must continue to pay US debts out of Treasury's tax receipts. He has no legal option not to, and shame on him for spending months threatening to default.
If #Biden were to try to issue additional debt without legal authorization, future presidents would be under no obligation to recognize those claims. In fact, it would be arguably illegal for them to pay out of the Treasury to retire such securities.
But also consider the complications of circulating a bunch of invalid notes alongside valid ones.
For example, a pension fund might report that it holds a million dollars in treasuries, but some of that is invalid... which part of it? How would auditing and public disclosure deal with that?
People pushing Biden to just unilaterally issue more debt miss how complicated that would be.
@undergrowthfeed@achrilock.social
Republicans already agreed to raising the debt ceiling.
Robert Reich hasn't been an honest speaker for quite a while now.
Refuse to let the US pay its bills? They already passed legislation authorizing more borrowing power so that the US could not only pay bills but take on more!
They're not refusing to let the US pay bills. They've actively worked to pay!
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:
