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
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
That's not how the #DebtCeiling works.
For #Biden to float debt that he doesn't have the authority to issue would be to create debt instruments that could not legally be enforced or collected on later.
That proposal gets the mechanism of US public debt exactly backwards.
Or to put it a different way, the debt ceiling is enforced by the Constitutional grant of authority to the Legislative Branch. The Executive can have no say in enforcing that since it's not his to enforce.
@undergrowthfeed@achrilock.social
Ha, yes, I don't really expect to ever see much non-poop on these platforms :)
Just everyone trading some ideas, not coming to agree on anything, but at least it's good to see that other ideas do exist, IMO.
@undergrowthfeed@achrilock.social
The problem is that he so often fails even minor fact checking.
Years and years ago I think he was more of an analyst, but it seemed like over a decade or two he decided it was more important to push his political preferences than just educate the public. I wouldn't be surprised if he does it because he honestly thinks it's for the best, but I just don't think that is prosocial.
There's always the other side of that coin: maybe we shouldn't be so quick to have Texas and Florida pushing food stamp policies for everyone else.
It's in part because of TX and FL that this funding is under threat right now.
That's one really good argument for returning issues like food stamp funding back to state and local levels, where there's more direct accountability and better ability to be flexible, to address particular needs of different communities.
Folks in DC will never see those stores. But your local councilmember might be right there on the corner with them.
I know, I know, it's not like that change can be made overnight, but it's nice to imaging choosing that different road.
On the competing part, I'd emphasize that we live in a real world of scarcity, so there absolutely is competition here.
There are limited numbers of processes that can run on our servers, there is competition for the electricity that powers them, and on over to the pure time commitments of sysadmins, moderators, and most importantly, users.
There is absolutely competition here. Heck, my writing this post is because this effort outcompeted my looking to do one of dozens of other things.
I think it's really worth acknowledging this.
Are you better off feeling good or not feeling good, even considering your investment in the service?
Sounds to me you came out better having done that, which is exactly a functional definition of profit, with your benefit outweighing the cost.
Your benefit in terms of feeling good - whatever resources you've put into doing it = profit
Congrats! It is exactly how profit drives Fediverse, right there in your own experience.
Your investment in the service is simply the capitalistic pursuit where resources are brought to bear to address some win-win enterprise.
So why do you personally provide that service? Maybe you feel good being part of the community?
There is something you are getting out of providing that service, that's your profit.
Like I said, doesn't have to be money.
OF COURSE server ops are trying to turn a profit. Remember, there's more to advantage than cold hard cash.
This is a great example of what I said above.
The person operating a server does so because they feel like they're better off doing it than not doing it, in whatever way the individual happens to judge that. Maybe they appreciate the community they're creating. Maybe they feel good having contributed to the world.
That is all profit. The server runner invests resources in his server because he judges that he's better off in the end.
And as we enjoy those servers too, that capitalistic drive is the core of what has made this work.
No capitalism, no instances.
Ha, pretty good examples.
People enjoy drama, team association, and other places where politics has some similarities to those.
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.
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:
