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
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works. (To borrow the line)
Banks don't cause growth. At most, banks support growth as a necessary but not sufficient actor in the environment.
States don't have to run balanced budgets. And we see in fact that they do issue bonds, they do technically run non-balanced budgets on a cash flow basis all the time. However, states do voluntarily adopt policies whereby they balance their budgets because that is a good thing.
What's good for states might very well be good for the federal government as well.
It's merely the idea that anytime a politician wants to spend money he needs to justify that spending against the cost.
One way or another, we do all pay that cost.
Yeah, and I get that, and I even personally do the exact same thing. I'm like you with that.
But other people use the platform differently, and I understand them as well.
A lot of people are really focused on sort of branching out and building a web of content on social media. I'm not, but I appreciate that other people are, and those numbers are useful for them as they shape their experiences here.
Ha, or at least social media, where people aren't always serious.
I know, it just always grates on me when I hear people who seriously believe that stuff, who really don't understand the field of economics.
Carry on! :)
Yeah, that's totally what he intended when he demanded expanded power to borrow and threatened default if he didn't get his way, then flatly said he wouldn't negotiate, then caved and did.
I just don't believe it was all part of a bigger plan for him to sacrifice himself for the sake of bipartisanship.
What in the world economist do you listen to who says humans only value things monetarily?
Literally all of the economists I've ever heard from are emphatic that humans value things aside from monetarily.
It's not up to Biden, though.
The student loan forgiveness is already illegal since Congress included those loan payments as part of the appropriations law passed last Congress (and so many congresses before).
Students owe money to the US government. The president can no more forgive than than he can simply not collect taxes one year.
US Senator promotes a conspiracy theory instead of doing his job to fix the laws.
We really need to be pushing back against this stuff to hold powerful senators accountable, to vote them out, to get the legal reforms that the country desperately needs.
Keep in mind that many conservatives believe the work requirements are mainly about getting people into the workforce, not about saving money, so this might not matter to them.
Context: Grassley was talking about making sure the FBI properly and fairly investigated allegations, whether they were true, even if they turned out to be false.
It was a positive statement, calling on the FBI to be fair, even if the outcome was favorable for Biden.
Unlike this out of context snippet of a quote.
For anyone who comes across this and wants to check the standard, #ActivityPub counts boosts as the announce action.
Extreme right wing? Sotomayor and Kagan agreed with the decision!
When the liberals on the bench are backing the decision but you still hear the decision described as extreme right wing you can see how utterly disconnected from reality all of this bashing of the #SCOTUS has become.
It's a real lesson for people not to believe the rhetoric they're being exposed to. So much of it is outright, unabashedly false.
Here's the decision. Read it for yourself. And then if anyone tells you things that run counter to what you've read yourself, you know not to trust those people in the future.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
That's exactly it. The procedures and laws ARE being used here, and the union tried to have those halted.
SCOTUS said nope, those laws and procedures still stand.
US politics
But they both voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set the stage for this.
Had they not passed that, this wouldn't have even been an issue, and many believe it was part of a botched strategy to set up such a showdown.
I mean, or maybe he simply follows the reasoning that he spells out publicly year after year in the opinions released by the Supreme Court?
This stuff strikes me as trying really hard for sensationalist drama, that undermines the Supreme Court, instead of simply looking at the straightforward explanation.
volkris
boosted
No, I don't know who you have been listening to, but that's just not correct.
The current dispute is over the borrowing limit, which has nothing to do with the budget cap. The budget cut was set in legislation passed by the last Congress and signed by the president already.
And you can see that this is not about obligations since the deal worked out with Biden rescinds spending authority. If it was about obligations then that couldn't happen. The deal they worked out debunks the idea that this is about obligations.
@cathyginter@universeodon.com
Jesus, is Jeffries unaware that they were Democrats who voted for this situation in the first place when they passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, and then the executive branch threatening default?
Does he not know basic civics about how the federal government works?
Or is he just counting on his audience not knowing?
What? Democrats were the hostagetakers here.
It was their Consolidated Appropriations Act, that they passed against Republican opposition, and Biden's spending, that put the country into this position.
Republicans voted a way out of the mess they made, the hostage situation they faced.
Key phrase: "165 Democrats - more than the 149 Republicans who voted for it - backed the measure and pushed it through"
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:
