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
The debt ceiling is a requirement of the US Constitution, so it's pretty off the mark to compare the US against parliamentary systems that, firstly, are parliamentary systems, and secondly, aren't subject to the US Constitution.
No, the debt ceiling isn't literally the USA deciding to order but not pay. The US can, must, and will pay its debts regardless of the debt ceiling. Treasury takes in plenty of revenue to pay its debts regardless of the debt ceiling.
That's a flat out false claim and we shouldn't put up with it when politicians start going on about it.
No, the debt ceiling is merely an expression of the idea that the representative branch of the federal government gets final say over whether the whole country will obligate itself to paying back debts.
But the GOP voted against this crisis.
Democrats voted for the Consolidated Appropriations Act that set this budgetary crisis up while Republicans voted against it.
Exactly, so costs WOULD BE cut, just like I said.
If they only have $10 to spend then they won't spend $20. They would cut costs because it would be mathematically impossible not to.
A more responsible administration would have already cut costs to avoid this precipice, but unfortunately Biden's in the White House and he was eager to spend us into this crisis.
Biden has no authority to issue any executive order that would have undermined the Constitution to get rid of the debt ceiling.
It would have been absolutely illegal.
Presidents don't have the unilateral authority to just do what they want. They aren't kings. They can't just ignore the law, ignore the Constitution, when their obligations become inconvenient to them.
But most of all keep in mind how anti-democratic what you are saying is. You are talking about removing from the people the vote as to whether generations of Americans should be beholden to debt obligations.
I keep in mind just how extreme your proposal really is.
Well really it's that debt ceiling fights come out of dumb execution of dumb laws.
When Congress tells you that you can spend $100 million out of the $50 million dollars in the bank, so you go ahead and spend and run out, that is just dumb. And that is where the debt ceiling comes in.
When the president agrees to spend more than he has, well that is dumb and that is the core of what has happened here.
The Democrats really need to get their message together.
Half of them are saying there are no real cuts at all and this is a tremendous success over the Republicans, and then you have people like this saying there are serious reasons to protest cuts coming on the back of black women.
Which is it? Did Biden pants the Republicans or did the legislation seriously harm the people?
The political spin is all over the place.
That's not what the ruling says. I'll link it below so you don't have to trust places like vice.com
What the ruling said was that the union can't use a particular federal act to shield itself against the normal court processes. That's it.
That doesn't mean the union has to ensure the company won't lose any money since the court didn't comment on any such law.
If the union operates in a state where this action is legal, great! Go for it. If that sabotage is illegal, though, it has to face the courts and be held accountable. That's not up to the Supremes, though.
The precedent is merely saying that "the NLRA did not preempt Glacier’s tort claims"
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
@BarryPiatoff@c.im
I mean, I assumed Biden's months of demands for expanded borrowing power without any conditions was his prediction that he'd give up a lot less...
@newsopinionsandviews@masto.ai
The Supreme Court invented this notion that executive branch agencies can't claim power that's not granted by law?
Quite a new weapon, that.
Your point number 1 is incorrect. The Treasury's daily reporting showed that revenues coming in were sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the US government regardless of the debt ceiling.
AND, if revenues were insufficient, then current expenditures would be adjusted accordingly.
The Treasury can't spend $20 of $10. Current expenditures are limited by holdings, not the other way around.
Your point number two doesn't match the legislation they passed, but that's a different issue.
Your theory doesn't make mathematical sense.
if the GOP doesn't desire balanced budgets then they would simply lower those taxes without bothering with spending since they wouldn't care about the deficits.
The fact that you say there is a drive to reduce expenditures undermines the rest of your theory.
I really don't care who won this political battle. I could point out ways that Biden lost by his own statements, but again, I really don't care.
What I *do* care about is that Biden signed the CAA and then conducted US finances in such a way to put us in this situation in the first place, where he'd be out there threatening to default unless he got more power.
He won the political game? Fine. Good for him. But we all suffered from his actions in that pursuit of power.
Right now people are criticizing BlueSky for having effectively only a single instance.
For better or worse, that alone makes it less confusing.
(Personally I would go with worse because I think it's a good trade-off to have more instances, but for the moment that alone justifies the claims that it doesn't have that confusing element)
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social @theintercept @micahflee
Biden has agreed that these aren't bills to pay. The bills don't exist. The agreement that Biden signed on to, and that Democrats voted for last night, show that this is not about paying bills.
The legislation they voted on last night cancels spending which would make no sense if this was about paying bills.
And that in and of itself shows that those politicians have been misleading us for months about this issue.
Probably not a good idea.
Next time just look at the public record so you don't have to agree with anybody. Just look at how the government functions, and the public records showing what it has been doing, and draw your own conclusions.
So far I don't know who you have been listening to, but they have not told you the truth, so here is the public record for you to see for yourself, so you don't have to believe them. Or me.
This is about fact checking.
I think that a lot of people who say Mastodon is not confusing are sort of projecting their own personal brain processes and not realizing, or not appreciating, how other people operate differently.
Different people are different, and the amount of understanding needed to understand instances will be more or less brain work for different people, not to mention the choice paralysis for choosing BOTH Fediverse interfaces multiplied by instances will be different for different people.
In short, anytime a person is dismissing the confusingness of Mastodon, they need to keep in mind that so much of the population have brains that work in patterns much different than theirs.
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social @theintercept @micahflee
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social
I just appreciate how you don't seem to particularly care about supporting the case that you object to, or even working to improve things.
You're harming your own case, but nevermind that, huh? I'll just piss right off.
Yes, and you can't believe a lot of articles :) There's SO MUCH misreporting on things like Supreme Court cases.
Below I'll give you the link to the opinion for you to read for yourself, so you don't have to rely on trusting such outlets.
And then stop trusting such outlets :)
Importantly, the Court did NOT rule on the end result here. It ONLY ruled on the question before it, whether the case could even be brought.
The article is at odds with what the Court actually said.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1449_d9eh.pdf
@DemocracyMattersALot
OF COURSE it was a budget issue as the money to pay bills has to be budgeted!
The president signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act that established a budget without money to pay for it all. His budget was bad, and this was cleaning up his mess.
Here's where the House is in the process of working on next year's budget:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/AppropriationsStatusTable
@DemocracySpot@mstdn.social
The funny thing is, your reply comes across to me as mostly confirming the article.
Mastodon people get defensive! says the article, as you get defensive.
Mastodon is confusing! says the article as you list off the alternatives that help make Mastodon confusing.
And so on.
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:
