Mideast Discussion: Mideastern Budget Amendment

[Talleyrand]

While I wouldn't support this in RL, I think this would be a great policy to improve Atlasian gameplay. First of all, it would mandate our regional government to enact a budget every fiscal year (something which wasn't required before; the budget passed in November by the Assembly was first introduced by then-Governor A-Bob in 2011 and sat in debate for over a year before it went to vote, IIRC). Obviously, that isn't the most controversial part, so I will now explain my support for the cap on spending.

The game would be less well played, in my opinion, if we didn't have a budget cap at the regional level, to prevent outrageous and unrealistic spending (without it, the Assembly could ram through  any legislation, no matter how fiscally irresponsible, without repercussion). When we have to pick and choose priorities to make a realistic spending plan, that's very satisfying. And I strongly support 110% as the limit (I think that would be a deficit about $30 billion, but I'm not entirely sure).

It's not fun when we can spend whatever we want, but it's not fun when we're guaranteed to get a balanced budget or surplus every year. That's why we have a debt ceiling of $50 billion, to prevent 110% output each year, in addition to acknowledge that sometimes deficits are the only option. For example, if one year, we have an administration which spent out of control, leaving the region billions in debt, one priority and campaign issue for the regional election could be fixing the crisis to avoid the debt ceiling.

Before asks "what if there's an emergency", do remember that 2/3 of the Assembly will (almost) always be sane and go over the spending cap in such a case.

[Talleyrand]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is the only section I support. If the Governor gets a mansion, I demand one too.

Also, how the hell would you use up $250 billion on one statue of yourself?!?!?

[Talleyrand]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is the only section I support. If the Governor gets a mansion, I demand one too.

Also, how the hell would you use up $250 billion on one statue of yourself?!?!?

That's the beauty of it - we can make it as much as we want.

I was thinking around 20 stories tall, made of gold...no, platinum.

I demand a share of the pie. -_-

 I want $10 billion allocated for a statue of myself in St. Louis.

[Talleyrand]

As a compromise, what if we raise the limit to 115% or 120%? Not quite as much as what the Left wants (125%) but still ok and maybe able to swing a few votes.

115% would be fine with me, although 110% would be preferable.

[Talleyrand]

115% is a clean-looking and decent compromise. I wouldn't support 120%, and 117% would get my very reluctant support.

Senator X, if we increased the debt ceiling a little bit, would you be okay with 115%?

[Talleyrand]

117% would be fine, but no higher. And the debt ceiling should go no higher than $75 billion. How's that?

[Talleyrand]

117% would be fine, but no higher. And the debt ceiling should go no higher than $75 billion. How's that?

177% is just a weird number. It's splitting hairs at this point but 115% is easier to calculate.

I agree 115% would be preferable.

Obviously 177% is a just a weird number.

[Talleyrand]

I would oppose a completely balanced amendment for reasons I stated earlier, relating to gameplay and emergencies.

[Talleyrand]

Like Inks pointed out, the debt ceiling is vital. I will NOT support a deal without one.

[Talleyrand]

I would accept a deal if we removed the section about maximum output (e.g. 110%, 125%) per budget, but a debt ceiling (e.g. $50-100 billion) would be realistic, so if one Assembly spent irresponsibly, another would be saddled with the responsibility to rein in the deficit to avoid hitting the ceiling.

I'll still support a version with a cap on deficit spending, although I will not under any circumstances, vote for a complete balanced budget amendment.

[Talleyrand]

Actually 110% was the number Inks and I came up with, but I honestly don't care about the final percentage now, as long as we don't go over 125%. I will not support a version without a debt ceiling either.

[Talleyrand]

The (very concise) reason I want I debt ceiling is to prevent 115% budgets year after year. I've elaborated before, and I'll do so again if you don't remember, Senator X.

I agree we need to reach a compromise here, but a debt ceiling is vital for me.

[Talleyrand]

The (very concise) reason I want I debt ceiling is to prevent 115% budgets year after year. I've elaborated before, and I'll do so again if you don't remember, Senator X.

I agree we need to reach a compromise here, but a debt ceiling is vital for me.

Okay, but what number would the debt ceiling be.  That's what I mean, make me an offer Assemblyman Texasdem Talleyrand.

Um, 115% cap on budget and $70 billion debt ceiling. A 15% deficit would be around $45 billion, so I think $70 billion could be adequate.

[Talleyrand]

What do you think of my idea, Senator X?

[Talleyrand]

Then that's pointless. The Assembly could just pass 110% budgets virtually three years in a row with no consequence... whatever I'll support the final version of this bill as long as it doesn't get too crazy...