Office of Assemblyman Gass3268

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Why are we voting against the Amendment?  We gave you guys everything you wanted.  We completely eliminated constraints on a single session's limits, capping it at the SAME cap we had before.  This is getting just absolutely ridiculous.

[Gass3268]

Why are we voting against the Amendment?  We gave you guys everything you wanted.  We completely eliminated constraints on a single session's limits, capping it at the SAME cap we had before.  This is getting just absolutely ridiculous.

I would easily vote for Talleyrand's version that he proposed a few days ago.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

So why are you raising these complaints AFTER two bills have already been passed.  Overriding the total cap was never an issue.  To allow a $60 billion deficit in one session would be a 20% deficit.  It's absolutely unnecessary.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Why shouldn't we support this budget amendment? If families have to live by budgets shouldn't the regional government?

[Gass3268]

Why shouldn't we support this budget amendment? If families have to live by budgets shouldn't the regional government?

A government budget and a family budget are totally different. You should know that. 

[Talleyrand]

Why shouldn't we support this budget amendment? If families have to live by budgets shouldn't the regional government?

Next weekend there will be a vote on the Mideast Budget Amendment. The text of this amendment reads:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This version is considerably worse then the prior that was voted down by the region as there is no mechanism that will allow the budget to go over the $50 billion in cases of emergency such as a recession. Due to this weakness in the amendment, I will be voting against it and I will be advocating for its defeat. 
[/quote]

If the amendment passes, and there truly exists an underlying emergency, we can hold a vote to raise the debt ceiling further. However, I will be voting against this bill so we can put that sort of mechanism in just in case. Thanks for pointing it out, Gass, and my apologies for not recognizing it earlier.

I too apologize for not pointing this before the legislature passed the amendment. I for the most part avoided the debate on the topic because it appeared like everyone was just jumping back and forth between different limit ideas, I was going to wait until something official was proposed before giving my opinion on the matter. I don't know how I missed the current version going to a final vote, but to me it looks like it came out of nowhere. 

Here's a fixed up amendment, to see what changes would make us support the bill (Clause 4 was Tmth's idea, btw).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Once again, both Gass and I have apologized for overlooking this in debate multiple times on this thread, but we do support the idea of a debt ceiling, although the changes above (i.e. Clause 3 will be necessary for that to occur).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A 20% debt is ridiculous for this game.  It allows an Assembly to be absolutely lazy.

[tmthforu94]

This version is even more friendly to the left than what you guys were originally asking for. This is deja vu all over again - reminds me of one of our citizens supporting 113% but then opposing 115%, saying it should be higher.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

A 20% debt is ridiculous for this game.  It allows an Assembly to be absolutely lazy.

It needs to be much less than this.

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

It is when you're talking a game where there are virtually no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget.

[Napoleon]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

It is when you're talking a game where there are virtually no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget.

What are the consequences that this amendment adds?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

It is when you're talking a game where there are virtually no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget.

and yet the Mideast Assembly spent several months working to make it balanced, did it not?  so there's some sort of pressure to do it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

It is when you're talking a game where there are virtually no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget.

and yet the Mideast Assembly spent several months working to make it balanced, did it not?  so there's some sort of pressure to do it.

Because we planned on passing a balanced budget amendment!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This version is even more friendly to the left than what you guys were originally asking for. This is deja vu all over again - reminds me of one of our citizens supporting 113% but then opposing 115%, saying it should be higher.

I see you've decided to try your hand at rewriting history again

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But NOBODY ever raised this issue during debate.... debate of either bill.  We've been looking at this language for months.  How did it take until ratification was about to begin for you guys to decide you didn't like it?

[tmthforu94]

This version is even more friendly to the left than what you guys were originally asking for. This is deja vu all over again - reminds me of one of our citizens supporting 113% but then opposing 115%, saying it should be higher.

I see you've decided to try your hand at rewriting history again

Funny, coming from the person who has consistently been trying to say that I rejected the 113% compromise without any proof to back that claim up. Your posting history completely contradicts what you're now trying to say, Senator. I would encourage anyone unsure of this to either go back and read threads debating the budget where the Senator originally proposed 113%, only to later oppose it. If you can't find those threads, I'd encourage you to try and wade through his posting history, filled with empty-quoting, back in the month of January, and you should get the information you need.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

It is when you're talking a game where there are virtually no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget.

What are the consequences that this amendment adds?

It makes it so the Assembly cannot pass an extremely unbalanced budget.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

It is when you're talking a game where there are virtually no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget.

and yet the Mideast Assembly spent several months working to make it balanced, did it not?  so there's some sort of pressure to do it.

Because we planned on passing a balanced budget amendment!

really?  how long has this been in the works?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This version is even more friendly to the left than what you guys were originally asking for. This is deja vu all over again - reminds me of one of our citizens supporting 113% but then opposing 115%, saying it should be higher.

I see you've decided to try your hand at rewriting history again

Funny, coming from the person who has consistently been trying to say that I rejected the 113% compromise without any proof to back that claim up. Your posting history completely contradicts what you're now trying to say, Senator. I would encourage anyone unsure of this to either go back and read threads debating the budget where the Senator originally proposed 113%, only to later oppose it. If you can't find those threads, I'd encourage you to try and wade through his posting history, filled with empty-quoting, back in the month of January, and you should get the information you need.

We both know full well that 113% was never what I wanted and that you were the first one to mention 113% (albeit via PM).  Beyond which, as I've said more times then I can count that was an exceptionally generous one-time only offer.  But this game of he-said, she-said has gone on long enough.  The Mideast deserves a real debate over the Mideast Budget Amendment, not a "Senator X and Governor Tmth still don't get along" thread-hijack.  You and I don't particularly like or trust each other at this point, we both know it, the Mideast knows it, half of Atlasia probably knows it.  Now we both need to suck it up (as far as this thread goes) for the good of the region and focus on dealing with the matter at hand rather than needlessly trying to provoke each other.  

If you want to discuss this in IRC shoot me a PM and I'll be happy to do so in complete good-faith.  Maybe I really don't understand your perspective and/or vice-versa and if that were rectified we might be able to resolve our disagreement concerning this issue.  I truly would like to have a non-preconditioned discussion with you through which we could hopefully work out this and other issues we have with each other, and maybe bury the hatchet or at least come to an understanding/truce (personally I don't think either of us are blameless, but this isn't the place for that discussion).  If you have no interest in such a discussion, that's fine.  But this thread is not the appropriate place to debate such issues (including your claims about my actions and views on 113%).

Anyway, that's the last post about about this that I will make in this thread.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I believe I've stood on the side lines long enough, but this issue is getting out of hand. The debt ceiling thing that Gass and Taleyrand are pushing in opposition of this bill is currently unnecessary. The Assembly could hold a simple vote to raise the cap. It's that easy. 20% Debt is already ridiculous, it shouldn't get that high in the first place.

How can the Assembly hold a simple vote if the amount is mandated in the Constitution?  Also, a debt that is 20% of annual revenue is not all that large relatively speaking. 

It is when you're talking a game where there are virtually no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget.

and yet the Mideast Assembly spent several months working to make it balanced, did it not?  so there's some sort of pressure to do it.

Because we planned on passing a balanced budget amendment!

really?  how long has this been in the works?

Since we were talking about proposing a budget.  It'd be pointless to have an unbalanced budget in this game.  Now, we can say small deficits can be allowed, but I think the understanding from everyone who was around when we first started discussing a budget was that it would be balanced or close to balanced.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Right, the understanding was that it would be close to balanced, but that did not rely on a balanced budget amendment.  I don't remember any assumption that there would be a balanced budget amendment when I was in the Assembly.

[Franzl]

Knock yourselves out Mideast voters.

[tmthforu94]

This version is even more friendly to the left than what you guys were originally asking for. This is deja vu all over again - reminds me of one of our citizens supporting 113% but then opposing 115%, saying it should be higher.

I see you've decided to try your hand at rewriting history again

Funny, coming from the person who has consistently been trying to say that I rejected the 113% compromise without any proof to back that claim up. Your posting history completely contradicts what you're now trying to say, Senator. I would encourage anyone unsure of this to either go back and read threads debating the budget where the Senator originally proposed 113%, only to later oppose it. If you can't find those threads, I'd encourage you to try and wade through his posting history, filled with empty-quoting, back in the month of January, and you should get the information you need.

(Insert lots of "moderate hero" crap here) (Trying to save thread space)

I see you've finally decided to try and take the high road. Well done.

The lesson that should be learned here, quite simply, is that all individuals, both citizens and Assemblymen, need to start paying a bit more attention to legislation and putting in the extra effort. It's ridiculous that this is potentially going to take three times to pass. This all could have been avoided with more communication. Same with the farmer bill, which we should have gotten right the first time, but my pleas to find an acceptable compromise (both by posting in the thread and sending out PMs to legislators) fell on deaf ears.