MA: Mideastern Budget Amendment (Passed)

[Kitteh]

I've thought a lot about this bill, and I see the arguments on both sides. I think this would be terrible policy if it were enacted IRL but I see the value of it for game reform purposes. I'm going to vote for this not necessarily because I support it but because I want to see it go to a vote by The People. I'll let them decide.

AYE

[tmthforu94]

If this fails, I will begrudgingly be introducing a new amendment setting it at 125% because we do need a Constitutional requirement that a budget be created. I just have yet to be presented with a solid argument on why 110% is so much better than 125% considering that regardless, the Assembly can easily decide to put it even higher in crisis situations.

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Aye.

[Gass3268]

I've thought a lot about this bill, and I see the arguments on both sides. I think this would be terrible policy if it were enacted IRL but I see the value of it for game reform purposes. I'm going to vote for this not necessarily because I support it but because I want to see it go to a vote by The People. I'll let them decide.

AYE

I guess I agree with this, but I will argue for it's failure so we can get to 125%.

AYE

[tmthforu94]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now closed.  The AYEs are 5, and the NAYs are 0.  The AYEs have it, and the bill has passed.  The amendment will now go before the people for ratification.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

[tmthforu94]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

It wasn't necessary, I apologize if anyone was offended from it. The point of it was that we need to make this game realistic and somewhat challenging.

I find it incredibly unrealistic and unchallenging that we come up with a deficit of over $70 billion, which is what 125% is. Keep in mind that proponents on the right actually support balanced - it's not like you guys are completely caving in on this issue to the right (And before I hear whines about the "veto-proof mandate", please keep in mind that this is an amendment and one side can't get to 2/3s by itself.) And even if we do have to go over 110%, which shouldn't be too often, we have a clause in place that allows the Assembly to easily raise the deficit if need be. With that clause in place, I fail to see what the issue with this amendment is, unless there are individuals afraid of just a small dose of fiscal responsibility.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

[tmthforu94]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

But what is wrong with 110%? I don't really see the difference once you consider clause 3.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

If I'm going to be splitting the difference, it'll be in the other direction.  I'm already unhappy about 110%.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

If I'm going to be splitting the difference, it'll be in the other direction.  I'm already unhappy about 110%.

It was either you or Tmth who first suggested 125%, IIRC.

[tmthforu94]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

If I'm going to be splitting the difference, it'll be in the other direction.  I'm already unhappy about 110%.

It was either you or Tmth who first suggested 125%, IIRC.

Because I was trying to find a compromise that would pass. Members on the right opposed such a large amount, and Ink's arguments persuaded me, especially with clause 3 in place. Perhaps if those opposed to 110% would actually propose a solid argument, I could be swayed. But that has yet to occur, despite my requests for something nearly a week ago.

[Talleyrand]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

If I'm going to be splitting the difference, it'll be in the other direction.  I'm already unhappy about 110%.

With the debt ceiling, I don't think you should be unhappy. It would be interesting if one government produced a huge budget deficit near 110% and approached the debt ceiling, forcing the next government to clean up the mess. It's no fun if we can spend whatever we want, but it's not fun when there's guaranteed to be a balanced budget/surplus each year.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

If I'm going to be splitting the difference, it'll be in the other direction.  I'm already unhappy about 110%.

With the debt ceiling, I don't think you should be unhappy. It would be interesting if one government produced a huge budget deficit near 110% and approached the debt ceiling, forcing the next government to clean up the mess. It's no fun if we can spend whatever we want, but it's not fun when there's guaranteed to be a balanced budget/surplus each year.

That is the most convincing argument I've heard on this.  I could live with 113%

[tmthforu94]

At least proponents of 110% are making an argument in the first place.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I still have yet to see an argument why 125% is more better (pass or fail-worthy) than 110% considering that there is a clause in this amendment that allows the Assembly to easily go even higher, which is disappointing.

This is a game, folks - not RL. If we're not going to keep the budget in mind, let's just introduce legislation providing each Mideast citizen with a job that pays 50,000 a year, give enough money to repair all of our roads and introduce high speed rails throughout the land, make college completely free for everyone, create a perfect health care system that is completely free, and pass a law that will prevent mass shootings from occurring again.

I have yet to see an argument why 110% is better than 125%.  Also, the mass shooting part of this comment was really in bad taste.  I get what you're trying to say, but come on, was that really necessary?

Bull crap you haven't... I've said already why it's better.  This is a game where there are little to no consequences for passing an unbalanced budget, therefore, to make the game more realistic, our budgets should have to be as close to balanced a possible.  I would've liked to see this say 100% to be honest, but I knew that would never pass.

What about splitting the difference at 117%?

If I'm going to be splitting the difference, it'll be in the other direction.  I'm already unhappy about 110%.

With the debt ceiling, I don't think you should be unhappy. It would be interesting if one government produced a huge budget deficit near 110% and approached the debt ceiling, forcing the next government to clean up the mess. It's no fun if we can spend whatever we want, but it's not fun when there's guaranteed to be a balanced budget/surplus each year.

I'll give you that.  That's a good point.