MA: Mideastern Budget Amendment (Passed)

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'd like to introduce the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think I can support the original bill due to section 1, clause 2.  I agree that we should always aim for a balanced budget, but I have the same problem with that sort of cap as I would with a balanced budget amendment (especially given how low regional taxes are).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I did a little poll to see what the voters would do regarding someone who passed a non-balanced budget.  I purposely left out any type of "middle" option, forcing people to choose.  A full third has chosen no impact, and another third has said it would only have a small impact on their decision.  I think to make the game actually work, a requirement that the budget be close to balanced is required.

A third also said it would have a large or very large impact

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I can't support lowering it down from 125%

I too will vote against anything lowering it down from 125%

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I would support Assemblyman Gass3268's version of the bill

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

One important thing to remember is that in times of economic recession, revenue naturally shrinks as a result of the economic contraction even if taxation remains the same. So to exceed 110% of revenue during a recession is not hard at all, with just the decrease in revenue plus a modest stimulus. Exceeding 125% is harder and I rarely if ever see that happening. But there is no way that I can support a cap of 110% as it would block off the government's ability to provide critical economic stimulus. Also, I believe that there needs to be an override mechanism for emergencies, and I feel it is our responsibility to pass a budget so the vote should be with the assembly.

This is a perfect explanation of my version of the amendment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Can we please get a vote?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Can we please get a vote?

On which amendment?

Assemblyman Gass3268's amendment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just this amendment

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

at "from The People" to the end and I'm golden with clause 3.

If that is added, it would make this completely unacceptable.

[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?

[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%?

[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.

[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%