2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Law'd)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion)

   a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
   b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3
   c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars
   d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system
   e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months
   f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set

What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this?

What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this?

I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion)

   a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler
   b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3
   c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars
   d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system
   e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months
   f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set

What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this?

What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this?

I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies.

I lost that in court. Unless you either omit that part of the legislation or give a constitutional justification, I intend to take this to court, and this time, I have a better case, since the constitution does not mention buying private companies.

The Constitution doesn't mention a great number of things, feel free to take them all to court.

[Marokai Backbeat]

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Twenty_second_Amendment_to_the_Second_Constitution

stfu

[Marokai Backbeat]

I don't really see a need to restrict government spending here, but, it's a step in the right direction and I'll support it if no one's willing to loosen the caps on federal spending there a bit.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I move that the current amendment be brought to a vote, as I don't think there is any opposition to it.

I also propose the following amendment (gasp!):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Opposed. Is there no middle ground we can come to on aiding the auto-industry? Allowing them to fall would completely cancel out any benefits the stimulus would have in other areas. We have to remember we must battle aggressively on all fronts, we can't be aggressive in one area, and on the other hand allow millions of jobs to die off.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary.

What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted )

[Marokai Backbeat]

With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.

Jesus, I take a few hours away from the forum..

I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary.

What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted )

You weren't the only one to not read my posts so don't feel bad. . Am I the only one on this forum that reads every post in a thread before posting?

My Auto Plan
1. Reduce the Corporate Tax rate on them to a temporary rate of 15% and allow them to deduct all loses from there there taxes.
2. Invest heavilly in technology
3. Provide for an emergency fund should they face eminent liquidation either in the form of Gov't backed private loans, or direct aid.
4. Consolidate. Consolidate. Consolidate.
5. Allow them to go through a natural bankruptcy to clear the execs and the top managemant, and force all parties to agree to a restructuring,
6. Respect private property by letting the Bondholders to get a fair settlement.

and also
7. Passing a Health Care reform to lift some of the burdens off the care companies and Atlasian companies in general by reducing overall costs.

I would like to see the Overal Corporate Tax rate dropped, flattened, and with exemptions or deductions made for certain struggling sectors. However the current composition of the Senate doesn't favor that so I will instead compromis in favor of line 1 up above.

Your overall plan is decent, though I wish it included more direct aid to the automakers. I'm a bit concerned that cutting the corporate tax rate by more than half for the automakers is too steep of a cut, but if you mandate it only be for two years or something, that's something I could swallow, I suppose.

I think, though, we should all remember that even though the automakers are obviously incompetent and horrifically mismanaged, all automakers are having problems right now (even Asian auto companies are having serious problems because of the recession) and we need to be careful that we don't force them to consolidate and contract their businesses too much, once the recession is over.

However I don't believe bankruptcy and going to be helpful for any of them, especially GM. Bankruptcy could seriously hurt the reputation of the brand and will likely drive workers and customers to foreign owned, and non-unionized, factories and dealerships. I would hope that we could provide funds to them to stave off bankruptcy. It wouldn't take a great deal of money to keep the businesses afloat, especially in comparison to all we're spending on other portions of this bill. At least providing funds to keep GM from bankruptcy, would be nice.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Simple amendment I was talking about last night with Franzl. Our discussion made me think that more public hospitals certainly wouldn't hurt to consider.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Goodness. What on earth is this bill? And why do you make me read through pages and pages of it

Sensible economic stimulus, my friend!

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well, obviously I reject the idea that unions should be the punching bag here (and I've explained why here and elsewhere) but as for your amendment, I object to it unless the "emergency funds" are increased to $10 billion as opposed to $5 billion.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

Corporate tax cuts are incredibly ineffective stimulus, and I don't think such a thing would be particularly helpful for the auto businesses anywho. As for the emergency loans, I think they're grossly inadequate.

However, didn't Franzl agree to 10 billion for the emergency loans?

Nay for now.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I propose the following to amend C in Section 3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also I'm working on another amendment that can at least somewhat address who controls the projects, funds, etc. (Federal vs Regional, you know, all that jazz.)

[Marokai Backbeat]

Ideally I would prefer alot more funds.. but I'm unsure if any more than 15 billion could pass.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

After NCY's I'll introduce my final amendment (that may or may not be difficult to work in and might cause a bit of controversy, but whatevs) and then I'll be ready to just let this go forward. I think we're nearly done here, finally.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Doesn't mess with taxes, as that would be unconstitutional, so the tax rates for businesses and such would still be uniform throughout Atlasia. Distributes allocated funds to other regions if they're rejected to continue economic development to compensate for the lost recovery. Is totally within the federal government's power to institute or fund infrastructure projects on it's own. Etc. etc. All perfectly sensible and legit.

No basis for opposing this unless you're an anarchist or a sucker for regional supremacy.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good.

Also, one last amendment from me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own.

[Marokai Backbeat]

So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good.

Also, one last amendment from me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own.

It is unclear whether that is the case. In fact, inaction by a region could be read as rejection of the money. This sets up a mechanism to address that.

That's silly, you may as well include a clause in every bill asking every region whether or not they want to support or reject the legislation. This seems like nothing more than encouraging regions to screw things up.

I propose a further amendment.

Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($256 billion)

   a. $100 billion for Medicaid
   b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50
   c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits
   d. $20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual
   e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers
   f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments
   g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs
   h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding)
   i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds.


---

I believe that because of the steps taken through the Help Atlasia Study Act, extra funding for Pell Grants is unneccesary.

I would appreciate Senators comments on the matter.

An unnecessary cut, in my opinion, especially since we were winding down. I'll support it if it will get this freaking process moving and have a final vote called sooner.

[Marokai Backbeat]

An unnecessary cut, in my opinion, especially since we were winding down. I'll support it if it will get this freaking process moving and have a final vote called sooner.

I wasn't trying to be obtuse about it and I certainly don't want to hold things up too much! But the Help Atlasia Study Act will raise sufficient funds to subsidy tertiary education from the 0.5% top rate tax hike; I don't see why it should be given a further $20bn.

I'm not upset with you, I just want this passed before the election considering this bill has been debated for nearly a month.

I'll accept your amendment, though, so we don't have to add two more days to this bill's lifespan.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Aye

[Marokai Backbeat]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a dumb argument. Honestly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.

True, although it only phases it out slowly, while this is a short-term solution. But it is a good cocnern, so how about this amendment, offered as friendly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accepted, though I doubt it will be a major problem either way, as the health care bill transfers everything from those programs to the new program.

[Marokai Backbeat]

(Warning: The following post was made under extreme sleep deprivation and may be slightly rambling.)

I find this amendment unnecessary and it sets a nasty precedent. By this logic we should now include clauses giving regions the option of holding an up or down vote on any spending bill, if not all legislation.

We already have proposals that go through such a process; Constitutional amendments. And regions are more free to take legislation to court or act on their own. Encouraging regions to vote on every single piece of budgeting is not how you run a country. This amendment is useless and serves no purpose other than pro-regional showmanship and to give anarchists a chance to throw a cog in the wheels.

Purple State's question earlier was something like "Could silence be taken as rejection of money?"

Um.. No. That's not what happens with every piece of legislation and how every other system like this in the world governs as well. I can't imagine how anyone could think that question even needed to be asked. We implement a program, and it's run. We budget money to a goal, and it's sent out. In what world, and by what crooked interpretation, does not holding referendum over an issue imply rejection?

We are representatives of the people and as such this amendment is, as I said unnecessary and just mind boggling as to why it was even presented. We do not govern by referenda here.