GM Discussion Thread

[Purple State]

First lets confirm you, eh?

[Purple State]

First lets confirm you, eh?

Who needs Senators anyway huh?

Mr. Senator-elect...

[Purple State]

Iranian Election results upheld
The results of the recent election held in Iran have been upheld. A partial recount show the results are valid and that there was no fraud in the election. Incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated challengers Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezaee, and Mehdi Karroubi. In a statement to the Fars news agency, Ayatollah Morteza Moghtadai said that "the view of the leadership is the last word, and everybody in the country must obey it," and that further protests would not be tolerated.

That Atlasian Senate recently passed a resolution supporting the Iranian Protesters. Ayatollah Moghtadai said that Atlasia must mind their own business.

I believe this would be a good next step for the Senate to take.

[Purple State]

Iranian Election results upheld
The results of the recent election held in Iran have been upheld. A partial recount show the results are valid and that there was no fraud in the election. Incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad defeated challengers Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Rezaee, and Mehdi Karroubi. In a statement to the Fars news agency, Ayatollah Morteza Moghtadai said that "the view of the leadership is the last word, and everybody in the country must obey it," and that further protests would not be tolerated.

That Atlasian Senate recently passed a resolution supporting the Iranian Protesters. Ayatollah Moghtadai said that Atlasia must mind their own business.

I believe this would be a good next step for the Senate to take.

Nice step. If we weren't so tied to China economically I would suggest doing the same to them. Since they heavily block interenet and other communications. What about support for pro-American groups in Iran, such as funding and aid.

I don't wish to necessarily insert Atlasian interests into Iran or force our ideals upon them. However, their people have shown that the need for freedom of speech is universal and so they deserve a good faith effort by us to help achieve this.

[Purple State]

Are you going to tell us what the Unemployement, and inflation rates are at, or is that the same as RL, 9.6%.

Unemployment was pegged at 9.5% in Brandon's post. Once the PPT is elected we should work on a stimulus package.

[Purple State]

Are you going to tell us what the Unemployement, and inflation rates are at, or is that the same as RL, 9.6%.

Unemployment was pegged at 9.5% in Brandon's post. Once the PPT is elected we should work on a stimulus package.

Eliminate all taxes for 6 months .

He said a stimulus package, not a government collapsing package.

So I did. Peculiar that he would say the opposite of what I did.

[Purple State]

I do not close the door to lowering some taxes, but I will insist on stimulus spending as well. Not to worry, there will not be silly, non-stimulative spending wrapped up in there.

And I absolutely expect you to be more conservative than you put out there. You are a Southerner after all.

[Purple State]

Any taxes breaks will be opposed from me, expect in a few cases.

Well then those will be the ones we lower. That's how compromise works. Welcome, you two, to the most willing to compromise Senate ever.

[Purple State]

Any taxes breaks will be opposed from me, expect in a few cases.

Well then those will be the ones we lower. That's how compromise works. Welcome, you two, to the most willing to compromise Senate ever.

You don't begin negotiations looking to compromise. Compromise is something that takes place after all positions have been defined.

Have not positions been defined? NC Yank wants tax cuts. MaxQue wants as few tax cuts as possible. And so we will find a suitable mix of the two when we bring legislation in the Senate.

[Purple State]

One problem with not having a real budget is that we have no idea what really is "responsible" and how much money we have/need.

All these debates are entirely theoretical.

With that said, could the GM keep track of Revenues and Expenses of the government? This would help us determine the surplus/deficit. And I would ask you not use the current US deficit, as that isn't something we could handle here.

[Purple State]

I will be working on foreign relations, but it will be a bit tricky. I do have a little something from Iran to work with. If there is any particular country (or countries) you want me to try to come up with their current status I will look at past postings on here to see if I can come up with something.

Mainly Somalia and the various Middle East nations, as well as the effects of the various FTAs.

I would be interesting to hear what the effects of the Senate's Middle East legislation is having on the region

[Purple State]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

[Purple State]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

The point of the bill is to prevent people having to "recover" in the first place. And the education test clause will allow those who currently need to recover to do so.

[Purple State]

MArokai you are not helping them, if anything this will lead countries like Iran to crack down on Gays and Lesbians claiming Atlasian influence. Its just a feel good measure that will benefit no one and is instead counterproductive.

Perhaps the immediate effects are not clear, but when these nations see what foregoing trade with us results in they may have change of hearts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is far more harmful for the poor and students, two of the most vulnerable groups, to get a credit card they shouldn't have received in the first place and land up under crushing amounts of debt, which in turn creates the need for the "recovery" you mentioned. Better they wait some, learn responsibility and get a credit card when they can better manage their finances.

The problem is that if the companies refuse to issue a credit card to them, they won't be able to "recover" there credit. I like the overall idea behind this as I am no fan of irresponsibility on gov't or the citizenry part. I just wish that indeed the abililty for, lets call them matured people, to recover the credit score. Another thing that wasn't mentioned or dealt with is those people whose credit score was ruined through no fault of there own because of ID theft.

The point of the bill is to prevent people having to "recover" in the first place. And the education test clause will allow those who currently need to recover to do so.

     I see none of that in the bill. Basically, you get a credit card, spend wildly, & when you get to the point where they normally would jack it over 20%, they just dump you & you basically try to get bailed out so you can actually have credit again in the future.

The bill does exactly that...

First, those who would, as you said, "spend wildly" are the ones not getting cards because of this bill. That ensures that fewer people need to be bailed out. For those who have already gotten stuck in such a situation, or who want to get a good deal, they take the education course, pass a test and receive a little bump. Hopefully that will also ensure they don't spend wildly again.

[Purple State]

I don't see the Credit card companies playing nice here. Why should they? They could just as easily screw these people over by dropping them and denying them a credit card, now granted that is the best course for the irresponsible, but again if the credit card companies intend to be a**holes they could just deny them indefinately and prevent them from any meaningfull recovery in there credit score. So no house, no car, no small business, and no more education for them in the future.

    But they need a credit card first, or else their wild spending would not affect their credit score, so there would be no basis for them being denied a credit card. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but college kids would still be getting credit cards. Until they take the course (which they would have no reason to at this stage), there is not much to stop them from racking up charges that they cannot pay back & ending up in this situation.

I think you both are missing the point, so let's break it down.

We have people who: deserve cards and use them responsibly, deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, deserve cards and don't get them, don't deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, don't deserve cards and use them responsibly, and don't deserve cards and don't get them.

Those who deserve them and use them responsibly aren't affected by this. Those who deserve them and use them irresponsibly will hopefully be helped by the credit education clause. Those who deserve them, but don't receive cards are likely few in number and are simply a market loss to the credit companies and can use the credit education course to prove to credit companies that they are deserving.

Those who don't deserve and use them irresponsibly are cut out by this law and for good reason, but perhaps by the credit education course they can come to deserve one and prove such to the credit companies. Those who don't deserve and use them responsibly are likely few in number and should be deemed relatively inconsequential in the event that they no longer receive cards from the companies (after all, they don't deserve them). Those who don't deserve them and don't get them are there for a reason.

At the end of the day, the credit companies need to make money, which means they won't shut out people that are profitable (anyone deserving of a card). However, it is harmful to society in the long-run to provide incentives for irresponsible credit use. The hope is that taking the education course, just like defensive driving courses, will appeal to credit companies and lead them to possibly lower interest rates or provide credit to people who weren't able to receive it. But why should we allow the continued destruction of our society by promoting personal debt and destructive credit use.

[Purple State]

I don't see the Credit card companies playing nice here. Why should they? They could just as easily screw these people over by dropping them and denying them a credit card, now granted that is the best course for the irresponsible, but again if the credit card companies intend to be a**holes they could just deny them indefinately and prevent them from any meaningfull recovery in there credit score. So no house, no car, no small business, and no more education for them in the future.

    But they need a credit card first, or else their wild spending would not affect their credit score, so there would be no basis for them being denied a credit card. I'm not sure I follow what you are saying, but college kids would still be getting credit cards. Until they take the course (which they would have no reason to at this stage), there is not much to stop them from racking up charges that they cannot pay back & ending up in this situation.

I think you both are missing the point, so let's break it down.

We have people who: deserve cards and use them responsibly, deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, deserve cards and don't get them, don't deserve cards and use them irresponsibly, don't deserve cards and use them responsibly, and don't deserve cards and don't get them.

Those who deserve them and use them responsibly aren't affected by this. Those who deserve them and use them irresponsibly will hopefully be helped by the credit education clause. Those who deserve them, but don't receive cards are likely few in number and are simply a market loss to the credit companies and can use the credit education course to prove to credit companies that they are deserving.

Those who don't deserve and use them irresponsibly are cut out by this law and for good reason, but perhaps by the credit education course they can come to deserve one and prove such to the credit companies. Those who don't deserve and use them responsibly are likely few in number and should be deemed relatively inconsequential in the event that they no longer receive cards from the companies (after all, they don't deserve them). Those who don't deserve them and don't get them are there for a reason.

At the end of the day, the credit companies need to make money, which means they won't shut out people that are profitable (anyone deserving of a card). However, it is harmful to society in the long-run to provide incentives for irresponsible credit use. The hope is that taking the education course, just like defensive driving courses, will appeal to credit companies and lead them to possibly lower interest rates or provide credit to people who weren't able to receive it. But why should we allow the continued destruction of our society by promoting personal debt and destructive credit use.

I never advocated for irresponsibility, I just don't see thinks going as smoothly as you and Marokai claim they will, things never do.

I actually think that the announcement that credit companies will be cutting some people is exactly what should happen. That is a step in the right direction. Once the credit education programs are used things will even out. This is working exactly as planned so far.

[Purple State]

LGBT Trade thing is going to screw us.  You cannot cut off trade with practically half the world because you don't agree with one specific policy.  Feel-good legislation is not going to help anyone

We will see how long Jamaica goes before it decides that maybe discriminating against homosexuals isn't worth losing us as a trading partner... Let's see how it plays out long-run before you start attacking legislation. Does no one have a long-run view of things?

[Purple State]

LGBT Trade thing is going to screw us.  You cannot cut off trade with practically half the world because you don't agree with one specific policy.  Feel-good legislation is not going to help anyone

We will see how long Jamaica goes before it decides that maybe discriminating against homosexuals isn't worth losing us as a trading partner... Let's see how it plays out long-run before you start attacking legislation. Does no one have a long-run view of things?

Unfortunately seeing how it plays out relies on our conservative RPP GM.

My hope is that the GM will be more neutral and avoid serving as a lackey to party politics. This is also why I believe it should not be terribly hard to dismiss the GM. It is all too easy to go crazy with personal partisanship and so I hope Brandon will make sure to be impartial and report effectively.

[Purple State]

Common sense says the LGBT Trade and Credit Card bills won't work, not liberal or conservative bias

Of course, that is coming from a hard-right conservative. As a centrist and one with decent knowledge of economics, I can tell you that the one-sided negative view that was provided of each bill is far off track, especially when we have Ahmadinejad as the most credible voice provided to bash the LGBT act.

[Purple State]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

[Purple State]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

In other words, we've now severed trade ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia...

We didn't severe trade, but we don't have free trade, per se. Also, the hope is that these nations would reform once they feel the impact of this.

[Purple State]

Cutting free trade agreements doesn't mean cutting off trade, guys, don't buy into that silly misconception.

Sorry, I've tried to skirt the line and use vocabulary that is in line with this; I apologize if it looks like I'm not understanding that.  But I still think it's silly to be breaking agreements left and right.  This is a topic which requires negotiations, not blanket declarations.

That was actually my hope in adding the words "at the discretion of the SoEA." I rejected simply revoking all those FTAs, instead having the SoEA work with other nations before simply removing the agreements. I am sad to see that was not the case.

[Purple State]

I think your little "worst case scenario" bit is getting somewhat overdrawn at this point. Sure you can use it for some things, but the likelihood of the sort of doomsday scenario you just outlined is slim to non-existent. I warn against the use of these sort of fear mongering tactics to promote your agenda.

[Purple State]

The idea that we should dictate social policies to other nations that we cannot come to a consensus on at home is ridiculous.

There is serious opposition to legalise homosexuality?

Gay marriage, yes.  I don't think this should really be a deal breaker.  We don't mind countries prohibiting free speech or incredibly poor working conditions but this bothers us?  Its feel-good and economically bad

We aren't forcing them to allow gay marriage. That would be rediculous. They just can't criminalize homosexuality. Do you believe we should?

In other words, we've now severed trade ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia...

We didn't severe trade, but we don't have free trade, per se. Also, the hope is that these nations would reform once they feel the impact of this.

If Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc. put trade restrictions on us for not criminalizing homosexuality, do you think that we would "reform"?

Do you think we would feel the economic impact the same way they will?

Also, please cite for me the exact restrictions we have placed on trade with these nations as a result of the actions of the SoEA.

[Purple State]

Brandon, could you give us a general idea of the budgetary situation? Just estimates, and how the stimulus in the senate might affect it, as that should be a major part of the debate in my opinion.

That is a good idea. Perhaps some preemptive analyses for the Senate so we can figure out how to improve pending legislation, rather than finding out later that passed legislation screwed up.