The Atlasia Dispatch-Herald News Unit
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:12:48 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The Atlasia Dispatch-Herald News Unit
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18
Author Topic: The Atlasia Dispatch-Herald News Unit  (Read 50244 times)
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #325 on: December 19, 2009, 06:05:04 PM »

Where is the thread that discusses the pros and cons of this regional self determination thing about how regional senators or some such are elected?  The voting booth is now open on this, and I don't at present know how to vote. Thanks.

I don't know that there is own. Check the SEnate debate thread where was passed in the Gov't board or look through the SEnate noticeboard
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #326 on: December 19, 2009, 06:31:37 PM »

Where is the thread that discusses the pros and cons of this regional self determination thing about how regional senators or some such are elected?  The voting booth is now open on this, and I don't at present know how to vote. Thanks.

I don't often wade into general institutional reforms such as this. I do in the case of regional assemblies, but that usually involves revealing "popular" sentiment or the need for increased taxes to accommodate the growth of bureaucracy.

GM articles tend to focus on: a) economics and b) foreign policy. This extends not only to happenings around the world, but the impact of legislation on these areas. If people want me to expand to other matters, such as game mechanics, or "forum affairs," I would be happy to, but I fear that would overly politicize the Office of the GM.

That said, I could post an article on the financial and "popular" pros and cons of the amendment. If demand is expressed, I can shoot for tonight or tomorrow.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #327 on: December 19, 2009, 07:35:08 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #328 on: December 19, 2009, 07:54:52 PM »
« Edited: December 19, 2009, 08:07:28 PM by GM Purple State »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.[/quote]

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #329 on: December 19, 2009, 09:22:37 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.
[/quote]

That makes more sense.


To some extent. Splitting these organizations and creating several smaller ones will reduce systemic risk and take "too big to fail" out of our vocab to describe the current situation.

I could support lowering the limits if need be.


Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #330 on: December 19, 2009, 11:21:52 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.

That makes more sense.


To some extent. Splitting these organizations and creating several smaller ones will reduce systemic risk and take "too big to fail" out of our vocab to describe the current situation.

I could support lowering the limits if need be.



[/quote]

It is the prerogative of the Senate. Just laying out the options. You can ensure "too big to fail," but it will limit the amount companies can loan. We can't expect the same speed of growth/innovation as we cutback on certain things. But we can't have unrestrained lending. It's a balance with a give and take.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #331 on: December 19, 2009, 11:28:16 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.

That makes more sense.


To some extent. Splitting these organizations and creating several smaller ones will reduce systemic risk and take "too big to fail" out of our vocab to describe the current situation.

I could support lowering the limits if need be.




It is the prerogative of the Senate. Just laying out the options. You can ensure "too big to fail," but it will limit the amount companies can loan. We can't expect the same speed of growth/innovation as we cutback on certain things. But we can't have unrestrained lending. It's a balance with a give and take.
[/quote]

I know its a tough choice that has to be made. But that is the business we are in, isn't it. Smiley
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #332 on: December 19, 2009, 11:31:48 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.

That makes more sense.


To some extent. Splitting these organizations and creating several smaller ones will reduce systemic risk and take "too big to fail" out of our vocab to describe the current situation.

I could support lowering the limits if need be.




It is the prerogative of the Senate. Just laying out the options. You can ensure "too big to fail," but it will limit the amount companies can loan. We can't expect the same speed of growth/innovation as we cutback on certain things. But we can't have unrestrained lending. It's a balance with a give and take.

I know its a tough choice that has to be made. But that is the business we are in, isn't it. Smiley
[/quote]

It's the business you're in. I just get to slam whatever it is you produce, as it will inevitably hurt someone. Wink
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #333 on: December 19, 2009, 11:37:39 PM »

National News

From the GM’s Desk: Legislation Analysis
Financial Regulatory Reform Bill of 2009 §3(c): Per the GM's understanding of §3(c) of this bill, sponsored by Senator North Carolina Yankee (RPP), the following analysis addresses capital requirements at financial institutions.

The current bill would require any national banking association in Atlasia to hold 25% of their capital as tangible, on-hand assets.

This policy, if implemented, would essentially force the breaking apart of larger, so-called "too big to fail" banks into smaller spin-offs.

If all the Senate wishes to do is level the playing field between bigger banks, that have an implicit, or explicit, federal guarantee on their debt that lowers their cost of capital, giving them a permanent competitive advantage, the maximum the capital requirements ratio would have to be raised to is 15% directed at all financial institutions that have the implied federal guarantee. It would also be effective, at varying degrees, at 10% to 12%.

It should be stressed that this ratio should only be targeted at financial institutions that have implied federal guarantees. The ratio for smaller banks that do not have this advantage should remain at 8%.

In short, the intent of the Senate should dictate the number in this section. The higher the percentage, the harder it will be for larger banks to effectively loan money, while lower percentages will allow for banks to make more, albeit riskier, investments.

Could you explain this, it has left me confused?


For one the current language only applies those new requirments to Investment Banks and Hedge Funds. There is currently an amendment before the Senate which expands it to cover all banks. I take it then that your concerns actually refer to this amendment and not the overall bill. Please clear this up.

I will clarify. When reading the legislation I missed the pre-text of §3. I will enunciate that this 10-15% only refers to banks, brokers, insurance companies or government-sponsored entities that have implied federal guarantees.

EDIT: Not sure it is what you wanted, but that is my current analysis. If you have your own views, feel free to PM me your thoughts and items I could read to back up your points and I will take it into account.

That makes more sense.


To some extent. Splitting these organizations and creating several smaller ones will reduce systemic risk and take "too big to fail" out of our vocab to describe the current situation.

I could support lowering the limits if need be.




It is the prerogative of the Senate. Just laying out the options. You can ensure "too big to fail," but it will limit the amount companies can loan. We can't expect the same speed of growth/innovation as we cutback on certain things. But we can't have unrestrained lending. It's a balance with a give and take.

I know its a tough choice that has to be made. But that is the business we are in, isn't it. Smiley

It's the business you're in. I just get to slam whatever it is you produce, as it will inevitably hurt someone. Wink
[/quote]

By being the only Senator who cares about economics, I have reserved the right as the Chairmen of Budget, Appropriations, Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and as Education, Health and Labor committees to critique all posts of the GM. Tongue

"When I first came here, I hated seniority, but I ever year it gets better and better." - Bob Filner
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #334 on: December 20, 2009, 03:33:08 AM »

Again :

Will we have some news about Northeast ? A detailed analysis of the legislative work of the incumbent Assembly would be very apreciated. Wink

You seem to have dramatically neglected us since the Assembly was created.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #335 on: December 20, 2009, 09:40:42 AM »

Again :

Will we have some news about Northeast ? A detailed analysis of the legislative work of the incumbent Assembly would be very apreciated. Wink

You seem to have dramatically neglected us since the Assembly was created.

I'm just getting off finals and all that. Yes, I will be getting to a regional update. There will also be other news on a slew of topics coming in the next few days.

From Wednesday night until Sunday night, I will be away, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #336 on: December 20, 2009, 09:53:27 AM »

Again :

Will we have some news about Northeast ? A detailed analysis of the legislative work of the incumbent Assembly would be very apreciated. Wink

You seem to have dramatically neglected us since the Assembly was created.

I'm just getting off finals and all that. Yes, I will be getting to a regional update. There will also be other news on a slew of topics coming in the next few days.

Thanks. Smiley
Logged
Barnes
Roy Barnes 2010
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,556


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #337 on: December 22, 2009, 12:21:07 PM »

Regional News

Biweekly Regional Report

Northeast
A major winter storm, likely to break all modern records for snow fall, is likely to hit the Northeast particularly hard in the next four days. Allocation of substantive funding to help the region weather the storm is recommended.

With the economic recovery on track and unemployment continuing to fall, the Northeast should consider ways to rebalance its budget, which now faces a $5 billion deficit


Exactly what parts of the Northeast will be hit the hardest, and can you give a rough estimate of the cost of the damage?
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #338 on: December 22, 2009, 12:25:27 PM »

Regional News

Biweekly Regional Report

Northeast
A major winter storm, likely to break all modern records for snow fall, is likely to hit the Northeast particularly hard in the next four days. Allocation of substantive funding to help the region weather the storm is recommended.

With the economic recovery on track and unemployment continuing to fall, the Northeast should consider ways to rebalance its budget, which now faces a $5 billion deficit


Exactly what parts of the Northeast will be hit the hardest, and can you give a rough estimate of the cost of the damage?


Cost of the damage depends on how quickly the Northeast can get something going. The governor could start things with an executive order to make sure proper measures are in place. Understandably, the Assembly is a little busy.

Coastal states and areas will be hit hardest, with two feet predicted in CT and parts of Maine and slightly less predicted as you move in-coast.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #339 on: December 22, 2009, 05:10:58 PM »

Nothing about the 11 bills we passed in 2 months ?
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #340 on: December 22, 2009, 05:15:19 PM »

Your reports on my region are always schizo. You said we had only a modest deficit a few months ago and a simple tax increase would pay for it and then we'd be fine. So we raised taxes. Now we must raise taxes again? Something's not right there.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #341 on: December 22, 2009, 05:22:31 PM »


First, be patient. There are a number of important things to do and I thought I should give all regions something to do before I comment on past items passed.

Next, I'm not going to comment on the various reforms you made to improve the Assembly, such as veto overrides or the number of seats. That should be clear. I commented on the green stuff before it passed and will likely come back to it when the Senate moves on the environment. The economic recovery items were already reflected in various pieces, including falling unemployment, an improving economy, etc.

Finally, bare in mind that some of those items, such as sustainable forestry, won't have an immediate impact. I can speculate, but I think you would prefer that I give you more to do, rather than talk about the number of trees I expect to be saved/planted.

Your reports on my region are always schizo. You said we had only a modest deficit a few months ago and a simple tax increase would pay for it and then we'd be fine. So we raised taxes. Now we must raise taxes again? Something's not right there.

It's not an issue of having enough money as much as having too much bureaucracy in the Pacific. That's the point that was being pushed for a while in these reports.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #342 on: December 22, 2009, 05:25:17 PM »

I would ask you to say how, but I keep forgetting that you're God and I have to go along with every word you say no matter what it is.

In any case, you could at least put it in a different way. Even if you are God of Atlasia you can't just come out here and say "raise taxes to pay for it" even after you said we had a small deficit and we already raised taxes for that.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #343 on: December 22, 2009, 05:28:24 PM »

I would ask you to say how, but I keep forgetting that you're God and I have to go along with every word you say no matter what it is.

In any case, you could at least put it in a different way. Even if you are God of Atlasia you can't just come out here and say "raise taxes to pay for it" even after you said we had a small deficit and we already raised taxes for that.

My vision for this may be slightly flawed as it was borrowed from a New York measure that allows citizens to consolidate/remove local and municipal government entities. Perhaps it was an overly ambitious hope of mine. Wink

I'll try to come up with something new for your region.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #344 on: December 22, 2009, 05:30:10 PM »

I'm just confused at how the Pacific region gets the reputation of being a communist hell-hole or something. I'm curious as to how the Pacific is just so insanely bureaucratic and so radically different from any other region. The only thing different about us is that we had single payer awhile before we in the Senate changed health care. Beyond that, we're not the USSR.
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #345 on: December 22, 2009, 05:38:48 PM »

I'm just confused at how the Pacific region gets the reputation of being a communist hell-hole or something. I'm curious as to how the Pacific is just so insanely bureaucratic and so radically different from any other region. The only thing different about us is that we had single payer awhile before we in the Senate changed health care. Beyond that, we're not the USSR.

I gave each region its own "character" if you would, based mostly on existing partisan breakdowns when I took office. I never said communist, but overly cumbersome bureaucracy is a hallmark of places like New York and California. The other regions have their own issues as well that they must work to overcome.

I've edited it now. You just won illegal immigrants. Congrats! Wink
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #346 on: December 22, 2009, 05:39:31 PM »

I can speculate, but I think you would prefer that I give you more to do, rather than talk about the number of trees I expect to be saved/planted.

Well, snow storms aren't exactly my speciality. Tongue
Logged
Purple State
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #347 on: December 22, 2009, 05:42:26 PM »

I can speculate, but I think you would prefer that I give you more to do, rather than talk about the number of trees I expect to be saved/planted.

Well, snow storms aren't exactly my speciality. Tongue

Let's hope then that someone in the Assembly is an expert. Or do the research, eh? Tongue

There is only so much I can give regions before it becomes a federal issue. Technically, the federal government could do whatever it wanted and I highly doubt anyone would sue the Senate for overreaching.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,960
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #348 on: December 22, 2009, 05:46:23 PM »

BTW, for the $5 bilions deficit, a bill I recently introduced devolves half of the $100 bilions we received to budget severity.
Logged
Hash
Hashemite
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,401
Colombia


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #349 on: December 22, 2009, 07:38:53 PM »

I recommend the Governor just issue an order of sorts closing down non-major arteries, minor airports and ask people to stay indoors and to prevent use of cars. Schools, obviously, should be closed as well and workplaces should be understanding. And also make sure snow plows are ready.

61cm is a bit too much snow, but over a few days it's certainly possible, but it's nothing that threatens to destroy places with solid infrastructure. If you all stay indoors, and if municipal governments are ready; nothing major should happen. Ottawa survived a 51cm in one day storm in March 2008 rather fine.

An emergency increase in funding might be viable to help municipal governments prepare supplies and response.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 12 queries.