Mideast Discussion: Mideastern Budget Amendment

[tmthforu94]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Talleyrand]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is the only section I support. If the Governor gets a mansion, I demand one too.

Also, how the hell would you use up $250 billion on one statue of yourself?!?!?

[tmthforu94]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is the only section I support. If the Governor gets a mansion, I demand one too.

Also, how the hell would you use up $250 billion on one statue of yourself?!?!?

That's the beauty of it - we can make it as much as we want.

I was thinking around 20 stories tall, made of gold...no, platinum.

[Talleyrand]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is the only section I support. If the Governor gets a mansion, I demand one too.

Also, how the hell would you use up $250 billion on one statue of yourself?!?!?

That's the beauty of it - we can make it as much as we want.

I was thinking around 20 stories tall, made of gold...no, platinum.

I demand a share of the pie. -_-

 I want $10 billion allocated for a statue of myself in St. Louis.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

It's great to see that 3 of our Senators don't even care to address why they're opposed to this other than a single sentence saying they object to a supermajority.

Ben and Mr. X, why did you even bother to empty quote?  Can you guys not even come up with your own reasoning to oppose the amendment?  That's pretty sad from people elected to the federal level... why don't you engage in why you disagree with a supermajority instead of just writing 2 short sentences?

[Napoleon]

Since the Governor and the Legislature are co-equal, shouldn't the Assemblymen share a mansion?

[tmthforu94]

Since the Governor and the Legislature are co-equal, shouldn't the Assemblymen share a mansion?

How about we throw another one in for all current/former Presidents who have ever lived in the region and call it a day?


Seriously, all of this is driving me insane. If we're going to fail this and let unrealistic budgets go through, why don't we just completely scrap the idea of budgets and go back to passing a bunch of "feel-good" bills. I find it quite ridiculous that one of our Senators is opposing this bill, yet would support it if it were 113% instead of 110%. This type of difficulty is exactly why little is accomplished in D.C. today (yet, that was a reference to RL, so no need for a smartass comment on that).

[Napoleon]

The Northeast has a well-developed budget process (well, in my opinion- I developed it!). We also have a balanced budget provision which has caused no problems yet- in fact, its led to growth and decent revenue projections.

[Franzl]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

Well would anyone care to give more than a 1-sentence explanation on why they're opposed?  Why is a supermajority such an issue?

Because the presidential (or gubernatorial) system of government already means a significant roadblock to passing legislation. We don't need to add even more distortions.

As budgets are the absolute center issue of any elected government, an elected majority needs to be able to fulfill their mandate. Particularly when we have a proportional system of voting (and that's a good thing), supermajorities are difficult to reach, and I don't think multipartisanship should be the rule. Elections need to have consequences.

The Assembly absolutely should have a budget, and their success should also be judged on their ability to budget well, but that needn't and shouldn't be legislated.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

Well would anyone care to give more than a 1-sentence explanation on why they're opposed?  Why is a supermajority such an issue?

Because the presidential (or gubernatorial) system of government already means a significant roadblock to passing legislation. We don't need to add even more distortions.

As budgets are the absolute center issue of any elected government, an elected majority needs to be able to fulfill their mandate. Particularly when we have a proportional system of voting (and that's a good thing), supermajorities are difficult to reach, and I don't think multipartisanship should be the rule. Elections need to have consequences.

The Assembly absolutely should have a budget, and their success should also be judged on their ability to budget well, but that needn't and shouldn't be legislated.

If this were real life, I would absolutely agree with you.  But as evidenced by the poll I conducted earlier, the consequences of passing an unbalanced budget would not be that big.  How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

I agree, 2/3rds is a bit much. But it is important to keep a responsible fiscal situation in the region. And so I will, albeit reluctantly, vote Aye.

[Napoleon]

How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

It is obvious that he doesn't want to force balance.

[Franzl]

How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

It is obvious that he doesn't want to force balance.

Yes, ultimately.

I approve of fiscal discipline as a general rule, and I would hope that the voters would punish excessively reckless budgeting, but in an election game and in real-life, the voters are in control.

[Napoleon]

How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

It is obvious that he doesn't want to force balance.

Yes, ultimately.

I approve of fiscal discipline as a general rule, and I would hope that the voters would punish excessively reckless budgeting, but in an election game and in real-life, the voters are in control.

If it starts creating a political divide, it would make interesting debates for the Governor and Assembly races.

[Franzl]

How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

It is obvious that he doesn't want to force balance.

Yes, ultimately.

I approve of fiscal discipline as a general rule, and I would hope that the voters would punish excessively reckless budgeting, but in an election game and in real-life, the voters are in control.

If it starts creating a political divide, it would make interesting debates for the Governor and Assembly races.

If the candidates find the time to debate.

[Napoleon]

How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

It is obvious that he doesn't want to force balance.

Yes, ultimately.

I approve of fiscal discipline as a general rule, and I would hope that the voters would punish excessively reckless budgeting, but in an election game and in real-life, the voters are in control.

If it starts creating a political divide, it would make interesting debates for the Governor and Assembly races.

If the candidates find the time to debate.

I think the Mideast will thrive with its more recent political diversity.

And with no hard feelings for the Governor, I can't see any legitimacy from the arguments given. It's not a game reform measure. The political consequences of the rule must be discussed first and foremost.

[Adam Griffin]

Hey guys, if this fails, let's pass this bill next session:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bolded part is the only section I support. If the Governor gets a mansion, I demand one too.

Also, how the hell would you use up $250 billion on one statue of yourself?!?!?

It'd have to be made of an element denser than him.

[Franzl]

And number 5 isn't a particularly radical proposal (except maybe the 10 years). It's basically what Scandinavia does. (Ignoring the $100,000 gift... )

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

How would you propose having a realistic budget that forces balance?

It is obvious that he doesn't want to force balance.

Yes, ultimately.

I approve of fiscal discipline as a general rule, and I would hope that the voters would punish excessively reckless budgeting, but in an election game and in real-life, the voters are in control.

If I thought the voters would punish reckless budgeting, I'd agree with you, but after conducting the poll, it's pretty clear to me that that isn't going to happen.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

My only reservation with this bill regards what would classify as an "emergency".  Otherwise, I support it.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

For the record, I fully support Tmthforu94's latest bill, as I am a former Assemblyman.
I also echo Franzl's logic again (he's usually right).  I've never been a fan of requirements like this for budgets.  I see them as an impediment to the People's will.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Franzl and Senator Ben, and they've already articulated the main reasons I oppose this bill.  However, if Speaker Inks would like me to give my own additional reason, I'm happy to oblige him have an additional reason as well.  There have been attempts to compromise.  First it was 125% and then it got reduced all the way to 110%.  I suggested splitting the difference at 117% (in the interest of compromise).  That was rejected and I don't think it's wise to reward the supporters of a bill that I already think is a bad idea for refusing to compromise and taking a "my way or the high way" approach (which has been taken by certain, though not all, supporters of the bill).

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Franzl and Senator Ben, and they've already articulated the main reasons I oppose this bill.  However, if Speaker Inks would like me to give my own additional reason, I'm happy to oblige him have an additional reason as well.  There have been attempts to compromise.  First it was 125% and then it got reduced all the way to 110%.  I suggested splitting the difference at 117% (in the interest of compromise).  That was rejected and I don't think it's wise to reward the supporters of a bill that I already think is a bad idea for refusing to compromise and taking a "my way or the high way" approach (which has been taken by certain, though not all, supporters of the bill).

I compromised by agreeing to 110% instead of 100%.

[tmthforu94]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Franzl and Senator Ben, and they've already articulated the main reasons I oppose this bill.  However, if Speaker Inks would like me to give my own additional reason, I'm happy to oblige him have an additional reason as well.  There have been attempts to compromise.  First it was 125% and then it got reduced all the way to 110%.  I suggested splitting the difference at 117% (in the interest of compromise).  That was rejected and I don't think it's wise to reward the supporters of a bill that I already think is a bad idea for refusing to compromise and taking a "my way or the high way" approach (which has been taken by certain, though not all, supporters of the bill).

The first version was an overreach anyways, as I literally just picked a number to start debate with. I quickly realized that 125% is too high, as that's over $70 billion. There was also a strong desire to have a completely balanced amendment, so 110% was introduced as an attempt to find middle ground between the two.

Still, as I've stated time and time again, I haven't been presented with a real, economical reason why 110% is so much worse than 125% once you consider the emergency clause. Had I been presented with one, other than "compromising just to compromise", I might have been more likely to back a higher %.

[tmthforu94]

I would also like to remind everyone that allows spending to reach 110% of revenue would allow for a $30.58 bill dollar deficit, which is pretty substantial.