Mideast Discussion: Mideastern Budget Amendment

[tmthforu94]

The percent deficit can be overridden, so 110% or 120% it's all the same. The more significant issue is having a fixed debt limit written into the constitution.

^^^I could understand why people would vote against it for other reasons, but the reason some had over the fact that they didn't want 110% over 125% still mystifies me, and I've never really gotten a solid answer on why 125% is so much more important that it's worth killing the passage of the amendment over.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

The percent deficit can be overridden, so 110% or 120% it's all the same. The more significant issue is having a fixed debt limit written into the constitution.

But it is important - it allows one Assembly to be lazy at the expense of a future Assembly.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

What's wrong with 110%?

[Talleyrand]

Like Inks pointed out, the debt ceiling is vital. I will NOT support a deal without one.

[Franzl]

Like Inks pointed out, the debt ceiling is vital. I will NOT support a deal without one.

Unfortunately, that's the issue that will keep me from voting for this. I think there should be a budget, and that the public should be able to see what the Assembly is spending, but I will not accept any restrictions on the Assembly's ability to legislate as they see fit - whether you make the limit 110% or 500%.

[Talleyrand]

I would accept a deal if we removed the section about maximum output (e.g. 110%, 125%) per budget, but a debt ceiling (e.g. $50-100 billion) would be realistic, so if one Assembly spent irresponsibly, another would be saddled with the responsibility to rein in the deficit to avoid hitting the ceiling.

I'll still support a version with a cap on deficit spending, although I will not under any circumstances, vote for a complete balanced budget amendment.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This thread reads sort of like an auction.

Do all of you really care whether it's 110%, 113%, or 117%!?

I think you've all been watching too much Pawn Stars

Thank you.

Of course, this just as easily applies to you Tmth

I was fine with 110%. I then proposed 115% to try to put this all to rest, since 3% lower was just too much for you to bear. I'm not the one waffling between 113% or 117% or 150% etc. etc. - I think this whole thing is completely petty and ridiculous.

I'm not waffling on anything and you know it  And people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, either neither side is being petty and ridiculous or both are.  117% is a fair compromise.  

You were ok with 113%, and I've agreed to go as high as 115% (from my ideal 100%).  Any higher above 115% and I vote NAY.

"Ok with 113%" is not an accurate description.  I made a one time only offer and Tmth rejected it.  If he doesn't like how that turned out then that's on him, not me.  If 110% didn't pass, there's no way 100% would.  117% is fair, and I see no reason for a debt ceiling and will vote against any bill which writes a fixed debt limit (i.e. an actual dollar amount) into the Constitution.

[tmthforu94]

It's completely absurd that people are willing to vote against an amendment over a 2% difference, especially when before, they supported a number that was even lower.

And yes, "ok" is an accurate description, as you wouldn't have made the offer if you weren't personally "ok" with it. You can't just go back now and say "Oh, well even though I proposed 113%, I didn't actually support it." That just doesn't make sense.

And I don't follow your argument at all on the fact that 100% wouldn't pass so because of that, the compromise has to be between 110% and 125%. 125% also probably wouldn't pass because too many conservatives would think they're giving up too much. A compromise is when you take both sides interests and find common ground. The right wanted completely balanced, and the left has been lobbying for 125%. By that regards, 115% is actually more favorable to the left than the right.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's completely absurd that people are willing to vote against an amendment over a 2% difference, especially when before, they supported a number that was even lower.

And yes, "ok" is an accurate description, as you wouldn't have made the offer if you weren't personally "ok" with it. You can't just go back now and say "Oh, well even though I proposed 113%, I didn't actually support it." That just doesn't make sense.

And I don't follow your argument at all on the fact that 100% wouldn't pass so because of that, the compromise has to be between 110% and 125%. 125% also probably wouldn't pass because too many conservatives would think they're giving up too much. A compromise is when you take both sides interests and find common ground. The right wanted completely balanced, and the left has been lobbying for 125%. By that regards, 115% is actually more favorable to the left than the right.

I am asking for 117% NOT 125% precisely because a compromise is when you find common ground.  Split the difference, it's simple math.  And with all due respect, kindly stop misrepresenting what I said.  I didn't want to be so blunt about it and I really don't like to accuse about this stuff, but I've explained repeatedly what I meant and you're just ignoring it.  And if saying a one-time only offer is...well...one-time only is waffling, what do you call you switching from 125% to 110%?

[Talleyrand]

Actually 110% was the number Inks and I came up with, but I honestly don't care about the final percentage now, as long as we don't go over 125%. I will not support a version without a debt ceiling either.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Actually 110% was the number Inks and I came up with, but I honestly don't care about the final percentage now, as long as we don't go over 125%. I will not support a version without a debt ceiling either.

Despite my earlier opposition to any debt ceiling, in the interest of compromise and actually getting something done, let's try to find common ground here.  Make me an offer I can't refuse   Note: Tmth, this is not waffling, this is compromising in the interest of getting something done.

[Talleyrand]

The (very concise) reason I want I debt ceiling is to prevent 115% budgets year after year. I've elaborated before, and I'll do so again if you don't remember, Senator X.

I agree we need to reach a compromise here, but a debt ceiling is vital for me.

[tmthforu94]

For the umpteenth time, splitting the difference between 100%, which is what the right wants, and 125%, which is what the left wants, puts you at 112.5%. In an attempt to find a simple number divisible by 5, I proposed 115%, which is more favorable to your side. I don't know how else to explain this, as it clearly isn't getting through to you. The fact is, you're now opposed to 115%, even though you once supported making it 113%. Why was 113% OK then but not now?

And you keep misrepresenting me by saying I rejected it - that simply isn't the case. You proposed 113% after the amendment had already passed - there was nothing we could do about it - 110% had to be voted on. Had I known 110% would fail, I would have even been more favorable to you than your own offer and gone ahead and proposed 115%.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The (very concise) reason I want I debt ceiling is to prevent 115% budgets year after year. I've elaborated before, and I'll do so again if you don't remember, Senator X.

I agree we need to reach a compromise here, but a debt ceiling is vital for me.

Okay, but what number would the debt ceiling be.  That's what I mean, make me an offer Assemblyman Texasdem

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Had I known there'd be this much bickering I'd have voted for the original

We need to just go ahead and this current amendment, warts and all.  We have two firmly opposed camps, so it's best to just move forward on what we have.  Enough is enough.

[Talleyrand]

The (very concise) reason I want I debt ceiling is to prevent 115% budgets year after year. I've elaborated before, and I'll do so again if you don't remember, Senator X.

I agree we need to reach a compromise here, but a debt ceiling is vital for me.

Okay, but what number would the debt ceiling be.  That's what I mean, make me an offer Assemblyman Texasdem Talleyrand.

Um, 115% cap on budget and $70 billion debt ceiling. A 15% deficit would be around $45 billion, so I think $70 billion could be adequate.

[tmthforu94]

Had I known there'd be this much bickering I'd have voted for the original

Since some don't seem too interested in finding a reasonable compromise on the %, maybe we should just do a re-vote on 110%.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Had I known there'd be this much bickering I'd have voted for the original

Since some don't seem too interested in finding a reasonable compromise on the %, maybe we should just do a re-vote on 110%.

I love how you post this right as an actual compromise is being negotiated

[Talleyrand]

What do you think of my idea, Senator X?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What do you think of my idea, Senator X?

Make it $85 billion and I'll take that deal.

[tmthforu94]

I certainly hope this isn't a sign of things to come in our region...

I'd be fine with $85 billion if the budget limit was set back to 110%.

[Talleyrand]

Then that's pointless. The Assembly could just pass 110% budgets virtually three years in a row with no consequence... whatever I'll support the final version of this bill as long as it doesn't get too crazy...

[tmthforu94]

Then that's pointless. The Assembly could just pass 110% budgets virtually three years in a row with no consequence... whatever I'll support the final version of this bill as long as it doesn't get too crazy...

That seems to be the whole point here - require as little work from the Assembly as possible in terms of fiscal responsibility...which, this being a game, defeats the whole purpose of even having a budget, as there's absolutely no challenge with any of it.