Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[afleitch]

I will not, under nearly every conceivable circumstance, support a 'National Bank.' Such measures are a knee-jerk reaction to a short period of financial instability and economic downturn and will inhibit economic recovery and economic competativeness. Nor am I favourable to bailing out failing banks. It is a waste of taxpayers money and furthermore saddles the taxpayer with the banks debt. By bailing out or nationalising banks in the UK, the government there has almost doubled our national debt which will not fall to pre-crisis levels until 2032. I will not punish a new generation with debt to cushion the retirement and security of their elders.

All I am interested in is securing savings, not securing banks.

[Marokai Backbeat]

And now I see the Conservative in you.

[Ebowed]

Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

I think the Reproductive Rights Act is the standing legislation on the issue.

Though that law applies only to federal territories.  There is no such disclaimer in Senator RowanBrandon's proposal.

[Јas]

Does Atlasia have a federal abortion policy?

I think the Reproductive Rights Act is the standing legislation on the issue.

Though that law applies only to federal territories.  There is no such disclaimer in Senator RowanBrandon's proposal.

Indeed so, fair points both.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

PS, is this revenge for us not respecting your Saturday rule. I go away for a Sunday and no we have October 29th within a week. Much has been posted and will be posted on this but I have a few points quickly

1. Do we have a Fed or not? If not we need to create one or create a "National Bank"(not what Hamilton's proposing) to do the same things: control insterest rates, money supply, etc.

2. Do we have an FDIC for small Bank deposits. If not one should be created ensuring deposits up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for Small Businesses.

3. Create a program that winds down failed banks but without the catastrophe of an "weekend Collapse" like Lehman, while at the same time, no AIG bailouts. The banks once failed should be sold off either as one unit, or split up and sold part and parcel. A good example might be Bear Stearns or WA Mu only without the taxpayer money involved. Any losses incurred by the program would be recouped by charging the Existing Banks a Fee or Premuim. In the meantime taxpayer money might have to be used to avoid a collapse but long term self sustainabililty would be key. Basically creating another FDIC for Investment banks.

4. A new Regulatory regime to prevent future collapses and make sure Tax payers on on the hook for future loses by preventing them from occuring in the first place.
     -Repeal the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act or significantly modifies it to eliminate the CDS market.
     -Create a 12-1 to one Leveraging Maximum
     -Minimum Researve requirments with a minimum amount or all of it being in Cash or liquid assets
     -Strict Standards for lending to Homeowners.
     -A few other things that I can't remember of the top of my head.

I am however at a loss as to how to write this up.


I oppose Hamiltons Public Option for Banks as much as I opposed the Public Health Care option. I also oppose a Tarp plan, structured like the one in the US. I don't won't "Too big to fail" and I don't want "Let it Fail and who cares what happens" What I want is Let it fail in an organised process that doesn't kill the economy. With standards and procedures for how that is to be done and paid for.

[afleitch]

Luckily the FSA goes some way to regulating banks during a crisis.

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

[Alexander Hamilton]

The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Luckily the FSA goes some way to regulating banks during a crisis.

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

Yes but it didn't repeal the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which gave us the wonderfull Credit Default Swap.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM.

Sure we should have a National Bank but I what do you want it to do. If its the job of the RL Fed and maybe some extra regulatory oversight, thats fine. But if you want a Gov't run bank that is competing with private banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then no thats part of the problem.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM.

Sure we should have a National Bank but I what do you want it to do. If its the job of the RL Fed and maybe some extra regulatory oversight, thats fine. But if you want a Gov't run bank that is competing with private banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then no thats part of the problem.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't exactly private

[Alexander Hamilton]

It appears that the Cabinet Restructuring Bill needs some kind of provision detailing appointment procedures.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The government's purpose is not to prop up dead or unsustainable businesses. The government does, however, have a vested interest in encouraging entrepreneurship. I think that any true fiscal conservative would support a national bank, as well as any economic individualist (most libertarians fall here).

It's also an opportunity to add an interesting dynamic to the game now that we have an active GM.

Sure we should have a National Bank but I what do you want it to do. If its the job of the RL Fed and maybe some extra regulatory oversight, thats fine. But if you want a Gov't run bank that is competing with private banks like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then no thats part of the problem.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac aren't exactly private

No I meant that Fannie and Freddie are competing with private banks.

[Franzl]

It appears that the Cabinet Restructuring Bill needs some kind of provision detailing appointment procedures.

I interpreted "in accordance with current Senate procedure" to mean that they would be appointed as current cabinet members are.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yank, you just said you'd only support an amended version of the bill, I'm not in favor of making loopholes like rape and mother's health that can be used as justification for any abortion

What happened to regional rights?

Stop trying to portray the RPP as something it is not. When someone holds the belief that an act is murder, where is the regional rights involved in that? Is the Midwest allowed to create its own murder policy? Then why is Sewer Socialist still trolling this place? If someone holds the conviction that an act is murder, there would be no reason for that person to feel it is up to regional governments. CUT THE PROPAGANDA

Dude, your habit is unhealthy.

How many times a day do you think he blows DWTL under his computer desk?

Over/under of 11?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Funny to see that comment coming from RowanBrandon of all people, I wish I could show Atlasia how you spent the last months being DWTL's bitch.

[Rowan]

Funny to see that comment coming from RowanBrandon of all people, I wish I could show Atlasia how you spent the last months being DWTL's bitch.

Uhh what?

Please share.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Just sayin':

[Purple State]

PS, is this revenge for us not respecting your Saturday rule. I go away for a Sunday and no we have October 29th within a week. Much has been posted and will be posted on this but I have a few points quickly

1. Do we have a Fed or not? If not we need to create one or create a "National Bank"(not what Hamilton's proposing) to do the same things: control insterest rates, money supply, etc.

2. Do we have an FDIC for small Bank deposits. If not one should be created ensuring deposits up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for Small Businesses.

3. Create a program that winds down failed banks but without the catastrophe of an "weekend Collapse" like Lehman, while at the same time, no AIG bailouts. The banks once failed should be sold off either as one unit, or split up and sold part and parcel. A good example might be Bear Stearns or WA Mu only without the taxpayer money involved. Any losses incurred by the program would be recouped by charging the Existing Banks a Fee or Premuim. In the meantime taxpayer money might have to be used to avoid a collapse but long term self sustainabililty would be key. Basically creating another FDIC for Investment banks.

4. A new Regulatory regime to prevent future collapses and make sure Tax payers on on the hook for future loses by preventing them from occuring in the first place.
     -Repeal the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act or significantly modifies it to eliminate the CDS market.
     -Create a 12-1 to one Leveraging Maximum
     -Minimum Researve requirments with a minimum amount or all of it being in Cash or liquid assets
     -Strict Standards for lending to Homeowners.
     -A few other things that I can't remember of the top of my head.

I am however at a loss as to how to write this up.


I oppose Hamiltons Public Option for Banks as much as I opposed the Public Health Care option. I also oppose a Tarp plan, structured like the one in the US. I don't won't "Too big to fail" and I don't want "Let it Fail and who cares what happens" What I want is Let it fail in an organised process that doesn't kill the economy. With standards and procedures for how that is to be done and paid for.

1. I would say there is one, but it would not act independently. You can assume that there is a mechanism to change interest rates, print money, etc. but that there are scant details on how such a thing is run. I would advise the Senate to clarify this by legislation (does the President have power to order it to act by executive order? Is its actions solely up to the Senate? Is it some mix of the two?)

2. Yes on exists, but it currently ensures only up to $100,000 for individuals. Legislation would be necessary to increase this number.

As for the rest, once you have a bill in the works the markets will be at least somewhat eased. I don't think a bank will fail within one week unless the markets are completely disillusioned by the Senate's actions. But, I do warn against dilly-dallying on this. Major missteps could lead investors to make runs on financial institution stocks and lead to a series of bank failures.

Let me also add that I will do my best to "score" in some way whatever bill comes up, partially in a "what it will cost" sense, but also to grade its effectiveness to help you guys craft something.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

PS, is this revenge for us not respecting your Saturday rule. I go away for a Sunday and no we have October 29th within a week. Much has been posted and will be posted on this but I have a few points quickly

1. Do we have a Fed or not? If not we need to create one or create a "National Bank"(not what Hamilton's proposing) to do the same things: control insterest rates, money supply, etc.

2. Do we have an FDIC for small Bank deposits. If not one should be created ensuring deposits up to $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for Small Businesses.

3. Create a program that winds down failed banks but without the catastrophe of an "weekend Collapse" like Lehman, while at the same time, no AIG bailouts. The banks once failed should be sold off either as one unit, or split up and sold part and parcel. A good example might be Bear Stearns or WA Mu only without the taxpayer money involved. Any losses incurred by the program would be recouped by charging the Existing Banks a Fee or Premuim. In the meantime taxpayer money might have to be used to avoid a collapse but long term self sustainabililty would be key. Basically creating another FDIC for Investment banks.

4. A new Regulatory regime to prevent future collapses and make sure Tax payers on on the hook for future loses by preventing them from occuring in the first place.
     -Repeal the Commodities Futures Modernisation Act or significantly modifies it to eliminate the CDS market.
     -Create a 12-1 to one Leveraging Maximum
     -Minimum Researve requirments with a minimum amount or all of it being in Cash or liquid assets
     -Strict Standards for lending to Homeowners.
     -A few other things that I can't remember of the top of my head.

I am however at a loss as to how to write this up.


I oppose Hamiltons Public Option for Banks as much as I opposed the Public Health Care option. I also oppose a Tarp plan, structured like the one in the US. I don't won't "Too big to fail" and I don't want "Let it Fail and who cares what happens" What I want is Let it fail in an organised process that doesn't kill the economy. With standards and procedures for how that is to be done and paid for.

1. I would say there is one, but it would not act independently. You can assume that there is a mechanism to change interest rates, print money, etc. but that there are scant details on how such a thing is run. I would advise the Senate to clarify this by legislation (does the President have power to order it to act by executive order? Is its actions solely up to the Senate? Is it some mix of the two?)

2. Yes on exists, but it currently ensures only up to $100,000 for individuals. Legislation would be necessary to increase this number.

As for the rest, once you have a bill in the works the markets will be at least somewhat eased. I don't think a bank will fail within one week unless the markets are completely disillusioned by the Senate's actions. But, I do warn against dilly-dallying on this. Major missteps could lead investors to make runs on financial institution stocks and lead to a series of bank failures.

Let me also add that I will do my best to "score" in some way whatever bill comes up, partially in a "what it will cost" sense, but also to grade its effectiveness to help you guys craft something.

Good thing I have a long weekend. We get out early Thursday and we are off Friday. I alone also have next monday off but it won't be productive, cause I am going into the Hospital. So I might be able to get something together by Friday or Saturday .

[Franzl]

Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.

Why?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.

Why?

Yeah that seems awfully strict.

[Rowan]

Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.

Why?

Well, in America you have to be 18 years old, so why not have there be an age limit here?

[Franzl]

Voting Reform Bill of 2009

1. A person is not eligible to become a registered member of Atlasia until they have been a member of the Atlas Forum proper for 6 months.

2. All current registered members of Atlasia will not be affected by this change.

Why?

Well, in America you have to be 18 years old, so why not have there be an age limit here?

Simple, because this is a game that is supposed to be a source of fun!

[Rowan]

Well I must say, this would be a good way to get rid of those zombies that sign up, spam to 50 posts, and register to vote. But then again, most people are just talk about "zombie reform" and are scared to do anything about it.

[Franzl]

Well I must say, this would be a good way to get rid of those zombies that sign up, spam to 50 posts, and register to vote. But then again, most people are just talk about "zombie reform" and are scared to do anything about it.

I'm all in favor of zombie reform, but you're confusing "zombie" with "newbie". There's a rather big difference.