Mideast Assembly Thread

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

[California8429]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

[California8429]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

[California8429]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

yes, cutting the jobs and pay to those that do not work anyways.

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

yes, cutting the jobs and pay to those that do not work anyways.

The only subsidies paid to farmers to not grow crops are paid to individuals to not grow tobacco, which my federal bill eliminated, in essense this would do nothing.

[California8429]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

yes, cutting the jobs and pay to those that do not work anyways.

The only subsidies paid to farmers to not grow crops are paid to individuals to not grow tobacco, which my federal bill eliminated, in essense this would do nothing.

then why are you afraid of it? It just reassures us for sure that farmers are paid to be active farmers and not inactive since we cannot be 100% sure without a real budget.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

My big concerns lie with taxes and spending.  I don't think that tax cuts will be able to make up much of the lost revenue, especially now.  I'm also concerned that the spending cuts will have negative impacts on the most important areas like education and health care.  Unless GI Jane is seriously amended, it won't have my vote.

[HappyWarrior]

Thankyou Mr. Speaker,

BBF, would pulling subsidies for inactive farms over 3-4 years be good? Any longer then that and we are very much still funding some farms to not be farmers. Also subsidies will not be cut when those farmers are in R&D stages.

What R&D?

Any testing of products or use of the farm for R&D, like algae

I mean how are farmers involved in R&D?

by using their farms for the research, however that means they are active. I was just clearing that up for any possible confusing that if a farm was involved in R&D over a regular year if that counted. Though I'm not sure many farmers at all would be affected at all. But in the algae bill we gave incentives to R&D

This bill in its entirety seems to be harmful to farmers as well as beneficial mainly to large corporations.

it restricts bailouts to large corporations and ends waste. Why should we pay farmers to NOT work? I'm for helping them out TO work, but it makes no sense to me to send them money in return for letting their fields sit without crops or animals

By the way, this is the only thing that has been done recently to my knowledge about subsidies.  https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Atlasian_Agriculture_Reinvestment_Act

Also to qualify for subsidies they must plant, they can't just get the money and do nothing with it.

but since we don't have an actual budget, I'm including this to reassure ourselves of something we should be doing in the first place. No use wasting money when we can be cutting the defecit and creating jobs instead.

This would get rid of the jobs of farmers, rather than adding new jobs.

yes, cutting the jobs and pay to those that do not work anyways.

The only subsidies paid to farmers to not grow crops are paid to individuals to not grow tobacco, which my federal bill eliminated, in essense this would do nothing.

then why are you afraid of it? It just reassures us for sure that farmers are paid to be active farmers and not inactive since we cannot be 100% sure without a real budget.

Because I have a problem when a portion of legislation does essentially nothing.  By the way I will be writing a bill establishing a regional budget soon.

[Badger]

By the way I will be writing a bill establishing a regional budget soon.

WOOT!!

[HappyWarrior]

By the way I will be writing a bill establishing a regional budget soon.

WOOT!!

I hope to have it passed by the end of my next term.

[Badger]

By the way I will be writing a bill establishing a regional budget soon.

WOOT!!

I hope to have it passed by the end of my next term.

I think you may've just earned first preference.

[California8429]

By the way I will be writing a bill establishing a regional budget soon.

WOOT!!

[California8429]

My big concerns lie with taxes and spending.  I don't think that tax cuts will be able to make up much of the lost revenue, especially now.  I'm also concerned that the spending cuts will have negative impacts on the most important areas like education and health care.  Unless GI Jane is seriously amended, it won't have my vote.

can you point out the clauses that cut education and health care? Cutting overlapping projects that are doing the exact same thing is only fiscally responsible. Having one committee in charge of a project over three that are all doing the same thing with different titles is what I've intended in the bill

[Badger]

My big concerns lie with taxes and spending.  I don't think that tax cuts will be able to make up much of the lost revenue, especially now.  I'm also concerned that the spending cuts will have negative impacts on the most important areas like education and health care.  Unless GI Jane is seriously amended, it won't have my vote.

can you point out the clauses that cut education and health care? Cutting overlapping projects that are doing the exact same thing is only fiscally responsible. Having one committee in charge of a project over three that are all doing the same thing with different titles is what I've intended in the bill

I think Ben means--quite correctly--that the tremendous scale of tax cuts proposed here will drastically reduce government revenues necessary to fund crucial regional services such as education and health care (and law enforcement, and job training, and environmental protection, etc.). Your bill doesn't call for such cuts explicitly, but the $3 billion shortfall ($10 bil over 10--and I still think the GM was being generous considering the scope of these cuts) will require cuts in such necessary services as sure as night follows day.

Sadly, the old bromides about curing the deficit by "eliminating fraud and waste" or making it up with increased economic production doesn't pan out, as Bush clearly demonstrated.

[California8429]

My big concerns lie with taxes and spending.  I don't think that tax cuts will be able to make up much of the lost revenue, especially now.  I'm also concerned that the spending cuts will have negative impacts on the most important areas like education and health care.  Unless GI Jane is seriously amended, it won't have my vote.

can you point out the clauses that cut education and health care? Cutting overlapping projects that are doing the exact same thing is only fiscally responsible. Having one committee in charge of a project over three that are all doing the same thing with different titles is what I've intended in the bill

I think Ben means--quite correctly--that the tremendous scale of tax cuts proposed here will drastically reduce government revenues necessary to fund crucial regional services such as education and health care (and law enforcement, and job training, and environmental protection, etc.). Your bill doesn't call for such cuts explicitly, but the $3 billion shortfall ($10 bil over 10--and I still think the GM was being generous considering the scope of these cuts) will require cuts in such necessary services as sure as night follows day.

Sadly, the old bromides about curing the deficit by "eliminating fraud and waste" or making it up with increased economic production doesn't pan out, as Bush clearly demonstrated.

If however we got a real budget law passed first...then we could actually control government cost and make this resonable which would create millions of jobs. Win-win there so we don't have to cut education or health care necessities

[Badger]

My big concerns lie with taxes and spending.  I don't think that tax cuts will be able to make up much of the lost revenue, especially now.  I'm also concerned that the spending cuts will have negative impacts on the most important areas like education and health care.  Unless GI Jane is seriously amended, it won't have my vote.

can you point out the clauses that cut education and health care? Cutting overlapping projects that are doing the exact same thing is only fiscally responsible. Having one committee in charge of a project over three that are all doing the same thing with different titles is what I've intended in the bill

I think Ben means--quite correctly--that the tremendous scale of tax cuts proposed here will drastically reduce government revenues necessary to fund crucial regional services such as education and health care (and law enforcement, and job training, and environmental protection, etc.). Your bill doesn't call for such cuts explicitly, but the $3 billion shortfall ($10 bil over 10--and I still think the GM was being generous considering the scope of these cuts) will require cuts in such necessary services as sure as night follows day.

Sadly, the old bromides about curing the deficit by "eliminating fraud and waste" or making it up with increased economic production doesn't pan out, as Bush clearly demonstrated.

If however we got a real budget law passed first...then we could actually control government cost and make this resonable which would create millions of jobs. Win-win there so we don't have to cut education or health care necessities

Well, I'm not sure I agree that this plan is affordable as is. But as debates like this are so hard to have without firm numbers and programs this is why I agree we need a budget.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

On the final vote for A RESOLUTION CONCERNING INVASIVE SPECIES-NEED FOR A ERADICATION OF KUDZU:

The AYEs are 4, and the NAYs are 0.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.


Now, are we still debating GI JANE, or are you guys ready to bring it to a vote?  I'm still concerned about the abrupt dropping of the subsidies in Clause 7, and I know there were other concerns, but if we're deadlocked in movement on the bill, we can just bring it up for a vote now.

[Purple State]

My big concerns lie with taxes and spending.  I don't think that tax cuts will be able to make up much of the lost revenue, especially now.  I'm also concerned that the spending cuts will have negative impacts on the most important areas like education and health care.  Unless GI Jane is seriously amended, it won't have my vote.

can you point out the clauses that cut education and health care? Cutting overlapping projects that are doing the exact same thing is only fiscally responsible. Having one committee in charge of a project over three that are all doing the same thing with different titles is what I've intended in the bill

I think Ben means--quite correctly--that the tremendous scale of tax cuts proposed here will drastically reduce government revenues necessary to fund crucial regional services such as education and health care (and law enforcement, and job training, and environmental protection, etc.). Your bill doesn't call for such cuts explicitly, but the $3 billion shortfall ($10 bil over 10--and I still think the GM was being generous considering the scope of these cuts) will require cuts in such necessary services as sure as night follows day.

Sadly, the old bromides about curing the deficit by "eliminating fraud and waste" or making it up with increased economic production doesn't pan out, as Bush clearly demonstrated.

Just to clarify, this was a very difficult bill to score. Perhaps a range would have been better than a definitive evaluation. Gotta cut me some slack during finals.

On a side note, please feel free to PM me or post in the ADH comments thread (News Unit) if you ever think my numbers are off. I have been receptive to changing things in the past if I was convinced of my own stupidity (ask NCY).

[big bad fab]

On the final vote for A RESOLUTION CONCERNING INVASIVE SPECIES-NEED FOR A ERADICATION OF KUDZU:

The AYEs are 4, and the NAYs are 0.  The AYEs have it.  The bill is transmitted to the Governor for his veto or signature.


Now, are we still debating GI JANE, or are you guys ready to bring it to a vote?  I'm still concerned about the abrupt dropping of the subsidies in Clause 7, and I know there were other concerns, but if we're deadlocked in movement on the bill, we can just bring it up for a vote now.

I have the same concern, but we need to vote now.

[California8429]

GI JANE
Growth. In. Jobs. And. New. Economy.
WHEREAS: Unemployment is at 12.1% in the Mideast with over 7 million citizen unemployed and
WHEREAS: Most citizens are employed in small businesses and consumer confidence is down
BE IT RESOLVED:
SECTION 1:
1.   Any business that creates 1 new job and currently has under 15 employees will be given a $2,000 corporate tax credit effective immediately after the passage of the bill into law for one year after. A $500 corporate tax credit will be given to each corporation that creates a 2nd job. A corporation may only receive $2,000 tax credit for creating one job, or a combined $2,500 for creating two jobs.
2.   There shall be no waiting period for a business or company to start after government forms are approved.
3.   Drop the corporate tax rate to 22%.
4.   Cut capital gains tax by 4% for incomes over $500,000 and 7% for incomes under $500,000.
5.   Welfare program requires 40 hours a week of, or a combination of, education (to receive a GED), job training, work, or community service, for those that are deemed “fit to work” by the Mideast Government. Every welfare recipient deemed “able to work” must find work within two years of being enrolled in a Mideast welfare program or four years if the recipient is attending education at any level. Clause 5 will be headed by a task force appointed by the Governor, approved by the assembly which will be part of the Mideast Welfare Program.
SECTION 2:
6.   Departments and committees of government in the Mideast will eliminate overlapping responsibilities, tasks and programs to save tax-payer funding and to guarantee no business has to file or complete the same form or paperwork more than once. Each department and committee will send one representative to a weekly meeting in which they will decide who will have what specific responsibility that they alone will posses. The “Government Employment Committee” headed by an appointee by the Governor, confirmed by the Assembly will lead these meetings. These positions will be non-playable.
7.   Eliminate all subsides to farms that are deemed inactive and are paid to not produce or grow crops, livestock, etc over a 3 year period.
8.   The Mideast government must buy products and materials to complete projects that are the cheapest on the market when the material is non-essential to safety and not needed for efficiency (examples: toilet, paper clips, hammers)
9.   Projects of the Mideast government carried out by private companies must be chosen based on the cheapest, most efficient budget requested.
10.   Halt Mideast government purchase of land for one year unless in case of emergency related to public health and safety.
11.   Eliminate corporate subsidies for corporations that cannot provide a business plan or execute a plan that will bring in a profit within 3 years or a profit enough to pay off the subsidies in 9 years giving the corporation the option time for research, development, innovation and improvement or let a different, profitable, efficient company replace the failing corporation. A corporation may be exempt from clause 11 if the corporation is deemed a necessity to the Mideast’s public safety or otherwise noted and regulated by the Mideast Assembly and Governor.
12.   The Mideast “Government Employment Committee” will recommend and advise to cut jobs they deem “unneeded” or not beneficial to the Assembly, Governor or any Department or Committee to eliminate.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Voting is now open on the following piece of legislation.  This will be a 48 hour vote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[California8429]

AYE

[HappyWarrior]

NAY