2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Law'd)

[Purple State]

Aye

[Fritz]

Aye

[MasterJedi]

With 8 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.

I'll open up the next amendment vote tonight.

[Purple State]

I'm hoping to have a chance to defend my amendment before everyone just votes on it to get it done with.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye ftr

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

[Purple State]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

That is a false logic dichotomy.

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid?

[Purple State]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid?

That's not the point. Your logic goes that if I support $100 billion, might as well support $101 billion or $102 billion or $105 billion or $110 billion or $150 billion, etc.

Unfortunately, without agencies or an active enough GM to provide exactly what amounts are needed for these things, it is up to the Senate to ballpark the figures.

[SPC]

Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?

..Why?

Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion?

Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid?

That's not the point. Your logic goes that if I support $100 billion, might as well support $101 billion or $102 billion or $105 billion or $110 billion or $150 billion, etc.

Unfortunately, without agencies or an active enough GM to provide exactly what amounts are needed for these things, it is up to the Senate to ballpark the figures.

I don't see how that is not valid. Could it be that the Senate has not ballparked enough money toward Medicaid?

[Purple State]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

[SPC]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

[Purple State]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise.

This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do.

[Marokai Backbeat]

This is a dumb argument. Honestly.

[SPC]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise.

This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do.

Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment?

[Purple State]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise.

This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do.

Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment?

If a senator is willing to sponsor it as an amendment, that would indicate that there is not unanimous consensus among the senators at $100 billion and it would presumably be appropriate to vote on it. The other issue is that such things are, I believe, simply attempts to slow down and stall the process, which is unacceptable and should be dismissed by the PPT as an inappropriate amendment.

[SPC]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise.

This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do.

Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment?

If a senator is willing to sponsor it as an amendment, that would indicate that there is not unanimous consensus among the senators at $100 billion and it would presumably be appropriate to vote on it. The other issue is that such things are, I believe, simply attempts to slow down and stall the process, which is unacceptable and should be dismissed by the PPT as an inappropriate amendment.

So far only you and Marokai have commented on it. The whole Senate has not had the opportunity to see the amendment.

[Purple State]

Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.

Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful?

Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise.

This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do.

Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment?

If a senator is willing to sponsor it as an amendment, that would indicate that there is not unanimous consensus among the senators at $100 billion and it would presumably be appropriate to vote on it. The other issue is that such things are, I believe, simply attempts to slow down and stall the process, which is unacceptable and should be dismissed by the PPT as an inappropriate amendment.

So far only you and Marokai have commented on it. The whole Senate has not had the opportunity to see the amendment.

I understand, but until now the change you propose has not even been mentioned, while many other changes to specific funding levels have been voted on, making me thing this is simply a way for you to stall a bill you don't support in the first place.

I hope this is not the sort of thing we should expect if you are so lucky as to be elected to the Senate.

[MaxQue]

Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.

[SPC]

Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.

Should someone introduce an amendment to strike it or replace it with the current healthcare system?

[SPC]

I hope this is not the sort of thing we should expect if you are so lucky as to be elected to the Senate.

How do you know that I was not genuinely concerned with Medicaid funding. Perhaps if I had not brought the issue up for debate, Maxque would not have noticed the section's flaw.

[Purple State]

Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.

True, although it only phases it out slowly, while this is a short-term solution. But it is a good cocnern, so how about this amendment, offered as friendly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.

True, although it only phases it out slowly, while this is a short-term solution. But it is a good cocnern, so how about this amendment, offered as friendly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Accepted, though I doubt it will be a major problem either way, as the health care bill transfers everything from those programs to the new program.