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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The auto section was the next thing I intended to move to change as soon as my amendment regarding the Public-Private Partnerships was voted on, and something meaningful was done on the other two things that me and Marokai were discussing earlier today. I can't support the forced nationalization of all three companies against there will. I would prefer to nationalise none of them. However if it is going to be in the bill it should be a voluntary procedure, or something else so a company like Ford that can survive on its own, is allowed two. I also feel that some consolidation may be necessary in the North American market and that may require the break up of Chrysler(Take the good stuff like Jeep and sell it to Ford or a Foriegn car maker and just axe all the garbage lines).

My best comparison to the automakers would be the Railroads in the 1970's. Over competition lead to the creation of the monopolistic Penn Central(combining three Railroads into one)When this ill conceived monster went bankrupt it looked like there would not be Rail service from Maine to Illinois. The Gov't did step in but the winds of deregulation were blowing and they were able to eventually split the Northeast Penn Central(Then called Conrail) in two and sell it too two railroads who were already competiting with each other in the Southeast. While Conrail was around they shut down a lot of garbage routes and unfortunatly laid a lot of people of, but that was inevitable from the beginning cause the Northeast could no longer economically demand the services of such a sprawling Railroad. The same thing is happening here with the Auto companies. We don't want monopolies yet we have to much competition. I could support a Nationalisation of Chrysler only if I knew that what needed to be cut would be cut without regard to political expediency and eventually what is left will be sold off to the other Auto companies whether they be headquatered here or overseas.

As for General Motors, I think they can survive a bankruptcy on the own without a takeover. However being the risk of Liquidation I think some measures could be taken to reduce that risk by essentially providing them either with Gov't backed private loans like we did for Chrysler in the late 70's(My prefered route) or if necessary direct aide should they be unable to raise essential amounts of capital.

There is one more thing. This bill requires them to focus on fuel efficient cars. However no where is there a provision mentioning the profitability of a vehicle as a factor in deciding whether or not to produce it or not. I don't want the gov't to push products that won't sell and already beleagured companies just to advance a certain social ajenda. Unless profitability is taking into consideration, there is no way we can be sure they will be privatised in 3 years or 30 years. What happens if you can sell the company's shares at a private auction, can it then be split up with the pieces that are wanted being sold and the rest shut down?

I would hate to see a general dissagreement of this torpedo what had been a general productive proceeding.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't really see a need to restrict government spending here, but, it's a step in the right direction and I'll support it if no one's willing to loosen the caps on federal spending there a bit.

My intent with this amendment was not to "Restrict Gov't Spending". My intent was to make sure that some of the projects like the "smart grid" get the funding they need. My research tells me that grid will cost about $110 Billion only $50 Billion has been appropriated in the bill. My goal was to create a plan whereby private capital could be used alongside Gov't money to ensure the projects actually have enough funding to get done. If you think there is a poorly interpreted phrase that can be interpreted as restricting Gov't Spending please bring it to my attention so I can modify it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Would the honerable dictator of the Senate replace the amendement he has up there with the one at the bottom of this quote. The honerable Senator must have missed this at the top of page 6.

PS' amendments to Section 2 are perfectly fine amendments and I'll vote for them.

The language in clause j amendment must be cleaned up to be concise and make sense. However, it seems to be a good amendment, once again.

Alright I have revised my amendment adding a new clause J as follows.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If there are any other improvements that you can suggest to the language, they would be most welcomed. If not, then I wish the language of my amendment be replaced with the above text.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary.

What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted )

You weren't the only one to not read my posts so don't feel bad. . Am I the only one on this forum that reads every post in a thread before posting?

My Auto Plan
1. Reduce the Corporate Tax rate on them to a temporary rate of 15% and allow them to deduct all loses from there there taxes.
2. Invest heavilly in technology
3. Provide for an emergency fund should they face eminent liquidation either in the form of Gov't backed private loans, or direct aid.
4. Consolidate. Consolidate. Consolidate.
5. Allow them to go through a natural bankruptcy to clear the execs and the top managemant, and force all parties to agree to a restructuring,
6. Respect private property by letting the Bondholders to get a fair settlement.

and also
7. Passing a Health Care reform to lift some of the burdens off the care companies and Atlasian companies in general by reducing overall costs.

I would like to see the Overal Corporate Tax rate dropped, flattened, and with exemptions or deductions made for certain struggling sectors. However the current composition of the Senate doesn't favor that so I will instead compromis in favor of line 1 up above.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies?

My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms?

Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen.


The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker?

1. The Investment in technology would consist first and foremost with boosting the overall investment in R&D for Energy and Transportation tech. In RL its currently at 4 Billion annually. The wonderful Mitt Romney proposed boasting it to $20 billion a year, I would prefer $25 Billion or more annually. I am not exactly sure how the our R&D program works but I beleive subsidies are a part of it. 

2. We will have to deal with that problem either by something like saying you will only get aid once or something like that. I am open to whatever you think is appropriate to prevent that from happening

3. Again, on the tax deductions, something I hadn't thought about yet but am currently working on that. I would appreciate any suggestions you have on that as well.

I am good at crafting overal strategies, and plans but when it comes down to micro details I am not as good.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies?

My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms?

Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen.


The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker?

1. The Investment in technology would consist first and foremost with boosting the overall investment in R&D for Energy and Transportation tech. In RL its currently at 4 Billion annually. The wonderful Mitt Romney proposed boasting it to $20 billion a year, I would prefer $25 Billion or more annually. I am not exactly sure how the our R&D program works but I beleive subsidies are a part of it. 

2. We will have to deal with that problem either by something like saying you will only get aid once or something like that. I am open to whatever you think is appropriate to prevent that from happening

3. Again, on the tax deductions, something I hadn't thought about yet but am currently working on that. I would appreciate any suggestions you have on that as well.

I am good at crafting overal strategies, and plans but when it comes down to micro details I am not as good.

Yeah that's my problem as well....finding exact details and wording for bills

I'll see what I can do. Allowing the emergency funding once and only once is good proposal. I would consider it only fair to provide the corporate tax cuts to the entire industry...it's still a good way to keep Atlasian makers from folding, I think.

Ultimately, of course, the funding for research is the best way of getting the Atlasian car industry competitive again...and that should certainly be our long-term strategy.

Whatever you come up with, as long as it includes all 7 of the things or at least 5 or 6 of the things I outlined above, I will support it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.

Jesus, I take a few hours away from the forum..

I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary.

What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted )

You weren't the only one to not read my posts so don't feel bad. . Am I the only one on this forum that reads every post in a thread before posting?

My Auto Plan
1. Reduce the Corporate Tax rate on them to a temporary rate of 15% and allow them to deduct all loses from there there taxes.
2. Invest heavilly in technology
3. Provide for an emergency fund should they face eminent liquidation either in the form of Gov't backed private loans, or direct aid.
4. Consolidate. Consolidate. Consolidate.
5. Allow them to go through a natural bankruptcy to clear the execs and the top managemant, and force all parties to agree to a restructuring,
6. Respect private property by letting the Bondholders to get a fair settlement.

and also
7. Passing a Health Care reform to lift some of the burdens off the care companies and Atlasian companies in general by reducing overall costs.

I would like to see the Overal Corporate Tax rate dropped, flattened, and with exemptions or deductions made for certain struggling sectors. However the current composition of the Senate doesn't favor that so I will instead compromis in favor of line 1 up above.

Your overall plan is decent, though I wish it included more direct aid to the automakers. I'm a bit concerned that cutting the corporate tax rate by more than half for the automakers is too steep of a cut, but if you mandate it only be for two years or something, that's something I could swallow, I suppose.

I think, though, we should all remember that even though the automakers are obviously incompetent and horrifically mismanaged, all automakers are having problems right now (even Asian auto companies are having serious problems because of the recession) and we need to be careful that we don't force them to consolidate and contract their businesses too much, once the recession is over.

However I don't believe bankruptcy and going to be helpful for any of them, especially GM. Bankruptcy could seriously hurt the reputation of the brand and will likely drive workers and customers to foreign owned, and non-unionized, factories and dealerships. I would hope that we could provide funds to them to stave off bankruptcy. It wouldn't take a great deal of money to keep the businesses afloat, especially in comparison to all we're spending on other portions of this bill. At least providing funds to keep GM from bankruptcy, would be nice.

1. then how about 20%. It doesn't have to be exactly 15%. And yes it would be for a set period like 2 years or whatever.

2. I agree that they should not consolidate too much, and as I mentioned a few pages back(which I am sure you didn't read ) we shouldn't have them get rid of all there trucks and SUV's. As Alfred Sloan was asked in Congressional hearing way back in the day, did GM profit on all its lines even in its best years, Sloans' answer was "no". All auto companies are struggling but none of them are in as bad a shape as the Big three in the US.

3. Okay, if you can propose a compromise to hold the execs responsible and get restructuring without bankruptcy or a Gov't takeover, I will glady listen, just like you have fairly listened to all my proposals . Also I will be sure to "read" what you post as well. .  Just be sure that the first line of aid comes in the form of Gov't back Private loans, that way tax payer money only gets involved if they collaspe and we aren't going to let them collapse, are we . If you have no takers on loaning them money even with the Gov't backing then we can provided them with direct aid.

Again you might end up in a debate with Franzl with me watching from the sidelines here if I find your compromise exceptable. He prefers the bankruptcy option.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Goodness. What on earth is this bill? And why do you make me read through pages and pages of it

Well you could of course just take peoples word for it as to what it is, but I prefer Senators to know what they are voting on. 


Building Hospitals is a good idea so I support the honerable Senator's amendment. What about the Energy Assisstance, and the infusing cash into the depleted "Crisis" funds? I would inquire to ask the the honerable Senator Marokai, Is that still on the table? 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

Could somebody post the bill as currently amended so we don't have to read through all this stuff?

The reporter doesn't want to read.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

5 Billion is not enough, the rest of it is great.

Nay unfortunately

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I propose the following to amend C in Section 3:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also I'm working on another amendment that can at least somewhat address who controls the projects, funds, etc. (Federal vs Regional, you know, all that jazz.)

That sounds reasonable enough.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Ideally I would prefer alot more funds.. but I'm unsure if any more than 15 billion could pass.

Well since Chrysler and GM have burnt through $87 billion since December, I would agree more is needed. However I two doubt it would pass. Too many Senators just hate Michiganders or something.

I have a question regarded to clause B dealing with the Research. Does Atlasia have the same R&D program that we have in RL and use for military, Aerospace, and Medical research?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Could we get an update on where the bill stands currently as amended so far? I have a few ideas but I need to see what has already been done, first. We have been debating this for a good 2 weeks.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye


The first two sections alone are bigger then the RL Stimulus bill. The current bill stands at $998 Billion dollars. Which will cross the Trillion mark once this amendment passes. We are nearly done. I have two potential amendments one would appropriate $2 Billion to replenish crisis funds through Social Services, and the other would increase Clause b of Section of Section 3 from $5 Billion to $10 Billion dollars.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I introduce the following amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fairly straight forward amendment. This program is meant for to help the poor in "emergency" situations, however they also cover unpaid electric bills, so you can guess what has happened to hear, they have been severly depleted. So this amendment replenishes there reserves and the timing couldn't be worse with Hurricane season already underway.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody?

Remember, we actually have an active GM now.

If any inflation were created it would actually help and a falling dollar helps our exports and our manufacturing sector.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody?

Remember, we actually have an active GM now.

If any inflation were created it would actually help and a falling dollar helps our exports and our manufacturing sector.

Exactly. Assuming we have a similar recession to the US, deflation has been so severe that the inflation caused by this spending would either be minimal or simply right the ship.

I'm just worried about hyperinflation down the road. Of course, BrandonH hasn't given us numbers on the national debt and such yet.

The temporary spending in this bill will not do anything to inflation long-term. Only injecting massive amounts of liquid capital Fed-style could do that and we don't have a Fed so...

We don't have a Fed?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Aye

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will have to take some time to look over this bill; see if I can run the figures through to see how much everything is going to cost; same goes for any tax reduction. If it's not too laborious (!) i'll post a calculation here. Hopefully I can get access to a good economic simulation program.

If you find such a program please feel free to share it.


By my rough estimates I think it is about $1.01 Trillion for this stimulus bill.

I eagerly await Marokai's last "controversial" amendment? oh, what could it possibly be that so controversial.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can the current amended bill as it stands be pieced together for reference?

I still need to go back and check the amendment queue but here should be the current version of the bill, unless I missed something:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is it from Page 13. The only thing added since then was my amendment which just passed(Section 1 Clause i) and an amendment dealing with the Automakers section(Section 3 Clause c), both which I just included.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Earned Income Tax Credit probably needs to be looked at. A blanket increase for a credit that some 25% (?) of those entitled to it do not claim doesn't really expand the depth of the scheme or help those most at need. I'll pick through it at the weekend.

Well we really can't do nothing about that but for those that do claim it, and I know it from experience that period in Jan-Feb during the year is usually the period when we buy cars, washers, dryers, refridgerators, stoves, etc. The reason being is that we have the money to do so and when you live pay check to pay check you can't do it any other time. These little things break or are getting rickedy and are going to break, will get purchased in that period. It boosts factory orders and orders of durable goods at the time when its usuall the glut of retail sales as people expend most of there money in Nov-Dec on the Christmas shopping season. People then tend to build up there savings during the first part of the next year or pay back bills that fell behind in that period. So the Income tax refunds generally provide a good counter-cyclical effect at a point in the year when there is very little economic activity. Since the EITC increases those returns I think the economic effect of it is important and its a good way to increase disposable incomes without raising the minimum wage, which impacts even fewer people probably, and some people tend to beleive it increases unemployement, I don't necessarily believe that, but EITC is much more acceptable cause that potential risk isn't posed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How do the honorable Senators feel about a decrease in the capital gains tax?

No. If anything I would like to raise it when the economy stabilizes.

I would like to abolish it for those that make less then $250,000 a year, and drop it to 15% for those that make more then that, The same goes for the Dividend and interest taxes, once the economy stabilizes more. I would drop the Corporate Income Tax rate to 25% to reduce outsourcing and remove a lot of exemptions and deductions that have been worked in due to the special interests. The exception being the Auto companies and Alternative Energy companies.  I would then create either a Corporate Profits tax, or a Corporate Consumption tax to discourage short-term profit making in favor of long term investment.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good.

Also, one last amendment from me:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own.

It is unclear whether that is the case. In fact, inaction by a region could be read as rejection of the money. This sets up a mechanism to address that.

That's silly, you may as well include a clause in every bill asking every region whether or not they want to support or reject the legislation. This seems like nothing more than encouraging regions to screw things up.

So we just assume the regions accept the funding? I'm not saying do this for every bill, but when it involves direct funding to the regions (which, as far as I can tell, they have the right to reject) I think we should make sure the money actually gets there.

We have instituted these sorts of provisions in a plethora of legislation to good effect, most notably the Help Atlasia Study Act. I'm not really sure I understand your reasoning.

Can we get this damn thing finished already?

I support Marokai Blue's amendment, but I oppose PS's. I also don't really see the need to hold this up over Afleitch's either, get it in or get it defeated, just do it quickly please.