The Restoring Full Time Work for Atlasia Act (Passed)

[Maxwell]

I have to object. While I agree the extent to which the old and great Senator of the Midwest TNF pushed the boundaries as far as he could, I have to push for Midwest workers. I will not support a massive wage decrease in respect to work hours, which this bill would do in its current form.

[Maxwell]

Nay

[Maxwell]

I have to object. While I agree the extent to which the old and great Senator of the Midwest TNF pushed the boundaries as far as he could, I have to push for Midwest workers. I will not support a massive wage decrease in respect to work hours, which this bill would do in its current form.

I have seen this so many times with Libertarians before, it shouldn't come as a surprise anymore.

You ran on and are currently running on freeing the economy of the shackles of Atlasian legalism, now is your chance radicals! Looks like the radicals are wussing out, or worse, never had any intentions of keeping their promises to conservatives in the economic arena.

Precisely what the hell do you think a legislative reboot is going to do, Maxy baby?

Only a baby compared to your doddering old person ramblings, Senator Thurmond

I acknowledge and am perfectly okay with a legislative reboot. That means we can get rid of all of the nonsense laws. but while we are at this middle juncture, I'm thinking about Midwest workers and not blowing up our unemployment rate again, and that's what this bill does and I oppose it.

If I supported everything I've supported since I was a youth, I'd be a big George W. Bush fan and still play around with action figures in the backyard. I'm just not that man anymore.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

     Are you the GM? Or do you just enjoy speaking as if you have the facts?

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? You are arguing that removing this bill has no effect. I'm trying to argue of other potential factors for our stable level of terrible employment numbers. If this turns to a whole LOL THERE'S NO GM YOU CAN'T DEBATE then what's the point of the amendment, the senate, or even the whole game? Why are we even putting up bills? because we think they'll have an effect.

[Maxwell]

While this amendment is better than the last one, I must object still. Working hours at this point is non-negotiable.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

     Eh, that is supposition. Given the fact that unemployment has remained largely unchanged, there is little concrete reason to believe that the law being repealed had any actual impact on employment numbers.

There are many other reasons our unemployment has largely unchanged, due to a lack of stability in our regional governments, excessive deficit hounding, and not enough support for our armed services. I think that attempting to make a stark reverse course not only limits the number of people potentially able to work, but significantly affects stability, seeing as this is a major workplace policy.

     Are you the GM? Or do you just enjoy speaking as if you have the facts?

Isn't this supposed to be a debate? You are arguing that removing this bill has no effect. I'm trying to argue of other potential factors for our stable level of terrible employment numbers. If this turns to a whole LOL THERE'S NO GM YOU CAN'T DEBATE then what's the point of the amendment, the senate, or even the whole game? Why are we even putting up bills? because we think they'll have an effect.

     The potential factors you talk about don't even make sense. The Senate deficit hounding? Seriously? I'm not even sure we're talking about the same country at this point.

Every year in Atlasia I can remember we've run surpluses or at least relatively close to balance. This is probably due to excessive taxation, but nevertheless you can not deny this unless you are under selective denial. And we've usually done it on the backs of our men and women in the armed services.

Yep, the last two budgets I can find on wiki:

2012 - Surplus of over $80 Billion.
2014 - Surplus of around $17 Billion.
2015 - Surplus of around $15 Billion.

In my mind, during something which could be categorized as a serious, multiple year recession, running surpluses is pretty unnecessary.

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

The bill doesn't roll back to 40, it rolls back to 36. 40 was PiT's amendment that just failed.

It allows the regions to roll it back all the way to 40.

[Maxwell]

Nay

[Maxwell]

But rolling back 32 to 40 after this bill was already enacted will make things a lot worse off.

The bill doesn't roll back to 40, it rolls back to 36. 40 was PiT's amendment that just failed.

It allows the regions to roll it back all the way to 40.

No that is the JoMCar amendment presently at vote, not the underlying bill.

I'm talking about what the bill would be under Homcar's amendment.

[Maxwell]

I will not object to this amendment, due to the fact that it is far more reasonable than previous amendments put forth, but I will not vote for this bill under any circumstances unless it moves the ball forward in terms of working hours. I express some level of disappointment in the Mideastern Senator's approach on this issue - We need more people working, and the rolling back of working hours for working people only raises the amount of people out of work.

[Maxwell]

I don't think the purpose of this body is to find every bills agreeable center. I think the purpose of this body is to do the best for our people. I don't believe rolling working hours back and forcing people to work more and forcing some people out of the work force all together helps our people. Thus, I vote against it. And I have confidence that the President, whether it is Labor Griffin or Labor bore, will defeat this bill upon arrival on their desk.

[Maxwell]

Let's push the sludge through. I call for a final vote.

[Maxwell]

NAAAAAAAY