The Reasonable Military Funding Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Mint

[segwaystyle2012]

Do you have proper authority to change the titles given by the sponsor?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you have proper authority to change the titles given by the sponsor?

I didn't change title of act. The legislation and subsequent statute if this should be passed would be titled the "The Reasonable Military Funding Act" The Subject field of forum topic is irrelevant as far as Atlasia is concerned. Knowing this I felt taking some liberty with the topic field as a joke might draw some attention and create some much needed controversy since you have had such a problem with me not doing enough to reactivate the Senate.

I see you still have you panties in wad over something. Maybe its that I got reelected or something.

[segwaystyle2012]

Do you have proper authority to change the titles given by the sponsor?

I didn't change title of act. The legislation and subsequent statute if this should be passed would be titled the "The Reasonable Military Funding Act" The Subject field of forum topic is irrelevant as far as Atlasia is concerned.

Well, thanks for trolling, hopefully soon-to-be former PPT.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you have proper authority to change the titles given by the sponsor?

I didn't change title of act. The legislation and subsequent statute if this should be passed would be titled the "The Reasonable Military Funding Act" The Subject field of forum topic is irrelevant as far as Atlasia is concerned.

Well, thanks for trolling, hopefully soon-to-be former PPT.

I did it because of you and your complaints the other day, dumb**.

[segwaystyle2012]

Do you have proper authority to change the titles given by the sponsor?

I see you still have you panties in wad over something. Maybe its that I got reelected or something.

No, I endorsed you, for some reason or another.

[Lief 🗽]

I would support this if the cuts were solely military spending. As is, we spend a minuscule and insignificant percentage of our budget on foreign aid, and cutting this already relatively small amount of aid seems callous. On the other hand, the military budget is a huge percentage of our yearly spending, as well as a budget full of pork, corporate kickbacks, inefficiency, and waste.

[Badger]

I would support this if the cuts were solely military spending. As is, we spend a minuscule and insignificant percentage of our budget on foreign aid, and cutting this already relatively small amount of aid seems callous. On the other hand, the military budget is a huge percentage of our yearly spending, as well as a budget full of pork, corporate kickbacks, inefficiency, and waste.

I agree with your views on foreign aid and there's at least a grain of truth in the presence of waste in the military budget. But 50%?

[Fritz]

50% seems excessive.  And I agree with Lief- the cuts should be to military spending only.

[afleitch]

50% seems excessive.  And I agree with Lief- the cuts should be to military spending only.

Quite. A deep cut to military expenditure would free up huge numbers of weapons from small arms to aircraft carriers. However it will cost us a significant amount of money to decomission these in a safe way (or sell them off to Allies)

[Purple State]

Make a budget before cutting it. I can't assess a bill that doesn't actually have numbers.

That said, I understand that the creation of a budget would need heavy involvement from the GM. If the Senate is interested, I would be more than happy to help with this.

[Хahar 🤔]

Make a budget before cutting it. I can't assess a bill that doesn't actually have numbers.

That said, I understand that the creation of a budget would need heavy involvement from the GM. If the Senate is interested, I would be more than happy to help with this.

The Senate isn't interested.

[Purple State]

Make a budget before cutting it. I can't assess a bill that doesn't actually have numbers.

That said, I understand that the creation of a budget would need heavy involvement from the GM. If the Senate is interested, I would be more than happy to help with this.

The Senate isn't interested.

I would like to hear it from them. I was looking for past budgets and saw that this was waived every time because of the lack of an active GM. Well...

I may not be pumping out news like I could towards the end of last summer, but I can still be active. Maybe the new term can bring new life.

[Badger]

Make a budget before cutting it. I can't assess a bill that doesn't actually have numbers.

That said, I understand that the creation of a budget would need heavy involvement from the GM. If the Senate is interested, I would be more than happy to help with this.

The Senate isn't interested.

I am.

[tmthforu94]

I certainly have some reservations cutting our DoEA's budget this much, as should everyone. Like PurpleState said, however, we'll need a budget first.

Make a budget before cutting it. I can't assess a bill that doesn't actually have numbers.

That said, I understand that the creation of a budget would need heavy involvement from the GM. If the Senate is interested, I would be more than happy to help with this.

The Senate isn't interested.

I am.

[HappyWarrior]

Just to let everyone know I, as the current SOEA am fully opposed to this bill.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I am opposed to this bill as well. Arbitrarily cutting our defense budget by 50% seems reckless to me.

[Lief 🗽]

I am opposed to this bill as well. Arbitrarily cutting our defense budget by 50% seems reckless to me.

Not at all. What is reckless is to continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on what is essentially corporate welfare, building newer and bigger weapons that aren't necessary in today's world. Even with an across the board cut of 50%, we would still have the best military in the world.

[Badger]

I am opposed to this bill as well. Arbitrarily cutting our defense budget by 50% seems reckless to me.

Not at all. What is reckless is to continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on what is essentially corporate welfare, building newer and bigger weapons that aren't necessary in today's world. Even with an across the board cut of 50%, we would still have the best military in the world.

Wow, am I actually the conservative on this bill?

Mr. lame duck President, you and I would both roundly disagree with someone who proposed slashing medical care, education, job training, etc. by saying most of such funding is government/bureaucratic waste, and the actual intended use of the funds would thus only be slightly effected by a 50% cut in funding. Sensible people realize that administrative waste is exagerated by those who don't value the program in question and seek to justify cutting spending, and such cuts would drastically harm providing health care or education.

Now, just because we are progressives, why on earth should we hold military funding to a different--but equally unrealistic--standard?

Let's make no bones about it: Even after we remove $600 hammers and unwanted weapons systems forced on the military by Senators seeking to protect jobs, a 50% cut in military funding will slash our military's capabilities and abilities to respond to a crisis by approximately half. Please consider what effect a 50% cut would have had on the Atlasian Navy Seventh Fleet's readiness to respond so quickly as you ordered during the recent crisis in the Strait of Taiwan (how's that going, BTW?), or to respond to similar crises in future.

This isn't about waste or corporate welfare; it's about priorities and needs. A 50% cut in military spending will reduce our military's readiness and capabilities by about half, and I for one believe that's far too great a scaling back.

[Badger]

I offer the following amendment:

[quote]
Reasonable Military Funding Act
 
1) The DoEA’s military budget for fiscal year 2011 shall be reduced to 85% that of fiscal year 2010’s budget.

2) The Senate requests the SoEA submit a plan balancing these cuts between foreign aid and military spending.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has my support.

[Mint]

The amendment has my support.

^^^

The proposed amendment is actually closer to what I wanted, but I figured the measures I proposed would garner more support.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would certainly more palatable for me than the arbitrary 50% slashing in a year. A gradual cut down to a desired level is much smarter than what was initially proposed. However, I wonder how this cut will affect our relations with other countries, especially those who are threats to Atlasia.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would certainly more palatable for me than the arbitrary 50% slashing in a year. A gradual cut down to a desired level is much smarter than what was initially proposed. However, I wonder how this cut will affect our relations with other countries, especially those who are threats to Atlasia.

     May I suggest amending the bill then to specify levels of funding for fiscal years beyond 2011, so as to avoid the need to pass a new bill every year to continue the process?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I offer the following amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This would certainly more palatable for me than the arbitrary 50% slashing in a year. A gradual cut down to a desired level is much smarter than what was initially proposed. However, I wonder how this cut will affect our relations with other countries, especially those who are threats to Atlasia.

     May I suggest amending the bill then to specify levels of funding for fiscal years beyond 2011, so as to avoid the need to pass a new bill every year to continue the process?

This is a good idea. I'd write one up myself if I knew the exact numbers we are currently seeing in our military budget. I suppose we could cut it 15% a year until it reaches half of its current value, and then we let it stabilize. If that flies with the majority of the Senate, then it's all well and good.

I'm still curious, again, as to what affect this will have on our external affairs, especially if we cut out military budget down to half its current form.