Office of NE Speaker Alfred F. Jones: At Least Now I Won't Be Bothering Yankee

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Thanks to both of you, and Pyro: I'm endorsing you here, because you don't appear to have an office. You could rent my sister's house, if you wanted to.

[Pyro]

Thanks to both of you, and Pyro: I'm endorsing you here, because you don't appear to have an office. You could rent my sister's house, if you wanted to.

Thank you very much! Hehe, well I don't find it necessary to have an office thread while encompassing this marginal role in public servility, but if I run for governor or senate in the next couple months, I'll start one.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So I got reelected and stuff, but that's not important. The point is:

I have a federal government job!!!!!

So I'm the incoming president's press secretary. If you guys want to ask me any questions and stuff, feel free.

Sorry if I'm cluttering up the front page!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Do you plan to retain your seat in the Northeast Assembly?

Yep. I talked to Nappy and he said I could do both.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Here's to you serve the rightful administration well.

[Adam Griffin]

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a stellar job.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Congratulations!!

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Congratulations! I'm sure you'll do a stellar job.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Thanks, guys!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So, uh...

Wow. I haven't been here in about seventy years or so. I really need to update this.

Aside from some Northeastern stuff, nothing important happened, anyway. But: I'm furthering the cause of the True Leftist Labor Party, 'cause I'm running for Senate.

Now, I have no doubt that Mr. Franzl is a good man, and will be a great Senator, and I have no doubt that he will crush me in this race, but I am running to generally further the cause of the (somewhat more serious) left in Atlasia. Just take all that stuff I said in my first campaign, and replace "Pingvin" with "Franzl" and edit out all the stuff about me being a noob.

I know that my opponent will serve Atlasia well, but I personally think that if we want to move forward, Labor can do somewhat of a better job. You and I, Liberal and Labor, we have the same ideals. I just have them more.

Also, Labor has the majority of the people (not The People, though), but only 2 measly Senate seats. That's not good.[/coldheartedpowerplay]

We're going to take Atlasia forward, and we're going to do it starting on October 1st, 2012. Thank you all, and good night.

[Donerail]

Also, Labor has the majority of the people.

This is false.

[Adam Griffin]

Also, Labor has the majority plurality of the people.

This is false true.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Thanks, Adam *does the double hand-wave thing with Adam*.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

My opinion on some of the bills being debated in the Senate (the ones I have an opinion on):

National University and General Education Reform Bill:

I'm perfectly fine with this bill. I support a strong system of education (doesn't everyone?) and believe that a good university is a student's gateway to a good job and a bright future. I don't really see any problems with this bill. Move along, nothing to see here.

Progressive Traffic Fines Act:

I'd support this act in theory, but we've already enacted a somewhat more progressive system here in the Northeast, and from what I've seen this bill would weaken that system. Also, I don't like the opt-out privilege. It's stupid. If this bill were cleaned up somewhat, however, I'd support it in full.

The Contempt of Congress Act:

I'm OK with this. I think that the Senate should have access to whomever it wants to testify on its behalf, so as to get the best testimony possible, but a six-month voting ban seems a bit iffy, as it could vary a bit with regards to elections missed. On the fence.

More stuff later.

[Donerail]

National University and General Education Reform Bill:

I'm perfectly fine with this bill. I support a strong system of education (doesn't everyone?) and believe that a good university is a student's gateway to a good job and a bright future. I don't really see any problems with this bill. Move along, nothing to see here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Endorsed for Senate!

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

National University and General Education Reform Bill:

I'm perfectly fine with this bill. I support a strong system of education (doesn't everyone?) and believe that a good university is a student's gateway to a good job and a bright future. I don't really see any problems with this bill. Move along, nothing to see here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

And what part of the Constitution does the act go against? I want something in the Constitution, Sam, not that "REGIONAL RIGHTS!!!1!ONE!!11!" bullsh**t.

[Donerail]

National University and General Education Reform Bill:

I'm perfectly fine with this bill. I support a strong system of education (doesn't everyone?) and believe that a good university is a student's gateway to a good job and a bright future. I don't really see any problems with this bill. Move along, nothing to see here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

And what part of the Constitution does the act go against? I want something in the Constitution, Sam, not that "REGIONAL RIGHTS!!!1!ONE!!11!" bullsh**t.

See my question in the President's press conference. The bill serves no purpose whatsoever other than to expand the powers of the federal government.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Mr. President, can you explain the rationale for establishing a national university system and wasting millions in start-up costs instead of simply providing the funds to the regions to establish a new university (which would be just as good as any national university if they have the same funding) on the regional level?

You previously cited that one of your motives was to "introduce competition to regional public universities"; how does your bill aim to do that when it also drives into bankruptcy an entire class of universities, and when one of the sponsors of the bill stated on the floor of the Senate that "this is not a competition with them [regional universities]"?

What does this bill accomplish that could not be done on the regional level?

Is it unconstitutional to pass a law that punishes a college with a 50% tax hike simply due to their philosophy?

Sam, it appears your beef with this is simply that it's the feds doing it.

Why? Why--this is one of the things I hate about libertarians--are you only opposed to things like gay marriage bans or funding for education if the federal government does it? And about the "wasting millions in start-up costs", wouldn't providing funding to the regions just be "wasting millions in funding to the regions"? It'll cost money any way you slice it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I already endorsed a candidate, so this will be a very tough vote for me to cast.  Regardless, you will most definitely get a high preference from me.

[Donerail]

Mr. President, can you explain the rationale for establishing a national university system and wasting millions in start-up costs instead of simply providing the funds to the regions to establish a new university (which would be just as good as any national university if they have the same funding) on the regional level?

You previously cited that one of your motives was to "introduce competition to regional public universities"; how does your bill aim to do that when it also drives into bankruptcy an entire class of universities, and when one of the sponsors of the bill stated on the floor of the Senate that "this is not a competition with them [regional universities]"?

What does this bill accomplish that could not be done on the regional level?

Is it unconstitutional to pass a law that punishes a college with a 50% tax hike simply due to their philosophy?

Sam, it appears your beef with this is simply that it's the feds doing it.

Why? Why--this is one of the things I hate about libertarians--are you only opposed to things like gay marriage bans or funding for education if the federal government does it? And about the "wasting millions in start-up costs", wouldn't providing funding to the regions just be "wasting millions in funding to the regions"? It'll cost money any way you slice it.

My beef is that A.) it's an expansion of the federal government, B.) it's driving all organizations that don't accept student loans (including some religious institutions) into bankruptcy, and C.) it's a waste of money.

And implying that I'm only opposed to gay marriage bans if the federal government does it is fundamentally incorrect. As for the millions in start-up costs, those are the millions you'd have to pour into yet another new government bureaucracy instead of a pre-existing one (as currently exists in the regions).

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Mr. President, can you explain the rationale for establishing a national university system and wasting millions in start-up costs instead of simply providing the funds to the regions to establish a new university (which would be just as good as any national university if they have the same funding) on the regional level?

You previously cited that one of your motives was to "introduce competition to regional public universities"; how does your bill aim to do that when it also drives into bankruptcy an entire class of universities, and when one of the sponsors of the bill stated on the floor of the Senate that "this is not a competition with them [regional universities]"?

What does this bill accomplish that could not be done on the regional level?

Is it unconstitutional to pass a law that punishes a college with a 50% tax hike simply due to their philosophy?

Sam, it appears your beef with this is simply that it's the feds doing it.

Why? Why--this is one of the things I hate about libertarians--are you only opposed to things like gay marriage bans or funding for education if the federal government does it? And about the "wasting millions in start-up costs", wouldn't providing funding to the regions just be "wasting millions in funding to the regions"? It'll cost money any way you slice it.

My beef is that A.) it's an expansion of the federal government, B.) it's driving all organizations that don't accept student loans (including some religious institutions) into bankruptcy, and C.) it's a waste of money.

And implying that I'm only opposed to gay marriage bans if the federal government does it is fundamentally incorrect. As for the millions in start-up costs, those are the millions you'd have to pour into yet another new government bureaucracy instead of a pre-existing one (as currently exists in the regions).

1. I frankly don't see what's objectively bad about an expansion of the federal government. I doubt either of us will convince each other on that.

2. Well, they should accept student loans. I think that should happen.

3. It'll cost money any way you slice it; I just said that. It'll cost money even if we just give the regions the money.

The bit about gay marriage was just a part of my rant about libertarians. And not all libertarians, just regional-rights people.

[Donerail]

Mr. President, can you explain the rationale for establishing a national university system and wasting millions in start-up costs instead of simply providing the funds to the regions to establish a new university (which would be just as good as any national university if they have the same funding) on the regional level?

You previously cited that one of your motives was to "introduce competition to regional public universities"; how does your bill aim to do that when it also drives into bankruptcy an entire class of universities, and when one of the sponsors of the bill stated on the floor of the Senate that "this is not a competition with them [regional universities]"?

What does this bill accomplish that could not be done on the regional level?

Is it unconstitutional to pass a law that punishes a college with a 50% tax hike simply due to their philosophy?

Sam, it appears your beef with this is simply that it's the feds doing it.

Why? Why--this is one of the things I hate about libertarians--are you only opposed to things like gay marriage bans or funding for education if the federal government does it? And about the "wasting millions in start-up costs", wouldn't providing funding to the regions just be "wasting millions in funding to the regions"? It'll cost money any way you slice it.

My beef is that A.) it's an expansion of the federal government, B.) it's driving all organizations that don't accept student loans (including some religious institutions) into bankruptcy, and C.) it's a waste of money.

And implying that I'm only opposed to gay marriage bans if the federal government does it is fundamentally incorrect. As for the millions in start-up costs, those are the millions you'd have to pour into yet another new government bureaucracy instead of a pre-existing one (as currently exists in the regions).

1. I frankly don't see what's objectively bad about an expansion of the federal government. I doubt either of us will convince each other on that.

2. Well, they should accept student loans. I think that should happen.

3. It'll cost money any way you slice it; I just said that. It'll cost money even if we just give the regions the money.

The bit about gay marriage was just a part of my rant about libertarians. And not all libertarians, just regional-rights people.

1.) And I don't see how much good can come from expanding the federal government.

2.) Yes, but that's authoritarianism... "Change your beliefs or we'll slap you with a huge tax burden"?

3.) The point is that it'll cost more money if you do it on a federal level.

As for gay marriage... Gov. Johnson promotes having the federal government protecting the right to gay marriage in all states. Just saying.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Alfred, I also oppose the creation of a federal university. The regions already operate and finance public universities, and at least in the Northeast, we've made those universities very accessible. Creating a federal system of universities will only crowd out funding for the regional university systems that already exist. It's not something that we should do unless there's a real shortage of seats in the classrooms of public colleges, and even then we could more efficiently expand access to public institutions of higher education by investing in the regional university systems.

How exactly would this "crowd out" regional universities? It's not like the funding for the national universities is taking away from the regional ones. It in fact increases funding to the regions by $2.5 billion.

And I believe that our students should have every opportunity available to them to get a decent, quality education.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

My main concern is that the bill will result in a transfer of wealth from regions like the Northeast. We've put a great deal of effort and money into creating a highly-accessible system of quality regional universities. It's likely that a disproportionate share of students who enter the federal university system will be from regions where policymakers have not focused on this issue and residents are not as willing to spend regional tax dollars on education.

How exactly would it do this? I don't see anything in the bill that takes away from the regions, unless you're referring to the 50% tax thing. And I don't see why creating a better system for residents of less educationally-focused regions is a bad thing.

About the nuclear proliferation thing, I think nuclear weapons should be banned, but on the other hand I don't think we should give the IAEA that much power. I think that we should focus on pressuring nations like Iran and North Korea, and if they don't cooperate we may need to take more decisive action.