MA: Mideast Budget Amendment (Passed)

[tmthforu94]

This is 2% higher than the compromise requested by those on the left.  Is this more acceptable?

Probably not, but it's worth a shot.

[tmthforu94]

Actually, my preference was 111.11%. Or how about 123.456%?

[tmthforu94]

This is 2% higher than the compromise requested by those on the left.  Is this more acceptable?

That's not true and you know it.

Sorry, do you not like to consider yourself part of the "left"? Because this certainly indicates you supported it:

That is the most convincing argument I've heard on this.  I could live with 113%

Am I reading this wrong?

And I don't know what you mean by "Tmth rejected it". That suggestion was made AFTER the vote had already passed, so 110% had to be the one voted on. And since then, I introduced a version that was even higher than the number you proposed. So I certainly think I'm trying to work with both sides to get this done. I always thought of you as big on compromise, but this all seems awfully political to me.

[tmthforu94]

The question remains, though, what happens if we as a region adopt this amendment and a future government simply ignores it. What should be the consequences, if any?

That's a good question. I was thinking perhaps an Assembly shutdown, where the Assembly may not deliberate on any other legislation until a budget has been passed.

[tmthforu94]

For the hundredth time (a slight exaggeration, but it's certainly been quite a few) can someone from the left please explain to me why 110% is so much worse than 125% from an economic standpoint, once you consider clause three? On top of that, I'd be interested in hearing the same argument for 115% and 117%. I have yet to hear an actual argument for having a higher percentage. As I've said before, I would certainly be willing to negotiate with a number more if someone on the left would actually engage in a real debate on the economic difference between the two, but that has yet to happen.

[tmthforu94]

We voted on 110% because it had already passed. I never rejected 113%, obviously, since I'm now proposing 115%.

[tmthforu94]

[tmthforu94]

I would like to ask those who are proposing a higher debt ceiling: what is wrong with 110%, and why would a higher rate be better?  Governor Tmth and I have both asked this question before and have yet to receive an answer.  Could someone please explain this?

Don't expect an answer - I believe I've asked the question five times now.

[tmthforu94]

Monetary makes more sense to me as it allows more short-term spending to help us get out of any situation which may require us to go into the red (disaster, economic collapse, etc) while also ensuring long-term responsibility. To be completely honest, if that's all we have, I'd want it higher than $50 billion.

[tmthforu94]

We brought in $305.8 billion for last year. I'd have to do research, but actually I think all of our revenue numbers actually came from 2011. I could be wrong on that.

[tmthforu94]

Monetary makes more sense to me as it allows more short-term spending to help us get out of any situation which may require us to go into the red (disaster, economic collapse, etc) while also ensuring long-term responsibility. To be completely honest, if that's all we have, I'd want it higher than $50 billion.

^^^

[tmthforu94]

While I may be inclined to support a higher number in RL, I'll go along with $50 billion since this is a game and things go by much slower here than it does in RL.