August 2014 Napa Valley Earthquake Relief for the Pacific Act (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 03:17:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  August 2014 Napa Valley Earthquake Relief for the Pacific Act (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: August 2014 Napa Valley Earthquake Relief for the Pacific Act (Debating)  (Read 4478 times)
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 22, 2014, 08:17:55 AM »

I guess we can wait for that as well; but as of now, assuming the total damages to be around 1,2 billions, we should think on how to split up the costs between the People's Region and the federal government.
 
I would propose that we pay 900 million, while the People's Region should pay the remaining 300 Million from the emergency fund of the People's Region's budget surplus (we had one this july, so that should be no problem)
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 22, 2014, 01:12:27 PM »

That seems reasonable, and I would certainly support such an expense for the region. Will you offer an amendment, Cranberry?
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 22, 2014, 02:41:25 PM »
« Edited: September 22, 2014, 03:50:12 PM by DemPGH, President »

900 million is literally as absolutely max high as I'd be willing to go and would positively like a bit less. I mean, after a while this stuff all adds up, guys.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 22, 2014, 05:05:55 PM »

900 million is literally as absolutely max high as I'd be willing to go and would positively like a bit less. I mean, after a while this stuff all adds up, guys.

...

Oh, now you care. A trillion dollars for this is good, a trillion dollars for that is fine, but God forbid money would actually be spent on something that wouldn't wreck the economy! Jesus Christ.

There are people made homeless in our region. People whose livelihoods are at stake. This is necessary action.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 23, 2014, 10:46:30 AM »

With all due respect, Mr President; 900 Million is a very reasonable sum. Whole destinies were destroyed, life courses received a turn for the worse. I guess the split between the two bodies are reasonably split; and I urge my fellow Senators to support this plan.



Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
DemPGH
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,755
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 23, 2014, 12:14:05 PM »

But I didn't think the purpose here was to pay for everything. I'll probably revise it down, ftr.

900 million is literally as absolutely max high as I'd be willing to go and would positively like a bit less. I mean, after a while this stuff all adds up, guys.

...

Oh, now you care. A trillion dollars for this is good, a trillion dollars for that is fine, but God forbid money would actually be spent on something that wouldn't wreck the economy! Jesus Christ.

There are people made homeless in our region. People whose livelihoods are at stake. This is necessary action.

Me? I'm just saying that there's a predilection to want to toss a hundred million here, a few hundred million over there, another hundred million that way, and so on, and I'm wondering if people are keeping count. I've been pretty consistent in that regard. It's also ironic that you guys usually complain about a bloated, overreaching federal government. Huh
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 23, 2014, 01:00:40 PM »

But we won't be paying for everything. We pay a reasonable amount, 3/4. The People's Region is plagued economically, so I think it would be wise if we payed for a larger amount than just 1/2 - 3/4, to say.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 23, 2014, 02:19:15 PM »

When did the Pacific get the designation the People's region? The northeast has more members of The Party and can also, along with the south, claim to have been more involved in TPP's founding Tongue

I don't think we should pay for every bit of damage not covered by the insurance because otherwise, well, what's the point of it? Which then leaves me wondering what lambda (at least I assume it's lambda) is in simfan's equation. That seems the important question.

A quick rummage on the wiki gives the Pacific's expenditure as $379.200 billion while the federal government spends about 695 billion on the pacific. Just in terms of relative spending power.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 23, 2014, 08:16:56 PM »

Senators have 24 hours to object to the amendment.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 24, 2014, 09:52:33 AM »

I find it funny that Simfan only seems to mind federal spending when it helps people outside of his Region.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 24, 2014, 12:23:42 PM »

When did the Pacific get the designation the People's region? The northeast has more members of The Party and can also, along with the south, claim to have been more involved in TPP's founding Tongue

I don't think we should pay for every bit of damage not covered by the insurance because otherwise, well, what's the point of it? Which then leaves me wondering what lambda (at least I assume it's lambda) is in simfan's equation. That seems the important question.

A quick rummage on the wiki gives the Pacific's expenditure as $379.200 billion while the federal government spends about 695 billion on the pacific. Just in terms of relative spending power.

Firstly, The People's Region of the Pacific is our official name, it's in our constitution. Even before that, the first time I could trace it back was Wolfentoad - he put in on our sigil; so at least Wolfentoad must have used the name.
But that's completely irrelevant here Tongue

You are in a way right that people who don't have insurance should not get paid everything, because then everyone would think why to pay more if they get everything back. I however also think that we need to make a difference between a disaster, an emergency really, and normal circumstances. Under normal circumstances, it is good and right that we don't pay anything. But an emergency is an extraordinary circumstance. Okay, maybe we should not be paying anything.

So what would you propose? Split evenly by the federal and the regional government? We may not forget that we in the People's Region are bound to accept small tax rates, are a region in crisis with little revenues and therefore very little expenditures. But I would be inclined to say yes to 600 million from the federal government; if this is more acceptable to you.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 24, 2014, 06:35:45 PM »

Yeah, despite me never noticing before yesterday, you're right the pacific has had that name for a long time. I'm glad that it's not a partisan thing anyway. But you're right it's not relevant Tongue

I was thinking of a ratio of around about 7:4 federal:regional, although I'm not sure what that would be.

According to Simfans formula, the fact the government pays less than 100% for people without insurance is factored, but I have no idea what fraction it does pay (the lambda in the formula). So we need to know that before we progress I think.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 24, 2014, 08:00:38 PM »
« Edited: September 24, 2014, 08:03:41 PM by Governor Varavour »

I find it funny that Simfan only seems to mind federal spending when it helps people outside of his Region.

Notice the operative word there- help. I have a problem when it is proposed to spend money on causes that would harm the country (i.e. the Power Bill, the Employment Bill, the "Housewife Salary" Bill, etc., etc.).

I am just baffled by the contrast between the ease at which the Administration seems willing to sign on to programs that would cost the country hundreds of billions, if not trillions, and the sudden interest the Administration has taken in fiscal responsibility.

At this juncture I don't know whether to chalk it up to political vindictiveness or sheer... I wouldn't even know what to call it. Ignorant ineptitude? Simplistic sophistry? Daft disinterest? It is as if he does not know anything going on, nor does he care to.

Perhaps he is just tired. I do not recall him being like this as Governor. I hope he can come back to our Region and rest, amongst the rolling California vineyards, where the people are grateful for his action.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 24, 2014, 08:17:50 PM »

Yeah, despite me never noticing before yesterday, you're right the pacific has had that name for a long time. I'm glad that it's not a partisan thing anyway. But you're right it's not relevant Tongue

I was thinking of a ratio of around about 7:4 federal:regional, although I'm not sure what that would be.

According to Simfans formula, the fact the government pays less than 100% for people without insurance is factored, but I have no idea what fraction it does pay (the lambda in the formula). So we need to know that before we progress I think.

The share was .6, which I was intending to make conditional on the purchase of earthquake insurance. If you guys can wait a few more days I can give you a full break down.

Keep in mind a fair, albeit not too large, share of the cost are programs designed to mitigate and avert potential economic losses- which mean more tax revenues. I'm under no pretension that this bill "pays for itself" but the costs of not acting would be substantially higher than what the government would be paying here.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 24, 2014, 08:32:35 PM »

The amendment has passed.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2014, 09:14:25 AM »

I guess then really best wait for Simfan to give us the exact numbers for the equation. A few days more or less should not matter anymore.

7:3 would be nearly the 900:300 I proposed; maybe a bit less for the federal government and a bit more for the PRP... But anyway, I guess we should wait for Simfan's equation, to see whether and what we could strike a bit...

Thank you, by the way, Simfan; for doing basically all the work with the numbers for this bill. I know I'm making it quite easy for me here; but I'm so bad at numbers, and I guess I can only thank you thousand times for this. Thank you very, very much indeed! Smiley
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 27, 2014, 01:14:14 PM »

I motion for a final vote.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2014, 11:29:48 PM »

Sponsor?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 28, 2014, 06:27:36 AM »

Offering an amendment to put the federal and regional expenditures on this in sync to wider federal and regional expenditures, then I think we should have a final vote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 28, 2014, 08:53:20 AM »

Oh didn't see this, I would have been okay with a final vote.

As for bore's amendment, what would you say with 800 millions?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 28, 2014, 09:01:05 AM »

Oh didn't see this, I would have been okay with a final vote.

As for bore's amendment, what would you say with 800 millions?

Well I'm not going to vote against it if it were 800 million, but the 730 was chosen for a reason. Namely the 730/1150 is the same as 400/700 so the cost would be distributed among regional and federal governments according to their ability to pay.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 28, 2014, 09:07:45 AM »

Yeah you got a point. I guess this ratio is the most reasonable, for both Pacific and the federal government...

Lumine, consider this amendment friendly.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 28, 2014, 03:58:47 PM »

Where is this distribution formula determined for the cost, referred to what Cranberry said in his previous to last post?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 28, 2014, 04:10:31 PM »

Where is this distribution formula determined for the cost, referred to what Cranberry said in his previous to last post?

The sum that government should pay according to simfan's model is 1.15 billion.

The annual federal expenditure divided by 5 (so roughly the amount spent on the pacific) is about 700 million, while the pacific's regional expenditure is roughly 400 million.

So, it seems reasonable for the federal government to contribute 7/11ths of the 1.15 billion.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2014, 04:17:47 PM »

Okay I see what you mean now.

Are we still waiting on Simfan or has those details been resolved as well?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 11 queries.