Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 20, 2014, 05:50:30 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  Senate Protest and Analysis Thread
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 86 Print
Author Topic: Senate Protest and Analysis Thread  (Read 199176 times)
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23683
United States


View Profile
« on: April 09, 2005, 11:29:56 pm »
Ignore

The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2005, 05:38:04 pm by King »Logged

KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8535
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2005, 11:32:52 pm »
Ignore

The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.

I hate it when that happens.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27833


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2005, 11:42:00 pm »
Ignore

The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.

Yep, like the last 50-60 posts of that thread were one big b*tch fight that's been playing on ever since I got here. 

Bores the hell out of me.
Logged
Keystone Phil
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51125


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2005, 11:49:32 pm »
Ignore

The old one got infected with PA13-itis with Flyers v. Phil.

Yep, like the last 50-60 posts of that thread were one big b*tch fight that's been playing on ever since I got here. 

Bores the hell out of me.

Oh stop whining. I've never met a bigger bunch of crybabies in my life. "PA 13....no...no...it's boring!" Shut up. Get to work instead of turning this into an anti-PA 13 thread.
Logged



Grazie, Capitano!
Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28563
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2005, 12:56:52 am »
Ignore

I would suggest that everyone just stop posting here.  This is the thread to talk about introduced legislation before it comes up for debate.  If you're not talking about that, take it elsewhere.  Let's not clog up this one.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18732
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2005, 01:25:56 pm »
Ignore

Repeal of the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act

Co-Sponsor:  Senator NixonNow (ACA-NJ)

Clauses

1.     The Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act is hereby repealed.

2.   The projected savings to the Federal Government is projected to be $17.65 Billion dollars for FY 2006 and a projected $176.50 Billion dollars over the next ten years.

3.     All funds previously appropriated by the Senate for FY 2005 to fulfill the requirements of this legislation shall be honored by the Federal Government.

4.   All appropriations and other moneys set to be authorized for fulfillment of this legislation in the Preliminary Version of the Federal Budget for FY 2006 and all future Fiscal Years shall be terminated.

5.   If previous appropriations have resulted in the construction of new facilities or the purchase of land for the construction of new facilities, the land or new facilities must be sold at a fair price to private concerns and the resulting revenue must be included in the Education Sub-Department of the Treasury and Social Services Department revenue figures for the proceeding Fiscal Year.

6.   A sum of no less than three-fourths (75% or $13.2375 Billion dollars) and no greater than the whole (100%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this repeal of this Act must be designated towards the general Budgetary fund and the necessity of covering the present Budget’s shortfall and may not be authorized by the Senate to fund any other appropriations in this present Fiscal Year (2006).

7.   A sum of no less than none (0%) and no greater than (25% or $4.4125 Billion dollars) of the appropriations and money procured by the repeal of the Act may be authorized by the Senate in future legislation to fund appropriations and expenditures exclusively within the Education Sub-Department for FY 2006.



Discussion on the latest bill?
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27833


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2005, 04:08:52 pm »
Ignore

Well, I'd be happy to discuss it if anyone has any questions.

I have always felt like this is unnecessary legislation and yet at the same time, I wish to build a compromise so that elimination of it will go to things that I think it needs to go towards.

First, and most importantly, that means the federal budget deficit. 

75% of the savings from this bill will be earmarked straight to the general Budgetary fund and frankly 100% of the funds can be used for that if need be.  We will be able to cut the deficit by at least 13.2375 Billion dollars and maybe by as much as 17.65 Billion dollars.

However, I know that there are things that some Senators might have plans with regards to education.  I know that Cosmo Kramer has talked about fully funding NCLB.  So, I have set aside as much as 25% of this saved money for future appropriations within the Education Sub. Dept. only if a good and valuable program can be designed for those appropriations.

This is basically the first of a number of cuts I have in mind to make our budget deficit no longer the huge problem it presently is.
Logged
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9138
View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2005, 07:54:18 pm »
Ignore

Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?
Logged

Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11779
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2005, 08:06:31 pm »
Ignore

Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?

Do you seriously believe that we should be cutting funds from the military when we are already stretched militarily as it is. When many have said that we don't have the proper equipment in Iraq and that we are not ready for future military endeavours if the need must arise. We cannot cut back on military funding at this time, we need to expand the military to fight the War on Terror and to make sure that we stabilize Iraq.
Logged

"God protects fools, drunks, and the United States of America" - Otto Von Bismarck

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger

Quote from: Conservapedia
Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election.
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27833


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2005, 08:36:45 pm »
Ignore

Are any of the other cuts going to involve the military, which has seen a sharp increase in funding by the last few Senates?

I posted a response to True Democrat a few days ago which I think encapsulates the rationale behind how you get a budget deficit downwards:

Perhaps we could cut something from the Treasury Sub-Dept.  Could a Senator (probably Sam Spade) post a rundown of what is basically included in the Treasury sub-dept. budget?

Ok, but if the President would look through the Treasury budget himself, he would discover that other than some rather minor expenses here and there (1 billion to run the Mint, 8 billion for Financial Management Services and a couple of other minor things), there are basically two major expenses that the Treasury Dept. does that make up all of its budget.

1.  Running of the IRS (roughly about 59 billion)

2.  Paying off the interest on the National Debt (roughly about 350 billion)

Now, if you want to get rid of the IRS, I have no problem with that, but we'd better have an alternative tax system in place before.

Simply put, there is pretty much no way to really get into the budget deficit without cutting either:

1. Social programs (things to do with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, in that order)

2. Defense expenditures  (I think there are some things you can cut out of here (as being wasteful), but probably not more than 50 billion max.)

Or you can:

3. Raise taxes.

Or you can:

4. Keep spending increases down and hope for another 1990s to boom the federal coffers.
Logged
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9138
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2005, 08:40:44 pm »
Ignore

Cutting even 25 billion out of defense wouldn't be such a bad option, since some of it's waste anyhow.

We should leave raising taxes on the table, we don't have to do it by much, but considering the spending increases, it's about time we do that.
Logged

Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27833


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2005, 08:48:31 pm »
Ignore

Cutting even 25 billion out of defense wouldn't be such a bad option, since some of it's waste anyhow.

We should leave raising taxes on the table, we don't have to do it by much, but considering the spending increases, it's about time we do that.

Considering the spending increases that we've had, it is high time we cut the pointless spending increases and cut spending in other places.

I will oppose tax increases on the hard-working citizens of Atlasia unless it is "absolutely" necessary, which is almost never.
Logged
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9138
View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2005, 08:57:24 pm »
Ignore

Cutting even 25 billion out of defense wouldn't be such a bad option, since some of it's waste anyhow.

We should leave raising taxes on the table, we don't have to do it by much, but considering the spending increases, it's about time we do that.

Considering the spending increases that we've had, it is high time we cut the pointless spending increases and cut spending in other places.

I will oppose tax increases on the hard-working citizens of Atlasia unless it is "absolutely" necessary, which is almost never.

We should do what we can to make sure the cuts aren't totally slanted one way, cut equally from favored programs of both sides. If we do that, we save ourselves the precious time that would otherwise be spent on a never-ending argument over whether building a school or a bomber is a more effective use of money.

How about a tax increase (if this is already done, then there's no need, but I'm trouble getting onto the Wiki at the moment) on those over $500,000. I don't mean to sound like Naso throwing around random numbers, I think if the senate considers raising taxes, which is a viable option, that is a good starting point, which can be tweaked by those who know better what they are talking about. 

Logged

Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27833


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2005, 09:09:51 pm »
Ignore


We should do what we can to make sure the cuts aren't totally slanted one way, cut equally from favored programs of both sides. If we do that, we save ourselves the precious time that would otherwise be spent on a never-ending argument over whether building a school or a bomber is a more effective use of money.

How about a tax increase (if this is already done, then there's no need, but I'm trouble getting onto the Wiki at the moment) on those over $500,000. I don't mean to sound like Naso throwing around random numbers, I think if the senate considers raising taxes, which is a viable option, that is a good starting point, which can be tweaked by those who know better what they are talking about. 


I have no favored programs whatsoever.  I am a fiscal hawk true and true.  If there is no need for a new school or a new bomber, then I won't spend for it (though the last time I checked, the Federal government does not build local schools, local school districts do).

I'll be quite honest that my knowledge of wasteful social programs and unfunded mandates is quite better than my knowledge of wasteful military spending.

If the Secretary of the Defense or John Ford or Jake would have ideas as to wasteful defense spending that could be cut, I'm all ears.

But I will not raise taxes during a weak and stagnant economy unless "absolutely" necessary.  Please talk to your Senators or someone in the Senate willing to place a bill raising taxes.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18732
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2005, 09:19:11 pm »
Ignore

Depends on what you call wasteful.  If you don't like the Missle Defense Research, you would cut that, if you think, like Akno, that we shouldn't build a replacement for 30 year old fighters, you could cut the F-35 and F-22 programs, if you think we don't need new amphibious assault ships, you can cut funding to build the new San Antonio Class warships. 
Logged
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9138
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2005, 09:43:04 pm »
Ignore


We should do what we can to make sure the cuts aren't totally slanted one way, cut equally from favored programs of both sides. If we do that, we save ourselves the precious time that would otherwise be spent on a never-ending argument over whether building a school or a bomber is a more effective use of money.

How about a tax increase (if this is already done, then there's no need, but I'm trouble getting onto the Wiki at the moment) on those over $500,000. I don't mean to sound like Naso throwing around random numbers, I think if the senate considers raising taxes, which is a viable option, that is a good starting point, which can be tweaked by those who know better what they are talking about. 


I have no favored programs whatsoever.  I am a fiscal hawk true and true.  If there is no need for a new school or a new bomber, then I won't spend for it (though the last time I checked, the Federal government does not build local schools, local school districts do).

I'll be quite honest that my knowledge of wasteful social programs and unfunded mandates is quite better than my knowledge of wasteful military spending.

If the Secretary of the Defense or John Ford or Jake would have ideas as to wasteful defense spending that could be cut, I'm all ears.

But I will not raise taxes during a weak and stagnant economy unless "absolutely" necessary.  Please talk to your Senators or someone in the Senate willing to place a bill raising taxes.

I'm certainly open to cutting social programs, such as the cutting of the Educational Act, since I now realize it was a poorly written bill, and overall I'm happy with the 4 billion or so that will go to the education sub-department.

You may not favor new military expenses, but many on your side of the fence do. I also think we cannot cut vital (wide definition obviously, which makes it hard to legislate) social programs during a weak and stagnant economy unless it's absolutely neccessary.
Logged

King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23683
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2005, 10:19:53 pm »
Ignore

Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.

If a Senator proposes it Monday, then he can't really propose it until 72 hours which would be Wednesday but he has to wait an additional 72 hours until he proposes it then?

Also, Senate law isn't a Presidential thing...no signature needed.
Logged

KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8535
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2005, 10:24:22 pm »
Ignore

Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.


Ok, I don't really get Clause #1.  You say a Senator must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.  First off, three days after monday is Thursday, not Friday.  But beyond that, how can you propose legislation before you can propose legislation?  The law makes no sense as written.  So if I were a Senator, I would have to propose legislation on a Monday, which is illegal, and then propose the same legislation again on Friday?  Insane.

Also, Clause #3 says that anyone who opposes this law isn't allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours?  So anyone who votes against this law won't be able to propose legislation for 5 days if it passes?  That is beyond stupid, and probably unconstitutional.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2005, 10:28:37 pm by AFCJ KEmperor »Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23683
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2005, 10:27:49 pm »
Ignore

Ok, I don't really get Clause #1.  You say a Senator must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.  First off, three days after monday is Thursday, not Friday.  But beyond that, how can you propose legislation before you can propose legislation?  The law makes no sense as written.  So if I were a Senator, I would have to propose legislation on a Monday, which is illegal, and then propose the same legislation again on Friday?  Insane.

Also, Clause #3 says that anyone who opposes this law isn't allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours?  So anyone who votes against this law won't be able to propose legislation for 5 days if it passes?  That is beyond stupid, and probably unconstitutional.

It isn't unconstitutional because it is a Senate law and is sort of non-binding to the constitution.

Anyway, it has been deleted...nothing to see here folks!

Naso, please stop writing your own legislation and let King write it for you next time.

Don't get Keystone Phil and Akno started on that...
Logged

MAS117
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2005, 10:31:49 pm »
Ignore

Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.

wow, i dont understand at all. since when can we jsut delete bills introduced also?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2005, 10:36:23 pm by Senator MAS117 »Logged
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23683
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2005, 10:38:14 pm »
Ignore

Senate Introduction Act

Clause #1
Those who are members of Senate, must wait 72 hours (three days) before proposing legislation. Therefore, if a senator proposes legislation on a Monday, that Senator must wait 72 hours, until Friday.

Clause #2
All Senators, including the President-Pro Tempore must obey this rule.

Clause #3
Any senator who goes against this law, will not be allowed to propose legislation for 120 hours, or five days.

Clause #4
If this bill passes, and is signed by the President, the law should be put into affect by June the first, 2005.

wow, i dont understand at all. since when can we jsut delete bills introduced also?

Why do you want to continue this madness?  It is gone, he silently withdrew it...there is no law on this anyway.
Logged

Gabu
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28563
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

View Profile
« Reply #21 on: April 11, 2005, 03:20:56 am »
Ignore

Senate Procedure Resolution on Introduced Legislation
§1.  The Senate of Atlasia shall form a 3-person Senate Committee on Introduced Legislation.

§2.  Before a bill shall be allowed to be put to a vote, the Committee shall be required to approve of the legislation.

§3.  The Committee shall have the power to amend the bills for the purpose of keeping the legislation Constitutional, original*, and grammatically suitable for legislative action.

§4.  If a proposal is urgent, the President Pro Tempore or President of the Senate shall have the power to suspend the rules and send the bill directly to a vote.

Footnotes
* The term original shall be defined as not including laws or appropriating funds already similar or equal to that of existing law.

While I understand the purpose for this, I have two problems with sections 1, 2, and 3 of this legislation:

1. This introduces more bureaucracy and hoops that we must jump through before we're able to do our job.  I would personally prefer to keep the process involving as few steps as is necessary.

2. I really don't like the fact that three people would be able to effectively kill any legislation that they want.  This seems entirely undemocratic and contrary to what the Senate is supposed to be for: a place where any ideas can be brought to the floor, discussed, and then voted on.  I don't like the thought of having three people who are able to say "no, you can't discuss this".

I recognize that this is intended to speed up the Senate's workings by tossing out pointless legislation, but given that we have resolutions in place that allow for a vote after only twenty-four hours, I don't really think anything along these lines is necessary.  It seems too open to abuse; the potential good does not outweight the potential bad, in my opinion.
Logged



"To me, 'underground' sounds like subway trains.  That's the only sound I associate with 'underground'." - Everett
Sam Spade
SamSpade
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27833


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: 0.00

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: April 11, 2005, 04:13:19 am »
Ignore

I also dislike the fact a three-man committee decides what will be voted on and what won't be voted on.  And if you can't write legislation that's not constitutional or original, then you shouldn't be writing legislation at all.

Personally, I have at least taken the time to read the Constitution, as every Senator should imo, and if I have any qualms about Constitutional questions on legislation, I ask the experts first.

Clause 4 seems redundant.  Doesn't the PPT or the President of the Senate already have that power?

The system, as it right now, works fine.  Things have gone much, much faster and better legislation has been written as a whole.

I also find it ironic that the person whose bills fit the profile of some of things this legislation is trying to supposedly fix is coming up with this legislation himself.
Logged
Colin
ColinW
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11779
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: April 11, 2005, 10:35:32 am »
Ignore

I personally do not like the idea of a three man committee. It is too susceptable to cronyism and corruption. The committee could stop rightist or leftist or centrist, depending on who controls the committee, legislation from being debated on. It could also be used against opponents of the committee. People that the committee doesn't like could not have any of their legislation approved. This can also be used to sway elections by not allowing the Senator to seem active. Also the committee could twist and amend the bills so much that they go against their original purpose. All of these things could harm the activities of the Senate and lead to an increase in corruption.
Logged

"God protects fools, drunks, and the United States of America" - Otto Von Bismarck

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger

Quote from: Conservapedia
Thanks to Bryan's victory in the Scopes trial, Tennessee voters have been educated without oppressive evolution theory for 75 years. Free from the liberal indoctrination, Tennessee voted against native son Al Gore in the 2000 Presidential election.
King
intermoderate
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23683
United States


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: April 11, 2005, 08:11:16 pm »
Ignore

They don't decide just because they don't like the bill.  It has to have unconstitutional parts and they can only get rid of or change the language on those circumstances...it isn't like they could amend a healthcare bill into a declaration of war just because they disagree with it...
Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 86 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines