|
Title: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Law'd) Post by: MasterJedi on July 11, 2009, 04:24:44 PM 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill
Recognizing the strain that the economic downturn has put on Atlasian families and businesses, seeking to offer struggling Atlasians relief while investing in an economic recovery, the Senate of Atlasia authorizes the following: Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($254 billion) a. $100 billion for Medicaid b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50 c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits d. $20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding) Section 2: Infrastructure Investment ($162.5 billion) a. $60 billion to be distributed to highway, road, bridge construction/repair projects b. $20 billion for urban public transportation construction and repair projects c. $10 billion to immediately fund the 2009 High Speed Rail Act (FL 30-8) d. $10 billion to increase rural broadband coverage e. $10 billion for infrastructure repair and construction projects in the Social and Economic Development Zones enacted in FL 31-19 f. $10 billion to repair and modernize government facilities and buildings g. $10 billion to repair sewage lines and drinking water infrastructure h. State governments will be required to pave or re-gravel all township roads and re-pave all township roads that have not been paved since January 1, 1999 by December 31, 2014. $6.5 billion is allocated to each region for this effort i. Two-thirds of the manufacturing material related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects are required to have been produced and manufactured by Atlasian businesses Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set Section 4: Regional & Local Fiscal Relief ($150 billion) a. $100 billion in financial aid to the regions, to decrease and prevent budget cuts of essential services and layoffs or cutbacks of government workers (This financial relief will be prioritized to state governments on the basis of budget severity) b. $50 billion to aid school districts facing budget shortfalls, to prevent cutbacks or layoffs Section 5: Responsible Individual & Business Tax Relief ($42+ billion) a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010 b. $8 billion to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit c. $6 billion to provide a voluntary annual $700 tax credit to home-owners who make use of solar, wind, or hydroelectric sources of energy (To qualify for the tax credit, home-owners must have at least 25% of their electricity generated from the aforementioned sources.) d. $3 billion to provide an expanded sales tax deducation from automobile purchases from Atlasian automobile companies e. The business tax rate shall be reduced by 2% f. Individual businesses making $300,000 or less in total annual income shall be exempt from all business taxes for exactly one year after The 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act is made law Spon: Sen. Marokai Blue, Sen. MaxQue Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 04:26:57 PM For the sake of debate on this topic, and debate we really really should have, I'm going to past a few of my previous posts on this topic.
There you go again Senator ignoring the negative consequences of your own actions. Those provisions risk a trade war at a time when our exports are falling and contributing to the growing unemployement, it would be the height of irresponsibility to pursue such a course. The Global economy is slumping and so there needs to be stimulus worldwide. The idea that you can isolate our economy would lead to a permenent Depression. Indeed the Smoot Hawley passed in 1930 jacked up tariff rates, a trade war ensued after which our exports plunged and Depression grew deeper. You want to help Manufacturing then invest in Technology, make our tax rates competative with foriegn manufacturers, and stop letting Unions drive them into the ground. Okay, well, let's start off with something simple: You haven't a clue what you're talking about. For the sake of economic debate, I'll be referring to Atlasia as the US, using real-life statistics. The global economy is indeed slumping and other countries have alot of work to do when it comes to stimulating our own economies. But the idea that I'm "ignoring the consequences of my own actions" is ludicrous. The U.S. (aka Atlasia) should not be stimulating the world on our own, other countries should stimulate their economies on their own. We can maintain trade, and make things easier for people to get into the market, but we need to be realistic about the real effect certain policies have on the economy, and, for one, "Buy Atlasian" ain't got nuthin' on Smoot-Hawley. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley) Smoot-Hawley jacked up tariffs to record levels (more than quadrupling them) on over 20,000 types of imported products and effectively choked off trade to Europe and other areas of the world very quickly. This provision does nothing of the sort and pretending it does is the height of ignorance. This clause of the bill simply mandates that a great deal of the manufacturing material involved in projects funded by the stimulus package will be created/manufactured from Atlasian businesses and workers, it doesn't stop other projects from being funded by foreign sources, it doesn't block foreign sources from doing trade with us in any other way, and it still allows a full 33% of stimulus project materials to be obtained from other countries. Protectionism is never a great policy when it's the only solution, and raising tariffs is seldom a bright idea when it comes to fixing the economy or raising revenue, but this is neither serious protectionism nor tariff raising, nor any other sort of trade restriction. I'm baffled that you would even pretend that they're on the same level. Manufacturing employment has been dropping for years now (http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/C2_Imports_from_China.jpg) and during that time, our exports slow and our reliance on Chinese imports skyrockets. There's an interesting article from 2002 (http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_11202002/) that talks about the history of our trade and manufacturing relations with China since the end of the 80s, "Between 1989 and 2001, though U.S. exports to China more than tripled, imports from China increased eightfold, causing a whopping twelvefold surge in the U.S-China trade deficit." () You might be thinking "Well, a drop in employment is understandable as long as output continues to increase." Not so in most cases. Manufacturing output as either stalled, or, as government statistics have shown of industrial output overall (http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/6/18/saupload_1245267265.jpg), has consistently, with blips throughout the rapid economic expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union, fallen lower and lower, and the overall peaks of industrial output have been less strong with each peaking. (These are less broad and somewhat unrelated, but California (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/CAMFG_Max_630_378.png) and Nebraska (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/NEMFGN_Max_630_378.png) manufacturing employment numbers are somewhat startling.) My point is this, our reliance on Chinese imports is hurting our industry and our ability to manufacture and to export. Free trade generally does increase jobs in certain sectors, but this is often at the expense of our manufacturing output, and we can't keep ignoring our ability to manufacture in favor of pencil pushing and service management jobs. The "Buy Atlasian" Provision makes it so we mandate a small portion of our overall manufacturing work be produced and done in Atlasia by Atlasians, and gives our manufacturing sector a much needed boost. Protectionism, in small doses as to not choke off trade or offend other nations, is not always a bad thing. Nations need an element of self-sufficiency. And this ties into the argument for temporary nationalization of the 3 Auto-Makers. The success of the "Big 3" is not only an economic concern, but a concern of national security. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/opinion/16clark.html) These auto-makers often provide quick support for the military when materials and army trucks, jeeps, and even tanks and artillery are needed. These security demands increase our industrial production and manufacturing employment (which is, consequently, another contributor to the unusual freeze of manufacturing employment throughout the 90's, because of every other decade experiencing falls since WWII) and made sure that we could always rely on ourselves rather than other nations in fighting our wars. There are, of course, obvious concerns economically as well. We could lose millions of jobs in the auto-making industry alone if we do nothing, not to mention the additional millions of jobs that are indirectly dependent on that sector. Moving on to your other (asinine) points, taxes are often overblown, and there's only so long we can whine about them. The taxpayer is now dealing with one of the lowest tax burdens in decades (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041503371.html) and other tax hikes, such as FDR's during the Great Depression, Reagan's during the period of economic expansion under his two terms, and Clinton's in the first year of his term (which were surprisingly broad, by the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Budget_Reconciliation_Act_of_1993#Specifics)) all had no noticeable negative effects on the economy. Especially Clinton's, which Republicans said would kill jobs, did nothing to stop the 23 million jobs created under Clinton's tenure. Business taxes can be lowered, sure, we do have one of the highest (and some things put it at the highest) business tax rate in the world, but we should caution ourselves from just taking a hatchet to the business tax rate. Something like that is neither responsible, more effective than modest cuts, nor just economically sound at all. Permanent tax cuts are often bad, bad economic stimulus, and slashing the business tax rate has almost no sensible economic efficiency on the dollar (http://endtheecho.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/mz_012208_1t.gif) in comparison to other measures we could be taking. These tax cuts are modest and A) More psychological than seriously impacting, which does matter. And B) Designed to focus on very small businesses where tax cuts have a more sensitive effect. Your union bashing is similarly dumb. Sticking to the topic of manufacturing work in auto-plants, non-unionized foreign auto-plants are very competitive with US-unionized plants in terms of pay. (http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html) There is no union-bashing to be done here, just business mismanagement. If you take a closer look at the numbers provided as comparisons, the major difference between the two are legacy costs which, dumbed down for you if you're too lazy to check the link, are things like pensions, healthcare benefits for retired workers, etc. Quote WAGES: Base hourly wages and cost of living adjustments * UAW: $29 * Transplants: $26 WAGE RELATED: Paid vacation, overtime, holidays, night and weekend pay, break time * UAW: $14 * Transplants: $9 BENEFITS: Healthcare, training, etc * UAW: $12 * Transplants: $11 LEGACY COSTS (Without VEBA): Pension and healthcare benefits for retirees * UAW: $16 * Transplants: $3 LEGACY COSTS (With VEBA): Pension and healthcare benefits for retirees * UAW: $3 * Transplants: $3 TOTAL LABOR COST: * UAW (without VEBA): $71 * UAW (with VEBA): $58 * Transplants: $49 http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/12/13/299179.html This is, further, an argument that government management can bring forward the necessary changes that throwing money at the auto-makers, as we've done for many years now, could be the best bet we have towards properly restructuring their businesses and bringing forward a new American/Atlasian auto industry which is essential in more than a few ways. Simply, this has nothing to do with unions, just bad business decisions from the past and incompetent management. Stop with the knee-jerk union-bashing. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 04:28:31 PM The stimulus "isn't stimulating" because it was too small and compromised too much of tax cuts (or rebates, or breaks, or whatever semantic game you want to play) and didn't focus enough on the critical projects and safety-net programs that are incredibly effective in this area. I've explained this before, and I'll quote myself from another thread here just to repeat myself. (By the way, some of the assumptions in this article are just flat wrong, unemployment insurance is incredibly effective (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=863) and stimulates the economy efficiently, as food stamps do, and not all projects take years to plan. If you're building a dam, obviously it's going to take awhile, but there are alot of projects out there that can be done right now, or have stalled out due to lack of funds. There's also no shame in planning & building alot of projects for the future economic benefit. Quote from: WPA Accomplishments The work done by the organization stands as a tribute to the WPA. Almost every community in America has a park, bridge or school constructed by the agency. As of 1940, the WPA had erected 4,383 new school buildings and made repairs and additions to over 30,000 others. More than 130 hospitals were built and improvements made to another 1670 (MacMahon, Millet and Ogden 1941, pp. 4-5). Nearly 9000 miles of new storm drains and sanitary sewer lines were laid. The agency engaged in conservation work planting 24 million trees (Office of Government Reports 1939, p. 80). The WPA built or refurbished over 2500 sports stadiums around the country with a combined seating capacity of 6,000,000 (MacMahon, Millet and Ogden 1941. pp. 6-7). Addressing the nation’s transportation needs accounted for much of the WPA’s work. By the summer of 1938, 280,000 miles of roads and streets had been paved or repaired and 29,000 bridges had been constructed. Over 150 new airfields and 280 miles of runway were built (Office of Government Reports 1939, p. 79). We've accomplished a great deal in a short time with past infrastructure projects such as the WPA (http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/couch.works.progress.administration), and it's all possible again, if we actually created large programs such as this to do it, and poured alot money into a very sensible and direct Administration. Remember, we're not designing a thousand freedom towers. We could be digging ditches, repaving roads, repairing and rebuilding schools, finishing already-existing projects, and so on. These are stimulative not only now but forever.) The stimulus will take time to come into full effect (construction projects are getting started in many areas of the country right now, and I've personally seek the increase in some safety net benefits like unemployment compensation and food stamp increases) however it's important to keep in mind that it was probably woefully inadequate. Government spending is the most efficient way in these times (in one way or another, usually target spending or goods and services directly, accompanied by public works projects) and if the spending is kept under a certain limit pretty much "just because" and hampered further by tax cuts (or rebates, whatever you prefer, they are in effect, tax cuts) which, according to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Provisions_of_the_Act), amount to a whopping 37% of the bill, essentially leaving us with about 45% for direct spending, and 18% for aid to the states, which as I've explained why in the past (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95039.msg1972228#msg1972228), is critical. Unfortunately we skimped on some of the most important aspects of government stimuli. Education (paying more people to stay involved and prevent cutbacks), infrastructure (roads, bridges, schools), welfare (food stamps are one of the most, if not THE most, effective safety net program we have running, unemployment compensation is similarly effective) and so on. If you get down to the specific provisions, only 82 billion is spent on the safety net (leaving out medicare) and only 51 billion are spent on "core" infrastructure projects, things like bridges, roads, etc. Some of THE most important and critical government stimulus amounts here to only 133 billion! If you look where the individual payments are going, less than 20 billion is going to food stamps! That's right, the most effective program for stimulus (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/economic_stimulus.jpg) is receiving a paltry 19 billion dollar increase. That should have been, and could have been, easily doubled. Similarly, unemployment benefits, the second most effective on our list, could have been doubled, being originally placed in around 40 billion dollars and 25 dollar increases in benefits. Infrastructure projects in the stimulus don't amount to much in the fine print either. Quite frankly, the entire plan for infrastructure spending should have been quadrupled. Less than 30 billion for highway and bridge construction, a pitiful 8 billion for railway construction and development, and more disappointing investments in infrastructure. Infrastructure projects are another important component on our list here, and have the potential, as was done during the New Deal under the Works Progress Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administration) (a model we should replicate) build an infrastructure for future prosperity, and improve public transportation to lessen the burden on individuals paying ever rising gas prices. Other minor investments could have made a big difference in people's lives, such as greatly increasing the amount of money for free lunch programs at schools, which I also know from personal experience is a substantial drain on a family's resources when lacking it. Tax relief, while certain tax relief measures are stimulative, are not that effective because the general strength of a tax cut or a rebate isn't a long term benefit or isn't strong enough to make a big difference in an individuals like, but could, collectively, cause a great deal of harm to revenue coming into the federal government. I think Verily explained quite well in this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95305.msg1978281#msg1978281) why tax cuts aren't effective stimulus, so there's no need for me to explain that here. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to conclude that tax relief is somewhat effective if you do it right, other measures are still far more effective on the dollar. The main problem with tax cuts though, is that it's not a targeted relief measure, so it usually just goes to paying off a minuscule portion of an individual's debt or to some sort of useless entertainment source. In any case, I'm ending up rambling now. There are a great deal of solutions that could help and past models to look to for advice on what to replicate today, but sufficed to say, the stimulus could very well fall flat on it's face and do little to nothing because alot of the money was either A ) Insufficient for the targeted projects to make an impact, or B ) Not targeted at all, often in the form of some sort of tax relief that goes to a useless source. Tax relief measures should have been stripped from the stimulus almost entirely and direct spending on the safety net and infrastructure projects beefed up to include the vast majority of a nearly 1.5 trillion stimulus bill. It's a shame. I remain cautiously optimistic that it will have some sort of impact, but I'm not seeing it so far, and I fear we may has wasted a ton of money because we didn't go nearly as far as, say, the New Deal projects went. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 04:29:34 PM I really hope people are sensible enough to participate in the debate around these issues and don't just have knee-jerk reactions or post one-liner nothings. This is serious, and a subject I feel most passionate about, so I really will be disappointed if my colleagues ignore critical issues in favor of talking points or blathering nonsense.
So let's debate these issues on their points, individually, and work to create a real stimulus bill that doesn't waste money and will actually get the job done. I'm pretty sure most of you are smart enough to handle that. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 11, 2009, 04:56:04 PM Well I support the principle of a stimulus package.
I'm willing to accept Sections 1, 4 and 5 without any alterations, as I think all the items mentioned are sensible points that will help Atlasia. My two main problems are: a.) the nationalization of the automobile industry. First of all, I don't think any automaker should be taken over by the government, but if such a step is taken, then it certainly shouldn't include companies like Ford that appear to be capable of surviving on their own. However nationalizing only GM would create several problems concerning competition. I don't think companies that are able to survive on their own should be punished by being forced to compete against a government own automobile manufacturer. And I really don't think it's good precedent to simply take over a company that actually deserves to go bankrupt. I don't see any good reason to "bailout" GM. I think the supply on the market is in general too high, and that financially sound carmakers could profit from GM folding. It seems foolish to me to be investing in a business that the market has no reason to support. I don't believe in being "too big to fail". My other problem is the "Buy Atlasian" provision. Do we really want to start with these protectionist measures? Do you think countries with which we have free trade would like the idea of the Atlasian government requiring that Atlasian companies be used for infrastructure projects? What happens when they enact similar requirements in their own stimulus bills and Atlasian companies lose money because they can't offer their products and services abroad? Protectionism just seems to me to be a bad idea...the work should be done by the company that offers the best work at the best price, regardless of where that company is located. Now, I know that's not necessarily the purpose of a "stimulus bill", if you believe that it should only help Atlasian companies...but that's my position on trade, and I don't believe that protectionism is ultimately beneficial to anybody, even if it does provide relief in the short run to a couple of companies. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 05:04:19 PM I'm willing to compromise on the nationalization of the auto-industry, but I'm not willing to compromise on "Buy atlasian." The only thing I'm willing to do is include an exception for Canada, because of our proximity and the fact that we share many businesses and workers.
As for the "OMG PROTECTIONIZM" tirade. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Quote There are no massive wave of protectionist policies here and I haven't a clue why you keep pedaling that nonsense. It simply mandates 66% of stimulus projects have materials obtained and manufactured in Atlasia and by Atlasian businesses. There's still a significant portion of projects that can be funded by foreign sources, and it doesn't affect anything outside of the stimulus projects. It would take a huge leap of faith to assume the world will suddenly engage in protectionism because of a small requirement for a narrow set of projects. Of course, given that our game moderator is Brandon, anything is possible I suppose.. But in the real world.. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 11, 2009, 05:06:48 PM Well but why? Our own companies will be put at just as big of a disadvantage when/if other countries enact their own stimulus packages?
Shouldn't the work be done by the company that offers the best quality and price? Why can't we force Atlasian companies to actually compete instead of just relying on friendly government policy? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 05:09:33 PM Well but why? Our own companies will be put at just as big of a disadvantage when/if other countries enact their own stimulus packages? Shouldn't the work be done by the company that offers the best quality and price? Why can't we force Atlasian companies to actually compete instead of just relying on friendly government policy? This is a stimulus bill to stimulate/jump-start our industries and give relief to our unemployed workers. (And our weakening manufacturing sector) We rely too heavily on imports from other countries, such as China, and increasing that reliance, especially in these times, is not a bright idea. This is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 11, 2009, 05:14:16 PM I still don't understand why Atlasian companies wouldn't able to compete for contracts, especially if they offer a better product. If they're unable to compete for these stimulus projects...my question is: What hope do they have of surviving in the future?
Is the government supposed to provide support indefinitely? edit: I understand you're not arguing that we should provide indefinite support....but I'm just wondering why a company that needs to be competitive in order to survive in the future shouldn't be able to gain contracts on their own? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 05:19:07 PM I two am perfectly in support of sections 1, 4, and 5. Though I think some additions could be made in the form of loans to existing small business to help them make payroll, especially considering that credit card companies and banks are dropping small business lines of credit. This is increasing the unemployement numbers, in some cases, unnecessarily due to the inability to make payroll. I also would like to see some money maybe 200 Billion in general loans to prospective home buyers, college students, small business owners, and car buyers. The purpose of this would be to alleviate the credit crisis.
Like Franzl, I think that the Buy Atlasian provisions are essentially playing Russian roulette with certain Atlasian workers. I also don't think that the honerable Senator Marokai takes into account the serious impact of the message that would send. Atlasia should take the lead in kicking populist demands for protectionism in the face and send a message to the world that this is not going to be like the 1930's. However this puts shacky and politically unstable Gov't in a position that would make them far more susceptible to the illogical demands of populist anger that allways spreads in these environments. When it comes to the Auto companies, I agree with Franzl in not taking them over, howeve I disagree that we should let them be liquidated just like that. I think that General Motors can survive this, however the Gov't is going to have to do the things necessary to help them compete and if necessary insure they survive inevitable bankruptcy. However that does not mean a takeover, and it does not mean a bailout. It would have to be a bankruptcy where the hard decisions are finally made, and the company gets its long overdue reorganization. The Gov't should only step in to prevent a liquidation from occuring. Other then that they should focus on helping them compete with the other manufacturers. That includes investing more into Energy and Tranporation R&D, that includes cutting the overall corporate tax rate paid for by removing many exemptions and deductions currently in place. This also has the effect of simplfying the tax the code. They can also help by, ironically, getting some kind of health care reform done the lowers costs in general. I do however agree with Franzl that no company should be to big to fail. If that happens it will encourage a wave of corporate incompetance the likes of which we have never seen and make recent examples of corporate incompetance look like the height of responsible management. The threat of failure is what makes companies strive too succeed, they are a businesses first and should not be institutionalised to the point where any mistake our failure on the part of management will be made right by the gov't on the taxpayers dime. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 05:30:21 PM Quote Like Franzl, I think that the Buy Atlasian provisions are essentially playing Russian roulette with certain Atlasian workers. I also don't think that the honerable Senator Marokai takes into account the serious impact of the message that would send. Atlasia should take the lead in kicking populist demands for protectionism in the face and send a message to the world that this is not going to be like the 1930's. However this puts shacky and politically unstable Gov't in a position that would make them far more susceptible to the illogical demands of populist anger that allways spreads in these environments. How many times have I explained this to you? Are you getting dumber? I don't even know if I should bother anymore. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 05:48:04 PM Quote Like Franzl, I think that the Buy Atlasian provisions are essentially playing Russian roulette with certain Atlasian workers. I also don't think that the honerable Senator Marokai takes into account the serious impact of the message that would send. Atlasia should take the lead in kicking populist demands for protectionism in the face and send a message to the world that this is not going to be like the 1930's. However this puts shacky and politically unstable Gov't in a position that would make them far more susceptible to the illogical demands of populist anger that allways spreads in these environments. How many times have I explained this to you? Are you getting dumber? I don't even know if I should bother anymore. You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Marokai. It will get you know where. Yes it is no where near Smoot-Hawley, but that doesn't matter. What matters is peception, and if foreign countries believe we have taking a protectionist route, no matter how small, the effects could be devastating. You still refuse to admit the possibility that this is counterproductive. Just because "on paper" your Buy Atlasian provisons are small and should have little to no effect in theory, doesn't mean that they won't in practicality. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 06:13:51 PM Quote Like Franzl, I think that the Buy Atlasian provisions are essentially playing Russian roulette with certain Atlasian workers. I also don't think that the honerable Senator Marokai takes into account the serious impact of the message that would send. Atlasia should take the lead in kicking populist demands for protectionism in the face and send a message to the world that this is not going to be like the 1930's. However this puts shacky and politically unstable Gov't in a position that would make them far more susceptible to the illogical demands of populist anger that allways spreads in these environments. How many times have I explained this to you? Are you getting dumber? I don't even know if I should bother anymore. You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Marokai. It will get you know where. Yes it is no where near Smoot-Hawley, but that doesn't matter. What matters is peception, and if foreign countries believe we have taking a protectionist route, no matter how small, the effects could be devastating. You still refuse to admit the possibility that this is counterproductive. Just because "on paper" your Buy Atlasian provisons are small and should have little to no effect in theory, doesn't mean that they won't in practicality. ::) How do I respond to someone with their head in the clouds? Any policy we take could be take could be interpreted in 500 different ways and any country could respond with 500 more actions. This can't be helped. What matters is that we stick to the real world and recognize that this is small and drop the retarded "IT'S SMOOT-HAWLEY 2.0!!!!!1" rhetoric. We had a similar, much more strict provision in the actual stimulus bill. All it did was piss off Canada a little, didn't do much else. (Include an exception for Canada, bam, problems solved.) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 06:24:13 PM Quote Like Franzl, I think that the Buy Atlasian provisions are essentially playing Russian roulette with certain Atlasian workers. I also don't think that the honerable Senator Marokai takes into account the serious impact of the message that would send. Atlasia should take the lead in kicking populist demands for protectionism in the face and send a message to the world that this is not going to be like the 1930's. However this puts shacky and politically unstable Gov't in a position that would make them far more susceptible to the illogical demands of populist anger that allways spreads in these environments. How many times have I explained this to you? Are you getting dumber? I don't even know if I should bother anymore. You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Marokai. It will get you know where. Yes it is no where near Smoot-Hawley, but that doesn't matter. What matters is peception, and if foreign countries believe we have taking a protectionist route, no matter how small, the effects could be devastating. You still refuse to admit the possibility that this is counterproductive. Just because "on paper" your Buy Atlasian provisons are small and should have little to no effect in theory, doesn't mean that they won't in practicality. ::) How do I respond to someone with their head in the clouds? Any policy we take could be take could be interpreted in 500 different ways and any country could respond with 500 more actions. This can't be helped. What matters is that we stick to the real world and recognize that this is small and drop the retarded "IT'S SMOOT-HAWLEY 2.0!!!!!1" rhetoric. We had a similar, much more strict provision in the actual stimulus bill. All it did was piss off Canada a little, didn't do much else. (Include an exception for Canada, bam, problems solved.) Yes lets come down to the real world and not take the risk. May you please cease with those insults I have yet insult you, just criticized your policy making abilities. Please top taking to the next level up. You have at least admitted that this could be interpreted differently by foreign countries, thats a start. Don't forget that our disagreement here is over 3 lines in the whole bill, and one section. I am in support of 75% of this bill. Would you be willing to say include Britain and the EU along with Canada in the exemption? I might be open to compromising a little provided you give a little two. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 06:26:13 PM Quote Like Franzl, I think that the Buy Atlasian provisions are essentially playing Russian roulette with certain Atlasian workers. I also don't think that the honerable Senator Marokai takes into account the serious impact of the message that would send. Atlasia should take the lead in kicking populist demands for protectionism in the face and send a message to the world that this is not going to be like the 1930's. However this puts shacky and politically unstable Gov't in a position that would make them far more susceptible to the illogical demands of populist anger that allways spreads in these environments. How many times have I explained this to you? Are you getting dumber? I don't even know if I should bother anymore. You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Marokai. It will get you know where. Yes it is no where near Smoot-Hawley, but that doesn't matter. What matters is peception, and if foreign countries believe we have taking a protectionist route, no matter how small, the effects could be devastating. You still refuse to admit the possibility that this is counterproductive. Just because "on paper" your Buy Atlasian provisons are small and should have little to no effect in theory, doesn't mean that they won't in practicality. ::) How do I respond to someone with their head in the clouds? Any policy we take could be take could be interpreted in 500 different ways and any country could respond with 500 more actions. This can't be helped. What matters is that we stick to the real world and recognize that this is small and drop the retarded "IT'S SMOOT-HAWLEY 2.0!!!!!1" rhetoric. We had a similar, much more strict provision in the actual stimulus bill. All it did was piss off Canada a little, didn't do much else. (Include an exception for Canada, bam, problems solved.) Yes lets come down to the real world and not take the risk. May you please cease with those insults I have yet insult you, just criticized your policy making abilities. Please top taking to the next level up. You have at least admitted that this could be interpreted differently by foreign countries, thats a start. The problem is you're dreaming up fantasy scenarios with no basis in reality. You argument is "It could be a problem to others, I dunno how, but it could be. It could be like Smoot-Hawley, but I'm not comparing them or anything!" We did this already in the stimulus bill, and it was a much stricter provision, and it didn't result in the crashing of global trade or a wave of protectionist policies. Your fantasy scenario has yet to realize under harsher conditions in the real world. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 06:34:08 PM Quote Like Franzl, I think that the Buy Atlasian provisions are essentially playing Russian roulette with certain Atlasian workers. I also don't think that the honerable Senator Marokai takes into account the serious impact of the message that would send. Atlasia should take the lead in kicking populist demands for protectionism in the face and send a message to the world that this is not going to be like the 1930's. However this puts shacky and politically unstable Gov't in a position that would make them far more susceptible to the illogical demands of populist anger that allways spreads in these environments. How many times have I explained this to you? Are you getting dumber? I don't even know if I should bother anymore. You shouldn't insult my intelligence, Marokai. It will get you know where. Yes it is no where near Smoot-Hawley, but that doesn't matter. What matters is peception, and if foreign countries believe we have taking a protectionist route, no matter how small, the effects could be devastating. You still refuse to admit the possibility that this is counterproductive. Just because "on paper" your Buy Atlasian provisons are small and should have little to no effect in theory, doesn't mean that they won't in practicality. ::) How do I respond to someone with their head in the clouds? Any policy we take could be take could be interpreted in 500 different ways and any country could respond with 500 more actions. This can't be helped. What matters is that we stick to the real world and recognize that this is small and drop the retarded "IT'S SMOOT-HAWLEY 2.0!!!!!1" rhetoric. We had a similar, much more strict provision in the actual stimulus bill. All it did was piss off Canada a little, didn't do much else. (Include an exception for Canada, bam, problems solved.) Yes lets come down to the real world and not take the risk. May you please cease with those insults I have yet insult you, just criticized your policy making abilities. Please top taking to the next level up. You have at least admitted that this could be interpreted differently by foreign countries, thats a start. The problem is you're dreaming up fantasy scenarios with no basis in reality. You argument is "It could be a problem to others, I dunno how, but it could be. It could be like Smoot-Hawley, but I'm not comparing them or anything!" We did this already in the stimulus bill, and it was a much stricter provision, and it didn't result in the crashing of global trade or a wave of protectionist policies. Your fantasy scenario has yet to realize under harsher conditions in the real world. Thats because Obama still wants to promote free trade in general. Whereas here in Atlasia our current officials are not as open to free trade, in fact they are the epitome of protectionists. Its easy to get the global community to except one or two provisions when you are the same time still willing to expand free trade, and restore trade talks that collapsed. Your interpretation of my positions is also very insulting. They are in fact the worst case scenario that could happen in fact if forces in the world push it enough, to reject or ignore this entirely is a very naive and irresponsible act. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 06:37:18 PM Don't forget that our disagreement here is over 3 lines in the whole bill, and one section. I am in support of 75% of this bill. Would you be willing to say include Britain, Australia and the EU along with Canada in the exemption? I might be open to compromising a little provided you give a little two.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 06:40:05 PM You still have you're head in sand and you're not listening to what I'm saying at all. Your fantasy scenario has not come to pass under more severe real-world circumstances. Your little line about free trade is completely incoherent. I'm open to trade, I believe trade is absolutely essential. And, as I've said, I'm open to an exception with Canada, one of our largest trading partner and a country that shares many businesses with us and treats it's workers fairly.
I'm proposing something open to compromise with Canada, less strict than something that was actually proposed in the United States, and yet you're still claiming economic armageddon or a great trade war. It's nonsensical. Don't forget that our disagreement here is over 3 lines in the whole bill, and one section. I am in support of 75% of this bill. Would you be willing to say include Britain, Australia and the EU along with Canada in the exemption? I might be open to compromising a little provided you give a little two. Canada, Canada only. I'll vote against the final bill if it goes any further than that, another Senator likely will as well. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 07:05:19 PM You still have you're head in sand and you're not listening to what I'm saying at all. Your fantasy scenario has not come to pass under more severe real-world circumstances. Your little line about free trade is completely incoherent. I'm open to trade, I believe trade is absolutely essential. And, as I've said, I'm open to an exception with Canada, one of our largest trading partner and a country that shares many businesses with us and treats it's workers fairly. I'm proposing something open to compromise with Canada, less strict than something that was actually proposed in the United States, and yet you're still claiming economic armageddon or a great trade war. It's nonsensical. Don't forget that our disagreement here is over 3 lines in the whole bill, and one section. I am in support of 75% of this bill. Would you be willing to say include Britain, Australia and the EU along with Canada in the exemption? I might be open to compromising a little provided you give a little two. Canada, Canada only. I'll vote against the final bill if it goes any further than that, another Senator likely will as well. What is so incoherent about what I said. Its true that Obama was general less protectionist as evidence by his recent actions he still wants to advance free trade in world in general. Under those circumstances countries would be more willing to accept Buy American provisions then if Obama was a raving protectionist opposed to all free trade. Thats the reason this did not come to pass in the real world, and thank god for that. However here in Atlasia from my interpretation our President, the honerable Mr. Lief, is much more protectionist then Obama is. Also our Secretary of External Affairs, the honerable Mr. HappyWarrior, is as well. I think that arguement makes perfect sense. There are differences between Atlasia and RL that you are now ignoring. I could make similar arguements for exempting Britain and Australia as you can make about Canada in that we have strong economic bonds and also have a long friendly relationship with them stretching back decades. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 07:20:06 PM Obama and Clinton also talked about renegotiating NAFTA during the campaign. Both are now President and Secretary of State. It doesn't matter what people say, it matters what people do. There are protectionists and free-traders in Government, it only matters what we do. No one here is advocating tariff increasing, cutting off all trade agreements, or anything else. Your rationalization is really mind-boggling.
Republicans during the 19th and early 20th century were very protectionist when it came to tariffs and American manufacturing, the economy got worse once they implemented uber-protectionist policies. The connection you make between international reaction and protectionist PEOPLE requires complete suspension of critical thinking and an ignorance of all empirical evidence. As for Canada, I'm open, and in fact favoring, an exception with them because of our proximity to them and the fact that due to that proximity we often share the same businesses and workers often come and go through each country. Also, Canada has a long history of fair and developed work standards, so I don't fear sharing something like this with a close and developed trading partner on the same continent. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 07:30:08 PM Obama and Clinton also talked about renegotiating NAFTA during the campaign. Both are now President and Secretary of State. It doesn't matter what people say, it matters what people do. There are protectionists and free-traders in Government, it only matters what we do. No one here is advocating tariff increasing, cutting off all trade agreements, or anything else. Your rationalization is really mind-boggling. Republicans during the 19th and early 20th century were very protectionist when it came to tariffs and American manufacturing, the economy got worse once they implemented uber-protectionist policies. The connection you make between international reaction and protectionist PEOPLE requires complete suspension of critical thinking and an ignorance of all empirical evidence. As for Canada, I'm open, and in fact favoring, an exception with them because of our proximity to them and the fact that due to that proximity we often share the same businesses and workers often come and go through each country. Also, Canada has a long history of fair and developed work standards, so I don't fear sharing something like this with a close and developed trading partner on the same continent. Oh I didn't realise that the British and Australians work and slave in sweatshops without any protections at all. Your second paragraph actually helps make my point on the dangers of protectionism, and with that kind of history and indeed the difference in the actions of our current leaders(Opposing FTA's) versus the actions of our RL leaders(calling for the resumation of trade talks, working to restart negotiations with certain countries for trade deals), the course you are taking I find to be extremely risky and even dangerous to an already very sick and struggling economy. Quote No one here is advocating tariff increasing, cutting off all trade agreements, or anything else. Your rationalization is really mind-boggling. Okay does that mean that you will vote for and the President will sign any trade deals we consider? Quote Obama and Clinton also talked about renegotiating NAFTA during the campaign. Both are now President and Secretary of State. True they did, but both promised a lot of stuff they will never actually come through on and that was one of the first things Obama has backpeddled on since the election. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 08:50:52 PM Since it appears further debate on the Buy ATlasia provisions is pointless I offer the following amendment to the underlying bill, and I request a vote on it regardless as to how it is received by the sponsors.
Quote Amendment to the Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill Section 2 Clause i is struck from the bill. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 08:52:36 PM Well, no, I see no point in debating someone who is too thick-headed to realize what they're saying makes no sense and flies in the face of empirical evidence.
This amendment has my complete opposition, if it passes I will vote against this bill and I hope the President vetoes it. It completely undermines the point of stimulus. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 11, 2009, 09:24:56 PM Christ almighty. Can we do these things on days when I can use a freaking computer? That way I don't have to come back to a ton of reading after a long day.
I will review as much as possible tonight and try to post something competent later or tomorrow morning. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 11, 2009, 10:47:06 PM Internal investment is best, but we need to make sure we are getting the most for our money with this package. Spending far too much just so we can pay an inefficient American contractor doesn't allow the bad companies to die. So, rather than simply repealing the "Buy America" clause, how is this?
Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 10:54:21 PM Internal investment is best, but we need to make sure we are getting the most for our money with this package. Spending far too much just so we can pay an inefficient American contractor doesn't allow the bad companies to die. So, rather than simply repealing the "Buy America" clause, how is this? Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." I think this is acceptable. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 11:10:28 PM Internal investment is best, but we need to make sure we are getting the most for our money with this package. Spending far too much just so we can pay an inefficient American contractor doesn't allow the bad companies to die. So, rather than simply repealing the "Buy America" clause, how is this? Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." I think this is acceptable. I am leaning towards accepting this and withdrawing mine, however I shall need to ponder it for a short while. In the mean time, Marokai, would you be willing add a section dealing with the credit crisis or would prefer to do that in a separate bill? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 11, 2009, 11:16:44 PM Internal investment is best, but we need to make sure we are getting the most for our money with this package. Spending far too much just so we can pay an inefficient American contractor doesn't allow the bad companies to die. So, rather than simply repealing the "Buy America" clause, how is this? Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." I think this is acceptable. I am leaning towards accepting this and withdrawing mine, however I shall need to ponder it for a short while. In the mean time, Marokai, would you be willing add a section dealing with the credit crisis or would prefer to do that in a separate bill? Compromise ain't so bad, eh? ;) I think a separate bill for the credit crisis would be in order. I do think that this bill is far too small. I would like to see it reach closer to $1 trillion, with the added expenditures all placed in the Infrastructure Investment section. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 11:20:59 PM Internal investment is best, but we need to make sure we are getting the most for our money with this package. Spending far too much just so we can pay an inefficient American contractor doesn't allow the bad companies to die. So, rather than simply repealing the "Buy America" clause, how is this? Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." I think this is acceptable. I am leaning towards accepting this and withdrawing mine, however I shall need to ponder it for a short while. In the mean time, Marokai, would you be willing add a section dealing with the credit crisis or would prefer to do that in a separate bill? Compromise ain't so bad, eh? ;) I think a separate bill for the credit crisis would be in order. I do think that this bill is far too small. I would like to see it reach closer to $1 trillion, with the added expenditures all placed in the Infrastructure Investment section. I too favor a separate bill to deal with the credit issues. And I'm in agreement it needs to be expanded, have anything in mind? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 11, 2009, 11:27:35 PM Internal investment is best, but we need to make sure we are getting the most for our money with this package. Spending far too much just so we can pay an inefficient American contractor doesn't allow the bad companies to die. So, rather than simply repealing the "Buy America" clause, how is this? Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." I think this is acceptable. I am leaning towards accepting this and withdrawing mine, however I shall need to ponder it for a short while. In the mean time, Marokai, would you be willing add a section dealing with the credit crisis or would prefer to do that in a separate bill? Compromise ain't so bad, eh? ;) I think a separate bill for the credit crisis would be in order. I do think that this bill is far too small. I would like to see it reach closer to $1 trillion, with the added expenditures all placed in the Infrastructure Investment section. I too favor a separate bill to deal with the credit issues. And I'm in agreement it needs to be expanded, have anything in mind? Okay then I won't push that on this. But we need to move soon on the credit crisis or it will cancel out any gains made off this. I have a suggestion, how about squeezing in a few billion more for light Rail and modernising the power grid. Another one I could suggest but I can guess your reaction is a few billion for replacing or repairing military equiptment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 11, 2009, 11:35:55 PM I agree with the spending proposed by NC Yank, in addition to a massive alternative energy construction funding.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 11:40:06 PM I agree with the spending proposed by NC Yank, in addition to a massive alternative energy construction funding. And should we build massive wind farms and arrays of solar panels throughout the deserts, who would get ownership of these things and the electricity they produce? I would prefer the creation of government-owned utilities.. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 11, 2009, 11:42:36 PM I agree with the spending proposed by NC Yank, in addition to a massive alternative energy construction funding. And should we build massive wind farms and arrays of solar panels throughout the deserts, who would get ownership of these things and the electricity they produce? I would prefer the creation of government-owned utilities.. I think partnerships would be appropriate. What is the incentive for private organizations to establish these things if they don't profit? It would also, long-run, greatly expand the government's expenses to run these things. We need to promote private innovation and construction, but possibly in a joint venture with the government until our share is bought out. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 11, 2009, 11:46:12 PM I agree with the spending proposed by NC Yank, in addition to a massive alternative energy construction funding. And should we build massive wind farms and arrays of solar panels throughout the deserts, who would get ownership of these things and the electricity they produce? I would prefer the creation of government-owned utilities.. I think partnerships would be appropriate. What is the incentive for private organizations to establish these things if they don't profit? It would also, long-run, greatly expand the government's expenses to run these things. We need to promote private innovation and construction, but possibly in a joint venture with the government until our share is bought out. I see your point, but we still retain things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has remained a fair and competitive government owned power company, and there are other renewable examples to look at, like Hydro-Quebec, as successful programs that are incredibly innovative. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MaxQue on July 11, 2009, 11:49:55 PM It would also, long-run, greatly expand the government's expenses to run these things. Long-run, government would make money from those utilities. We must see that as a new revenue source for Atlasia. Joint ventures often cause money loss for the government. We must choose the better way to use the taxpayer's money. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 11, 2009, 11:53:47 PM I agree with the spending proposed by NC Yank, in addition to a massive alternative energy construction funding. And should we build massive wind farms and arrays of solar panels throughout the deserts, who would get ownership of these things and the electricity they produce? I would prefer the creation of government-owned utilities.. I think partnerships would be appropriate. What is the incentive for private organizations to establish these things if they don't profit? It would also, long-run, greatly expand the government's expenses to run these things. We need to promote private innovation and construction, but possibly in a joint venture with the government until our share is bought out. I see your point, but we still retain things like the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has remained a fair and competitive government owned power company, and there are other renewable examples to look at, like Hydro-Quebec, as successful programs that are incredibly innovative. Yes, I can read your sig well enough on my own. ;) While those examples are nice, they are not nearly on the scale that the renewable energy projects would be. There are also people (T. Boone Pickens) that are ready and willing to tap into their vast networks to build these things cheaply and effectively. We are far better off going into partnership with these guys and promoting private investment. Otherwise, these costs will not be stimulative, but rather permanent debt that we will continue to pay forever. It would also, long-run, greatly expand the government's expenses to run these things. Long-run, government would make money from those utilities. We must see that as a new revenue source for Atlasia. Joint ventures often cause money loss for the government. We must choose the better way to use the taxpayer's money. I'm not sure what your source for the joint-venture claim is, but it is also best that we not put all our eggs in one basket. What if the initiative is a relative failure? Should we take the brunt of it on our own? The private sector should be involved. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 12, 2009, 12:02:29 AM The Grid alone to connect these wind and solar farms to the major cities on the east and west coast costs about $100 Billion according to the same, T Boone Pickens. So I think public and private partnerships are deffinately in order here. Keep in mind that Wind and Solar power plants need back-up plants largely fueled by Natural Gas, or worse(if you are environmentalist) traditional coal fired plants. So that means we should work to increase the supply of Natural Gas to avoid price increases on that.
As for my amendment on the "Buy Atlasian" provisions I have decided to..................persue a vote on it. Should it fail I will vote for PS amendment and be done with it. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 12, 2009, 12:18:09 AM As for my amendment on the "Buy Atlasian" provisions I have decided to..................persue a vote on it. Should it fail I will vote for PS amendment and be done with it. I'll be voting against that in favor of what I hope is my more sensible, efficient amendment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 12, 2009, 01:30:16 AM I shall be voting for NCYankee's amendment, but I have no problem accepting Purple State's compromise in the event that the first one fails.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 12, 2009, 01:50:29 AM As Lt. Governor of the Dirty South, I strongly urge all senators to vote against this bill.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 12, 2009, 01:58:47 AM As Lt. Governor of the Dirty South, I strongly urge all senators to vote against this bill. I appreciate your lengthy and detailed imput. I'm terrified of the influence of your office. :( Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 12, 2009, 11:37:16 AM As Lt. Governor of the Dirty South, I strongly urge all senators to vote against this bill. I appreciate your lengthy and detailed imput. I'm terrified of the influence of your office. :( So statesmen cannot give their opinions on legislation? Especially when they might be joining your chamber in two months? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 12, 2009, 04:20:40 PM As Lt. Governor of the Dirty South, I strongly urge all senators to vote against this bill. I appreciate your lengthy and detailed imput. I'm terrified of the influence of your office. :( So statesmen cannot give their opinions on legislation? Especially when they might be joining your chamber in two months? Then I want your opinion on the legislation, not "vote against it! bad bad bill!" Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 12, 2009, 04:54:27 PM As Lt. Governor of the Dirty South, I strongly urge all senators to vote against this bill. I appreciate your lengthy and detailed imput. I'm terrified of the influence of your office. :( So statesmen cannot give their opinions on legislation? Especially when they might be joining your chamber in two months? I regretably inform the distinguished Lt. Governor that if this trade issue is resolved and the Auto section modified, I will most likely vote FOR this bill. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 12, 2009, 09:18:30 PM I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote Amendment to the Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill Section 2 Clause i is struck from the bill. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 12, 2009, 09:20:05 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Franzl on July 12, 2009, 09:21:06 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MaxQue on July 12, 2009, 09:22:53 PM Nay
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 12, 2009, 09:34:49 PM Nay. We have a completely reasonable alternative.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 12, 2009, 09:36:29 PM Nay. My compromise is far superior to simply cutting this.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 12, 2009, 10:20:49 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Hash on July 13, 2009, 07:58:46 AM Nay
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 13, 2009, 09:03:34 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 13, 2009, 08:07:58 PM I propose the following amendment to be added to the queue:
Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 13, 2009, 08:18:32 PM That certainly has my complete support. Clause J, especially, as that will include purchases from Atlasian auto-makers.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2009, 08:23:03 PM I propose the following amendment to be added to the queue: Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" I would probably support this. It brings the total to about one Trillion and deals with some of my pet causes. Though, shouldn't we include language allowing for those Public and Private partnerships. Cause the grid needed to transport the power from the Wind and Solar in the Southwest and Midwest to the Coasts costs about $100 Billion. Plus you have to clear the corridors on which to build them which means buying property from people and tearing down existing structures. So a few billion for that has to come from the Gov't share and I don't believe it counts toward the overall $100 Billion. So you probably have to raise about $55 Billion to $60 Billion from private investment to get the job done on top of the $50 Billion appropriated as part of your amendment. This is according to what T Boone Pickens told a Congressional hearing last July or August on this issue. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 13, 2009, 08:26:13 PM I propose the following amendment to be added to the queue: Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" I would probably support this. It brings the total to about one Trillion and deals with some of my pet causes. Though, shouldn't we include language allowing for those Public and Private partnerships. Cause the grid needed to transport the power from the Wind and Solar in the Southwest and Midwest to the Coasts costs about $100 Billion. Plus you have to clear the corridors on which to build them which means buying property from people and tearing down existing structures. So a few billion for that has to come from the Gov't share and I don't believe it counts toward the overall $100 Billion. So you probably have to raise about $55 Billion to $60 Billion from private investment to get the job done on top of the $50 Billion appropriated as part of your amendment. This is according to what T Boone Pickens told a Congressional hearing last July or August on this issue. Because of the sensitivity of that proposal, I would rather that be done in a separate amendment, rather than jeopardize the other spending proposals put forth. Feel free to write up what you believe would be appropriate and present it as a separate amendment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2009, 08:27:15 PM That certainly has my complete support. Clause J, especially, as that will include purchases from Atlasian auto-makers. Thats why I intially suggested it, but I never thought I could get you guys to go along with it. :) I have a suggestion, how about squeezing in a few billion more for light Rail and modernising the power grid. Another one I could suggest but I can guess your reaction is a few billion for replacing or repairing military equiptment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 13, 2009, 08:28:58 PM That certainly has my complete support. Clause J, especially, as that will include purchases from Atlasian auto-makers. Thats why I intially suggested it, but I never thought I could get you guys to go along with it. :) I have a suggestion, how about squeezing in a few billion more for light Rail and modernising the power grid. Another one I could suggest but I can guess your reaction is a few billion for replacing or repairing military equiptment. Why would I have a problem with necessary military spending? I included it because you proposed it. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2009, 08:29:47 PM I propose the following amendment to be added to the queue: Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" I would probably support this. It brings the total to about one Trillion and deals with some of my pet causes. Though, shouldn't we include language allowing for those Public and Private partnerships. Cause the grid needed to transport the power from the Wind and Solar in the Southwest and Midwest to the Coasts costs about $100 Billion. Plus you have to clear the corridors on which to build them which means buying property from people and tearing down existing structures. So a few billion for that has to come from the Gov't share and I don't believe it counts toward the overall $100 Billion. So you probably have to raise about $55 Billion to $60 Billion from private investment to get the job done on top of the $50 Billion appropriated as part of your amendment. This is according to what T Boone Pickens told a Congressional hearing last July or August on this issue. Because of the sensitivity of that proposal, I would rather that be done in a separate amendment, rather than jeopardize the other spending proposals put forth. Feel free to write up what you believe would be appropriate and present it as a separate amendment. Well I am still a little new at writing complex language for bills. I will do my best. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2009, 08:46:47 PM That certainly has my complete support. Clause J, especially, as that will include purchases from Atlasian auto-makers. Thats why I intially suggested it, but I never thought I could get you guys to go along with it. :) I have a suggestion, how about squeezing in a few billion more for light Rail and modernising the power grid. Another one I could suggest but I can guess your reaction is a few billion for replacing or repairing military equiptment. Why would I have a problem with necessary military spending? I included it because you proposed it. Cause when I proposed it as something that should be in the RL stimulus the response was not exactly enthusiastic. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 13, 2009, 08:53:45 PM Let me just point out that we are currently tied at 4-4 because afleitch is away and Fritz is not yet sworn in (can someone explain why that is? is the election not yet closed by the SoFA?). Wouldn't a proxy vote system have helped us a lot in such a situation? Hmm...
:P Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2009, 08:56:54 PM Let me just point out that we are currently tied at 4-4 because afleitch is away and Fritz is not yet sworn in (can someone explain why that is? is the election not yet closed by the SoFA?). Wouldn't a proxy vote system have helped us a lot in such a situation? Hmm... :P Of course you could always change your vote and deal with the problem that way. :P. If the vote is still going on tommorrow afternoon I will probably change my vote to abstain so we can move forward. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 13, 2009, 09:03:11 PM Let me just point out that we are currently tied at 4-4 because afleitch is away and Fritz is not yet sworn in (can someone explain why that is? is the election not yet closed by the SoFA?). Wouldn't a proxy vote system have helped us a lot in such a situation? Hmm... :P No. ;) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2009, 09:16:33 PM Quote Amendment to the Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause J Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to help fund Energy projects alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be giving to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid essential Solar and Wind Energy viability. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. For consideration following the passage of the honerable Senator Purple State's Amendment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Lief 🗽 on July 13, 2009, 10:05:49 PM I'd like to applaud the Senate for really debating this bill in depth and offering constructive amendments. I worked with Senators Marokai Blue and MaxQue to write a bill that would provide the foundation for an economy recovery, by giving much needed relief to struggling families and regional/local governments and getting the economy moving again, by employing out of work Atlasians in projects that won't just put them back to work but lead to a stronger economy and a stronger country in the long run.
I fully support Senators Purple State's and North Carolina Yankee's amendments to increase infrastructure spending, and I hope that the Senate adds them to the bill. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 13, 2009, 10:18:14 PM I'd like to applaud the Senate for really debating this bill in depth and offering constructive amendments. I worked with Senators Marokai Blue and MaxQue to write a bill that would provide the foundation for an economy recovery, by giving much needed relief to struggling families and regional/local governments and getting the economy moving again, by employing out of work Atlasians in projects that won't just put them back to work but lead to a stronger economy and a stronger country in the long run. I fully support Senators Purple State's and North Carolina Yankee's amendments to increase infrastructure spending, and I hope that the Senate adds them to the bill. I thank the President for his support. :) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 13, 2009, 10:20:36 PM I'd like to applaud the Senate for really debating this bill in depth and offering constructive amendments. I worked with Senators Marokai Blue and MaxQue to write a bill that would provide the foundation for an economy recovery, by giving much needed relief to struggling families and regional/local governments and getting the economy moving again, by employing out of work Atlasians in projects that won't just put them back to work but lead to a stronger economy and a stronger country in the long run. I fully support Senators Purple State's and North Carolina Yankee's amendments to increase infrastructure spending, and I hope that the Senate adds them to the bill. I thank the President for his support. :) As do I and I will continue to work on this legislation to ensure that we properly stimulate the economy and ensure a proper economic recovery. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 13, 2009, 10:48:49 PM As my first act as Senator: Nay to the current amendment, in favor of the Purple State alternative.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 13, 2009, 11:10:25 PM As my first act as Senator: Nay to the current amendment, in favor of the Purple State alternative. Bravo! Good to have the Senate full again finally. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 14, 2009, 12:28:42 PM And with 4-5 we wait 7 days for Afleitch who will not be back in time.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 14, 2009, 04:35:23 PM I will not hold up the Senate for week for no reason at all since Afleitch won't be back in time, I change my vote from Aye to Abstain.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 14, 2009, 04:51:27 PM With 3 Ayes, 5 Nays and 1 Abstention this amendment has failed.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 14, 2009, 05:00:40 PM I believe the queue for amendments is:
Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" Quote Amendment to the Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause J Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to help fund Energy projects alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be giving to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid essential Solar and Wind Energy viability. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Hash on July 14, 2009, 07:27:39 PM PS' amendments to Section 2 are perfectly fine amendments and I'll vote for them.
The language in clause j amendment must be cleaned up to be concise and make sense. However, it seems to be a good amendment, once again. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 14, 2009, 08:27:27 PM PS' amendments to Section 2 are perfectly fine amendments and I'll vote for them. The language in clause j amendment must be cleaned up to be concise and make sense. However, it seems to be a good amendment, once again. Alright I have revised my amendment adding a new clause J as follows. Quote Amendment to the Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause J Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to fund the projects in Clause i alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be given to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid in clause i. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. If there are any other improvements that you can suggest to the language, they would be most welcomed. If not, then I wish the language of my amendment be replaced with the above text. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 15, 2009, 07:01:23 AM I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote Section 2, Clause a. shall include the words "shovel ready" before the word "highway". Section 2, Clause i. is replaced with the following: "All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction." Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 15, 2009, 07:13:02 AM Aye, happily.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 15, 2009, 07:32:36 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Hash on July 15, 2009, 08:32:05 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Franzl on July 15, 2009, 09:04:10 AM Aye. I support this and the proposed increases in infrastructure spending.
Sorry I haven´t been around to debate these items...but I´ll be back home on Friday evening. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 15, 2009, 09:32:53 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 15, 2009, 11:59:42 AM With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.
Please begin discussing the next one in the queue on PS's list. We need actual debate time on each before the vote starts. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 15, 2009, 06:21:52 PM I believe this one is next:
I propose the following amendment to be added to the queue: Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" Purple State, a few words please as to your intent with this amendment? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 15, 2009, 06:24:32 PM I'm fully in support of this amendment, as I do believe it's essential to have a large a robust infrastructure portion of the stimulus. It puts people to work and builds an infrastructure for future prosperity.
I do wish we could give preference to General Motors when it comes to military equipment and/or vehicles, but all in all, good stuff. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 15, 2009, 07:20:28 PM Aye ftr on the previous Amendment.
I fully support this current amendment particulary the military spending which will have most likely the quickest impact of any project in this bill. It will provide numerous benefits to not only the auto companies but also the parts suppliers. I thank the honerable Senator Purple State for including this in his amendment and I thank the honerable Senator Marokai for his support of this measure. Although we are already pushing this bills price tag to the limit, I was wondering how much has been earmarked for Energy Assisstance in this bill, and how much has Earmarked to replenish "Crisis Funds" through social services. Considering we now in Hurricane Season I think it would be wise to replenish these funds which have almost certainly either been exhausted or are approaching that since many poor and low income families have used it to help pay Electricity bills. Consider also that the months of November, December, January, and February are usually the most expensive months of the Year both for Electricity and Energy costs on families. Seeing as this coincides with the Christmas Shopping season it would be wise to both replenish crisis funds; increase the limit per family since many, like unfortunately my own RL family, have already reached that limit; and increase Energy assisstance to the poor. The last thing we want is people have there lights turned off on Christmas, but consider also that if people worry about there abililty to pay for Electricity and heat they will likely spend less on Christmas shopping and thus hurt the economy. It is my belief that if a recovery is still possible, this season will have to beat expectations, otherwise we could see a wave of layoffs and bankruptcies early next year from retail, manufacturing, and other industries that might match or exceed what we have already seen. It is something that we should consider. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 15, 2009, 07:22:20 PM Some states have HEAP (Home Energy Assistance Program) which assists low-income families with their heating bills, my state included. Perhaps we could make that a national program?
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 15, 2009, 07:32:10 PM Some states have HEAP (Home Energy Assistance Program) which assists low-income families with their heating bills, my state included. Perhaps we could make that a national program? All we got here I think is the federal program LIHEAP. It was small and pretty useless $180. Considering we don't have a heating system and use a combo of Electric heat and Karosene, our Energy costs for the winter probably exceeded $1500, if not more. Consider that with only one parent able to work and he is on Unemployement which is about $1200 per month. Well you can see where this is going. Whatever we do it has to be adequately funded and give enough assisstance to really make a difference. As I said there is also the Hurricane season and most of the "Crisis Funds" are exhausted meaning no dough for even those who haven't maxed out since there is none to dish out, those funds definately need to be replenished as well. We should consider rasing the limit for those people like myself who have reached the limit and will thus be screwed when the Winter Electricity bills come in. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 15, 2009, 08:06:06 PM Aye ftr.
I believe this one is next: I propose the following amendment to be added to the queue: Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" Purple State, a few words please as to your intent with this amendment? I don't think the stimulus, as written, is large enough to result in the desired speedy job recovery. We need to make sure that the massive reductions in private investments as a result of the downturn are replaced by government expenditures in the short run. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MaxQue on July 16, 2009, 12:17:42 AM Aye, ftr
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 16, 2009, 08:04:17 AM Some states have HEAP (Home Energy Assistance Program) which assists low-income families with their heating bills, my state included. Perhaps we could make that a national program? All we got here I think is the federal program LIHEAP. It was small and pretty useless $180. Considering we don't have a heating system and use a combo of Electric heat and Karosene, our Energy costs for the winter probably exceeded $1500, if not more. Consider that with only one parent able to work and he is on Unemployement which is about $1200 per month. Well you can see where this is going. Whatever we do it has to be adequately funded and give enough assisstance to really make a difference. As I said there is also the Hurricane season and most of the "Crisis Funds" are exhausted meaning no dough for even those who haven't maxed out since there is none to dish out, those funds definately need to be replenished as well. We should consider rasing the limit for those people like myself who have reached the limit and will thus be screwed when the Winter Electricity bills come in. Well, first of all, I feel a little embarrassed that I had no idea this program actually did exist in limited form nation-wide. But you're right and bring up an excellent point, perhaps we should double, even permanently, these energy assistance programs, and scale it down as we hit the income limit. (Which should be expanded.) Was the $180 a monthly or one-time payment? Do you know any specific numbers? I'll try to get some information out of Ohio's energy assistance program and maybe we can put an improved program together. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2009, 05:46:39 PM Some states have HEAP (Home Energy Assistance Program) which assists low-income families with their heating bills, my state included. Perhaps we could make that a national program? All we got here I think is the federal program LIHEAP. It was small and pretty useless $180. Considering we don't have a heating system and use a combo of Electric heat and Karosene, our Energy costs for the winter probably exceeded $1500, if not more. Consider that with only one parent able to work and he is on Unemployement which is about $1200 per month. Well you can see where this is going. Whatever we do it has to be adequately funded and give enough assisstance to really make a difference. As I said there is also the Hurricane season and most of the "Crisis Funds" are exhausted meaning no dough for even those who haven't maxed out since there is none to dish out, those funds definately need to be replenished as well. We should consider rasing the limit for those people like myself who have reached the limit and will thus be screwed when the Winter Electricity bills come in. Well, first of all, I feel a little embarrassed that I had no idea this program actually did exist in limited form nation-wide. But you're right and bring up an excellent point, perhaps we should double, even permanently, these energy assistance programs, and scale it down as we hit the income limit. (Which should be expanded.) Was the $180 a monthly or one-time payment? Do you know any specific numbers? I'll try to get some information out of Ohio's energy assistance program and maybe we can put an improved program together. I think you are confusing two of my proposals, so let me clear this up a little. 1. Expanding The Energy Assisstance. 2. Replenishing Crisis Funds(Available at Social Services)- these can used to help pay anything from electric to paying back rent to keep poor from being evicted(Unfortunately they changed this and here in NC at least they no longer cover back rent). You can see why these funds have been depleted and once they run out, they of course can't provide aid to people. 3. Increase the yearly limit on how much each family can receive, of the those same crisis funds, for those who have already reached it like my family(We still have 5 months left in the year). Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 16, 2009, 08:07:02 PM I hereby open up a vote on the amendment below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause a. shall replace $60 billion with $150 billion. Clauses c., d., e., f. and g. shall replace $10 billion with $30 billion. Clause h. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid" Clause i. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids" Clause j. shall be inserted, with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly, and read as follows: "$50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities" Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 16, 2009, 08:08:07 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 16, 2009, 08:09:01 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2009, 08:09:11 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MaxQue on July 16, 2009, 08:13:38 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 16, 2009, 08:46:09 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 16, 2009, 08:48:15 PM With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 16, 2009, 10:03:53 PM Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MaxQue on July 16, 2009, 10:33:44 PM Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this? What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 16, 2009, 10:37:47 PM Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this? What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this? Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 says this: Quote The powers not delegated to the Republic of Atlasia by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Regions, are reserved to the Regions respectively, or to the people. So, unless you can show me where the Senate is granted that power in the Constitution, they do not have it. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 16, 2009, 10:39:14 PM Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this? What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this? I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Lief 🗽 on July 16, 2009, 10:40:44 PM Ostensibly the inter-state commerce clause (or the Atlasian equivalent) would allow that.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 16, 2009, 10:40:56 PM Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this? What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this? I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies. I lost that in court. Unless you either omit that part of the legislation or give a constitutional justification, I intend to take this to court, and this time, I have a better case, since the constitution does not mention buying private companies. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 16, 2009, 10:41:57 PM Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this? What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this? I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies. I lost that in court. Unless you either omit that part of the legislation or give a constitutional justification, I intend to take this to court, and this time, I have a better case, since the constitution does not mention buying private companies. The Constitution doesn't mention a great number of things, feel free to take them all to court. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 16, 2009, 10:45:52 PM I, Marokai Blue, do solemnly swear that I will to the best of my ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia, so help me Dave. Relevant parts quoted. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 16, 2009, 10:46:41 PM Ostensibly the inter-state commerce clause (or the Atlasian equivalent) would allow that. I checked Article 1 of the Constitution and couldn't find an interstate commerce clause. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 16, 2009, 10:54:25 PM Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($45+ billion) a. The federal government will purchase majority shareholder status in the Big 3 auto companies: General Motors, Ford and Chrysler b. An Automobile Industry Reform Board (AIRB) will be selected, tasked with the running of the Big 3 c. The AIRB will be tasked with refocusing and streamlining production, with a focus on the development and production of fuel efficient and hybrid cars d. The Big 3 will also be paid to produce buses and trains, to expand the Atlasian public transportation system e. The AIRB will be required to make reports to the Senate every six months f. A flexible goal of returning to the Big 3 to private ownership within five years will be set What clause in the Constitution gives the Senate the power to do this? What clause in the Constitution denies the Senate the Power to do this? I would suggest not feeding the lunatic. SPC also thinks regions should be able to have separate currencies. I lost that in court. Unless you either omit that part of the legislation or give a constitutional justification, I intend to take this to court, and this time, I have a better case, since the constitution does not mention buying private companies. The Constitution doesn't mention a great number of things, feel free to take them all to court. Knowing how busy the Justices' personal lives are, I do not wish to place that much stress on them. I will focus on one piece of legislation at a time. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 16, 2009, 11:09:43 PM The auto section was the next thing I intended to move to change as soon as my amendment regarding the Public-Private Partnerships was voted on, and something meaningful was done on the other two things that me and Marokai were discussing earlier today. I can't support the forced nationalization of all three companies against there will. I would prefer to nationalise none of them. However if it is going to be in the bill it should be a voluntary procedure, or something else so a company like Ford that can survive on its own, is allowed two. I also feel that some consolidation may be necessary in the North American market and that may require the break up of Chrysler(Take the good stuff like Jeep and sell it to Ford or a Foriegn car maker and just axe all the garbage lines).
My best comparison to the automakers would be the Railroads in the 1970's. Over competition lead to the creation of the monopolistic Penn Central(combining three Railroads into one)When this ill conceived monster went bankrupt it looked like there would not be Rail service from Maine to Illinois. The Gov't did step in but the winds of deregulation were blowing and they were able to eventually split the Northeast Penn Central(Then called Conrail) in two and sell it too two railroads who were already competiting with each other in the Southeast. While Conrail was around they shut down a lot of garbage routes and unfortunatly laid a lot of people of, but that was inevitable from the beginning cause the Northeast could no longer economically demand the services of such a sprawling Railroad. The same thing is happening here with the Auto companies. We don't want monopolies yet we have to much competition. I could support a Nationalisation of Chrysler only if I knew that what needed to be cut would be cut without regard to political expediency and eventually what is left will be sold off to the other Auto companies whether they be headquatered here or overseas. As for General Motors, I think they can survive a bankruptcy on the own without a takeover. However being the risk of Liquidation I think some measures could be taken to reduce that risk by essentially providing them either with Gov't backed private loans like we did for Chrysler in the late 70's(My prefered route) or if necessary direct aide should they be unable to raise essential amounts of capital. There is one more thing. This bill requires them to focus on fuel efficient cars. However no where is there a provision mentioning the profitability of a vehicle as a factor in deciding whether or not to produce it or not. I don't want the gov't to push products that won't sell and already beleagured companies just to advance a certain social ajenda. Unless profitability is taking into consideration, there is no way we can be sure they will be privatised in 3 years or 30 years. What happens if you can sell the company's shares at a private auction, can it then be split up with the pieces that are wanted being sold and the rest shut down? I would hate to see a general dissagreement of this torpedo what had been a general productive proceeding. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Ebowed on July 16, 2009, 11:39:18 PM https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Twenty_second_Amendment_to_the_Second_Constitution
stfu Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 16, 2009, 11:41:58 PM https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Twenty_second_Amendment_to_the_Second_Constitution stfu <3 Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 17, 2009, 12:00:49 AM Aye on my amendment ftr.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on July 17, 2009, 12:06:50 AM the 22nd Amendment says this:
Quote The Senate shall have power, save where limited by other provisions of this Constitution: 1. To protect the Public Health and commerce by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection of those in employment. 2. To protect the Public Health, commerce and heritage by making such regulations as shall be necessary for the protection and preservation of natural beauty, biological diversity and other natural resources. Isn't there a difference between regulating a company and taking over a company? And don't section 2h and section 4 of this bill violate Article I, Section 6, Clause 7 of the Constitution? Quote No Law requiring any action to be taken or to be not taken by a Region shall be passed, except to preserve the rights of the Senate or of the People enumerated under the Constitution. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 17, 2009, 07:00:36 AM This is what we're debating now. There shall be a vote on this later tonight, but we need some debate on it first if you will. :P
Quote Amendment to the Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause J Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to help fund Energy projects alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be giving to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid essential Solar and Wind Energy viability. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 17, 2009, 07:12:05 AM I don't really see a need to restrict government spending here, but, it's a step in the right direction and I'll support it if no one's willing to loosen the caps on federal spending there a bit.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 17, 2009, 04:41:23 PM I don't really see a need to restrict government spending here, but, it's a step in the right direction and I'll support it if no one's willing to loosen the caps on federal spending there a bit. My intent with this amendment was not to "Restrict Gov't Spending". My intent was to make sure that some of the projects like the "smart grid" get the funding they need. My research tells me that grid will cost about $110 Billion only $50 Billion has been appropriated in the bill. My goal was to create a plan whereby private capital could be used alongside Gov't money to ensure the projects actually have enough funding to get done. If you think there is a poorly interpreted phrase that can be interpreted as restricting Gov't Spending please bring it to my attention so I can modify it. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 17, 2009, 04:45:02 PM Would the honerable dictator of the Senate replace the amendement he has up there with the one at the bottom of this quote. :P The honerable Senator must have missed this at the top of page 6.
PS' amendments to Section 2 are perfectly fine amendments and I'll vote for them. The language in clause j amendment must be cleaned up to be concise and make sense. However, it seems to be a good amendment, once again. Alright I have revised my amendment adding a new clause J as follows. Quote Amendment to the Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause J Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to fund the projects in Clause i alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be given to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid in clause i. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. If there are any other improvements that you can suggest to the language, they would be most welcomed. If not, then I wish the language of my amendment be replaced with the above text. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Fritz on July 18, 2009, 06:48:33 AM I move that the current amendment be brought to a vote, as I don't think there is any opposition to it.
I also propose the following amendment (gasp!): Quote Section 3 is struck from the bill, with subsequent sections re-numbered accordingly. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 18, 2009, 07:36:29 AM I move that the current amendment be brought to a vote, as I don't think there is any opposition to it. I also propose the following amendment (gasp!): Quote Section 3 is struck from the bill, with subsequent sections re-numbered accordingly. :( Opposed. Is there no middle ground we can come to on aiding the auto-industry? Allowing them to fall would completely cancel out any benefits the stimulus would have in other areas. We have to remember we must battle aggressively on all fronts, we can't be aggressive in one area, and on the other hand allow millions of jobs to die off. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 18, 2009, 07:41:42 AM I'll vote for Fritz's amendment, of course.
NCYankee outlined good proposals for aiding the auto industry when debate on this stimulus package first began, and I think we should approach the problem from that direction. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 18, 2009, 07:45:36 AM I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary.
What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted :P) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 18, 2009, 07:59:27 AM I'd suggest lowering corporate taxation on the auto industry by a certain amount...but also providing further direct incentives and subsidies for research and development of better, fuel efficient cars to enable Atlasia's car makers to be able to compete with foreign car companies.
You probably won't be happy with that....;) But I don't support taking over the auto industry....and I don't think poor business decisions should be rewarded by providing endless help to companies that aren't economically viable. The Atlasian auto industry needs to become more competitive, plain and simple, but at the same time, I'd be terribly uncomfortable with the government making business decisions and damaging competition. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 18, 2009, 09:30:16 AM I hereby open up the vote on the amendment below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause J Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to fund the projects in Clause i alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be given to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid in clause i. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Franzl on July 18, 2009, 09:30:59 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 18, 2009, 10:20:58 AM Aye.
I withdraw my amendment, in hopes that Franzl or Yankee come up with a compromise. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 18, 2009, 10:27:48 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2009, 04:02:10 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Hash on July 18, 2009, 04:17:32 PM aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 18, 2009, 04:19:31 PM With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2009, 04:42:24 PM I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary. What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted :P) You weren't the only one to not read my posts so don't feel bad. :P. Am I the only one on this forum that reads every post in a thread before posting? My Auto Plan 1. Reduce the Corporate Tax rate on them to a temporary rate of 15% and allow them to deduct all loses from there there taxes. 2. Invest heavilly in technology 3. Provide for an emergency fund should they face eminent liquidation either in the form of Gov't backed private loans, or direct aid. 4. Consolidate. Consolidate. Consolidate. 5. Allow them to go through a natural bankruptcy to clear the execs and the top managemant, and force all parties to agree to a restructuring, 6. Respect private property by letting the Bondholders to get a fair settlement. and also 7. Passing a Health Care reform to lift some of the burdens off the care companies and Atlasian companies in general by reducing overall costs. I would like to see the Overal Corporate Tax rate dropped, flattened, and with exemptions or deductions made for certain struggling sectors. However the current composition of the Senate doesn't favor that so I will instead compromis in favor of line 1 up above. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Franzl on July 18, 2009, 04:47:55 PM How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies?
My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms? Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen. The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2009, 05:01:21 PM How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies? My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms? Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen. The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker? 1. The Investment in technology would consist first and foremost with boosting the overall investment in R&D for Energy and Transportation tech. In RL its currently at 4 Billion annually. The wonderful Mitt Romney proposed boasting it to $20 billion a year, I would prefer $25 Billion or more annually. I am not exactly sure how the our R&D program works but I beleive subsidies are a part of it. 2. We will have to deal with that problem either by something like saying you will only get aid once or something like that. I am open to whatever you think is appropriate to prevent that from happening 3. Again, on the tax deductions, something I hadn't thought about yet but am currently working on that. I would appreciate any suggestions you have on that as well. I am good at crafting overal strategies, and plans but when it comes down to micro details I am not as good. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Franzl on July 18, 2009, 05:08:27 PM How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies? My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms? Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen. The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker? 1. The Investment in technology would consist first and foremost with boosting the overall investment in R&D for Energy and Transportation tech. In RL its currently at 4 Billion annually. The wonderful Mitt Romney proposed boasting it to $20 billion a year, I would prefer $25 Billion or more annually. I am not exactly sure how the our R&D program works but I beleive subsidies are a part of it. 2. We will have to deal with that problem either by something like saying you will only get aid once or something like that. I am open to whatever you think is appropriate to prevent that from happening 3. Again, on the tax deductions, something I hadn't thought about yet but am currently working on that. I would appreciate any suggestions you have on that as well. I am good at crafting overal strategies, and plans but when it comes down to micro details I am not as good. Yeah that's my problem as well....finding exact details and wording for bills ;) I'll see what I can do. Allowing the emergency funding once and only once is good proposal. I would consider it only fair to provide the corporate tax cuts to the entire industry...it's still a good way to keep Atlasian makers from folding, I think. Ultimately, of course, the funding for research is the best way of getting the Atlasian car industry competitive again...and that should certainly be our long-term strategy. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2009, 05:13:56 PM How would these investments in technology look, exactly? Would they be provided in the form of direct government subsidies? My other question is about the emergency loans or direct aid...would the fact that they certainly exist prevent car makers from truly enacting appropriate reforms? Obviously there would be terrible short term effects if any main automaker were to be liquidated, and that is something that nobody would like to see happen. The temporary corporate tax reductions are a very good idea...Question: Would they apply only to the Big 3 Atlasian automakers, or to every automaker? 1. The Investment in technology would consist first and foremost with boosting the overall investment in R&D for Energy and Transportation tech. In RL its currently at 4 Billion annually. The wonderful Mitt Romney proposed boasting it to $20 billion a year, I would prefer $25 Billion or more annually. I am not exactly sure how the our R&D program works but I beleive subsidies are a part of it. 2. We will have to deal with that problem either by something like saying you will only get aid once or something like that. I am open to whatever you think is appropriate to prevent that from happening 3. Again, on the tax deductions, something I hadn't thought about yet but am currently working on that. I would appreciate any suggestions you have on that as well. I am good at crafting overal strategies, and plans but when it comes down to micro details I am not as good. Yeah that's my problem as well....finding exact details and wording for bills ;) I'll see what I can do. Allowing the emergency funding once and only once is good proposal. I would consider it only fair to provide the corporate tax cuts to the entire industry...it's still a good way to keep Atlasian makers from folding, I think. Ultimately, of course, the funding for research is the best way of getting the Atlasian car industry competitive again...and that should certainly be our long-term strategy. Whatever you come up with, as long as it includes all 7 of the things or at least 5 or 6 of the things I outlined above, I will support it. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 18, 2009, 06:42:02 PM With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed. Jesus, I take a few hours away from the forum.. :P I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary. What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted :P) You weren't the only one to not read my posts so don't feel bad. :P. Am I the only one on this forum that reads every post in a thread before posting? My Auto Plan 1. Reduce the Corporate Tax rate on them to a temporary rate of 15% and allow them to deduct all loses from there there taxes. 2. Invest heavilly in technology 3. Provide for an emergency fund should they face eminent liquidation either in the form of Gov't backed private loans, or direct aid. 4. Consolidate. Consolidate. Consolidate. 5. Allow them to go through a natural bankruptcy to clear the execs and the top managemant, and force all parties to agree to a restructuring, 6. Respect private property by letting the Bondholders to get a fair settlement. and also 7. Passing a Health Care reform to lift some of the burdens off the care companies and Atlasian companies in general by reducing overall costs. I would like to see the Overal Corporate Tax rate dropped, flattened, and with exemptions or deductions made for certain struggling sectors. However the current composition of the Senate doesn't favor that so I will instead compromis in favor of line 1 up above. Your overall plan is decent, though I wish it included more direct aid to the automakers. I'm a bit concerned that cutting the corporate tax rate by more than half for the automakers is too steep of a cut, but if you mandate it only be for two years or something, that's something I could swallow, I suppose. I think, though, we should all remember that even though the automakers are obviously incompetent and horrifically mismanaged, all automakers are having problems right now (even Asian auto companies are having serious problems because of the recession) and we need to be careful that we don't force them to consolidate and contract their businesses too much, once the recession is over. However I don't believe bankruptcy and going to be helpful for any of them, especially GM. Bankruptcy could seriously hurt the reputation of the brand and will likely drive workers and customers to foreign owned, and non-unionized, factories and dealerships. I would hope that we could provide funds to them to stave off bankruptcy. It wouldn't take a great deal of money to keep the businesses afloat, especially in comparison to all we're spending on other portions of this bill. At least providing funds to keep GM from bankruptcy, would be nice. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 18, 2009, 07:11:57 PM With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed. Jesus, I take a few hours away from the forum.. :P I proposed this amendment with the inclusion of the nationalization of the auto industry at the behest of President Lief who told me to introduce it with my aims high but to compromise if necessary. I would much prefer a middle ground rather than simply stripping something out and canceling out half of the stimulus. We may as well just vote the entire stimulus down if we're not prepared to do everything necessary. What sort of middle ground proposals, specifically, would anyone here support for aiding the auto-industry? (And forgive me, but I didn't read NCY's post on the previous page entirely. I read about half of it and got distracted :P) You weren't the only one to not read my posts so don't feel bad. :P. Am I the only one on this forum that reads every post in a thread before posting? My Auto Plan 1. Reduce the Corporate Tax rate on them to a temporary rate of 15% and allow them to deduct all loses from there there taxes. 2. Invest heavilly in technology 3. Provide for an emergency fund should they face eminent liquidation either in the form of Gov't backed private loans, or direct aid. 4. Consolidate. Consolidate. Consolidate. 5. Allow them to go through a natural bankruptcy to clear the execs and the top managemant, and force all parties to agree to a restructuring, 6. Respect private property by letting the Bondholders to get a fair settlement. and also 7. Passing a Health Care reform to lift some of the burdens off the care companies and Atlasian companies in general by reducing overall costs. I would like to see the Overal Corporate Tax rate dropped, flattened, and with exemptions or deductions made for certain struggling sectors. However the current composition of the Senate doesn't favor that so I will instead compromis in favor of line 1 up above. Your overall plan is decent, though I wish it included more direct aid to the automakers. I'm a bit concerned that cutting the corporate tax rate by more than half for the automakers is too steep of a cut, but if you mandate it only be for two years or something, that's something I could swallow, I suppose. I think, though, we should all remember that even though the automakers are obviously incompetent and horrifically mismanaged, all automakers are having problems right now (even Asian auto companies are having serious problems because of the recession) and we need to be careful that we don't force them to consolidate and contract their businesses too much, once the recession is over. However I don't believe bankruptcy and going to be helpful for any of them, especially GM. Bankruptcy could seriously hurt the reputation of the brand and will likely drive workers and customers to foreign owned, and non-unionized, factories and dealerships. I would hope that we could provide funds to them to stave off bankruptcy. It wouldn't take a great deal of money to keep the businesses afloat, especially in comparison to all we're spending on other portions of this bill. At least providing funds to keep GM from bankruptcy, would be nice. 1. then how about 20%. It doesn't have to be exactly 15%. And yes it would be for a set period like 2 years or whatever. 2. I agree that they should not consolidate too much, and as I mentioned a few pages back(which I am sure you didn't read :P) we shouldn't have them get rid of all there trucks and SUV's. As Alfred Sloan was asked in Congressional hearing way back in the day, did GM profit on all its lines even in its best years, Sloans' answer was "no". All auto companies are struggling but none of them are in as bad a shape as the Big three in the US. 3. Okay, if you can propose a compromise to hold the execs responsible and get restructuring without bankruptcy or a Gov't takeover, I will glady listen, just like you have fairly listened to all my proposals :P. Also I will be sure to "read" what you post as well. ;D. Just be sure that the first line of aid comes in the form of Gov't back Private loans, that way tax payer money only gets involved if they collaspe and we aren't going to let them collapse, are we ;). If you have no takers on loaning them money even with the Gov't backing then we can provided them with direct aid. Again you might end up in a debate with Franzl with me watching from the sidelines here if I find your compromise exceptable. He prefers the bankruptcy option. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 19, 2009, 05:41:37 PM Simple amendment I was talking about last night with Franzl. Our discussion made me think that more public hospitals certainly wouldn't hurt to consider.
Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause K Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: $20 billion is to be distributed amongst the regions for the construction of additional public hospitals and clinics. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 19, 2009, 05:43:35 PM Yeah, I think that's a good idea.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on July 19, 2009, 06:22:33 PM Goodness. What on earth is this bill? And why do you make me read through pages and pages of it ;D
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 19, 2009, 06:23:27 PM Goodness. What on earth is this bill? And why do you make me read through pages and pages of it ;D Sensible economic stimulus, my friend! :P Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 19, 2009, 07:20:03 PM Goodness. What on earth is this bill? And why do you make me read through pages and pages of it ;D Well you could of course just take peoples word for it as to what it is, but I prefer Senators to know what they are voting on. Building Hospitals is a good idea so I support the honerable Senator's amendment. What about the Energy Assisstance, and the infusing cash into the depleted "Crisis" funds? I would inquire to ask the the honerable Senator Marokai, Is that still on the table? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 20, 2009, 06:04:28 AM Section 3 is amended to read:
Quote a.) The corporate tax rate on automakers shall be reduced to 20% for a period of 2 years. b.) Atlasia shall provide $5 billion towards research for advanced fuel efficient vehicles, particularly hybrid cars. A special reseach group shall be appointed by the Senate to conduct the appropriate research in a professional and cost efficient manner. c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $5 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. The automakers should go through natural bankruptcy and restructuring processes without excessive government intervention. I also agree with NCYankee that passing meaningful healthcare reform will also provide a great deal of aid to automakers that are struggling with funding union wages and benefits. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 20, 2009, 06:13:04 AM Well, obviously I reject the idea that unions should be the punching bag here (and I've explained why here and elsewhere) but as for your amendment, I object to it unless the "emergency funds" are increased to $10 billion as opposed to $5 billion.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 20, 2009, 07:38:40 AM I would like the automakers to have the option of asking for a government assisted takeover and bankruptcy. $5 billion isn't nearly enough for them.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 20, 2009, 08:08:13 AM I'll agree to raising the amount to $10 billion, as proposed by Marokai.....but I'm not open to any form of nationalization.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 20, 2009, 12:24:12 PM I'll agree to raising the amount to $10 billion, as proposed by Marokai.....but I'm not open to any form of nationalization. If we can't guarantee that a bankruptcy will not result in some surviving company it could further exacerbate the economic situation. The best option is to stay out until bankruptcy is necessary, but if/when they enter into court proceedings the government should step in and ensure the company emerges leaner, more competitive, but intact. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 20, 2009, 01:13:34 PM Perhaps if we get to a point where all Atlasian automakers are likely to be liquated....but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it should be our responsibility to make sure every one survives, that's not how the market is supposed to work. I'm not convinced that it would even be a terrible thing for total supply on the American auto market to go down a bit....
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on July 20, 2009, 01:29:44 PM Perhaps if we get to a point where all Atlasian automakers are likely to be liquated....but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it should be our responsibility to make sure every one survives, that's not how the market is supposed to work. I'm not convinced that it would even be a terrible thing for total supply on the American auto market to go down a bit.... I think that is an appropriate attitude. Car sales reflect consumer choice and attitude to the market more than any other 'one purchase' indicator. I see no reason to support struggling makers who are struggling due to their own complacency. I would be more willing to bail out the company investing in cleaner energy use and dual energy use in cars than those who stubbornly stick to oil and churn out unsustainable 'mini tanks' as family cars. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MaxQue on July 20, 2009, 02:32:40 PM Perhaps if we get to a point where all Atlasian automakers are likely to be liquated....but to be perfectly honest, I don't think it should be our responsibility to make sure every one survives, that's not how the market is supposed to work. I'm not convinced that it would even be a terrible thing for total supply on the American auto market to go down a bit.... I think that is an appropriate attitude. Car sales reflect consumer choice and attitude to the market more than any other 'one purchase' indicator. I see no reason to support struggling makers who are struggling due to their own complacency. I would be more willing to bail out the company investing in cleaner energy use and dual energy use in cars than those who stubbornly stick to oil and churn out unsustainable 'mini tanks' as family cars. I support helping Atlasian automakers because many workers would lose their jobs if the automaker collaspes. Not because I think than those businesses should survive. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on July 20, 2009, 04:35:44 PM I support helping Atlasian automakers because many workers would lose their jobs if the automaker collaspes. Not because I think than those businesses should survive. I empathise with that strongly, however far too often we have fought to save 'jobs' as straightjackets rather than target retraining and reskilling of workers. The Modified Welfare Reform Act adds some protection there but this too could be amended. I would prefer to see workers reskilled and moved on to new jobs etc than simply propping up their industry. As the workforce ages and few new workers take their place it makes that industry more precarious particularly if it does not attract inward investment. It is suprising how many industries have failed due to demographic changes in the avaliable workforce rather than due to the economic climate or government policy. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 20, 2009, 05:17:05 PM My only problem with letting carmakers fail in the current economic environment is that weakness during such a major recession does not necessarily indicate general weakness. Few could have predicted the need to weather such a storm and the crisis wasn't started in the auto companies. People who may want cars are scared or can't get a loan to buy a car simply because of the troubles in the loan markets. So the current demand for cars does not reflect what it would be if people could get proper funds. They don't deserve to fail in such a climate.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on July 21, 2009, 01:14:32 AM My only problem with letting carmakers fail in the current economic environment is that weakness during such a major recession does not necessarily indicate general weakness. Few could have predicted the need to weather such a storm and the crisis wasn't started in the auto companies. People who may want cars are scared or can't get a loan to buy a car simply because of the troubles in the loan markets. So the current demand for cars does not reflect what it would be if people could get proper funds. They don't deserve to fail in such a climate. Seems pretty clear actually....Ford made good economic decisions, and is now able to sell products that are up to international standards, and GM made poor economic decisions, clinging for too long to gas guzzling cars (like the Hummer). I think GM clearly does deserve to fail in such a climate. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 21, 2009, 06:50:23 AM I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote Section 2: Infrastructure Investment shall be amended in the following ways: Clause K Shall be inserted with subsequent clauses renumbered accordingly: $20 billion is to be distributed amongst the regions for the construction of additional public hospitals and clinics. Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 21, 2009, 07:12:33 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 21, 2009, 07:27:15 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Hash on July 21, 2009, 07:27:37 AM aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 21, 2009, 09:00:38 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MaxQue on July 21, 2009, 12:14:27 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 21, 2009, 12:22:41 PM Aye
My only problem with letting carmakers fail in the current economic environment is that weakness during such a major recession does not necessarily indicate general weakness. Few could have predicted the need to weather such a storm and the crisis wasn't started in the auto companies. People who may want cars are scared or can't get a loan to buy a car simply because of the troubles in the loan markets. So the current demand for cars does not reflect what it would be if people could get proper funds. They don't deserve to fail in such a climate. Seems pretty clear actually....Ford made good economic decisions, and is now able to sell products that are up to international standards, and GM made poor economic decisions, clinging for too long to gas guzzling cars (like the Hummer). I think GM clearly does deserve to fail in such a climate. I understand that and I applaud Ford for its success, but I don't think that these companies should all be liquidated because they couldn't prepare for economic catastrophe. This is why I don't support a government bailout for these companies, but rather a government-assisted bankruptcy that allows the companies to be acquired by others or lean down to a more bare-bones but viable company. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Vepres on July 21, 2009, 02:25:02 PM Could somebody post the bill as currently amended so we don't have to read through all this stuff?
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 21, 2009, 04:59:10 PM Aye
Could somebody post the bill as currently amended so we don't have to read through all this stuff? The reporter doesn't want to read. :) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 21, 2009, 05:01:23 PM With 8 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 23, 2009, 07:01:05 AM I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Section 3 is amended to read: Quote a.) The corporate tax rate on automakers shall be reduced to 20% for a period of 2 years. b.) Atlasia shall provide $5 billion towards research for advanced fuel efficient vehicles, particularly hybrid cars. A special reseach group shall be appointed by the Senate to conduct the appropriate research in a professional and cost efficient manner. c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $5 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 23, 2009, 07:03:35 AM Corporate tax cuts are incredibly ineffective stimulus, and I don't think such a thing would be particularly helpful for the auto businesses anywho. As for the emergency loans, I think they're grossly inadequate.
However, didn't Franzl agree to 10 billion for the emergency loans? Nay for now. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 23, 2009, 07:06:16 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: afleitch on July 23, 2009, 07:13:07 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 23, 2009, 10:27:26 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 23, 2009, 04:50:39 PM 5 Billion is not enough, the rest of it is great.
Nay unfortunately Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 23, 2009, 05:47:09 PM Aye
We can raise it to 10 billion in another amendment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 25, 2009, 08:39:16 PM Where in the world is
EDIT: Although really, where are 5 senators who still need to vote? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Hash on July 25, 2009, 10:34:47 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 26, 2009, 11:42:35 AM With 6 Ayes, 2 Nays and 0 Abstentions this bill amendment has passed.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 26, 2009, 05:28:17 PM I propose the following to amend C in Section 3:
Quote c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $12 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Also I'm working on another amendment that can at least somewhat address who controls the projects, funds, etc. (Federal vs Regional, you know, all that jazz.) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2009, 05:40:23 PM I propose the following to amend C in Section 3: Quote c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $12 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Also I'm working on another amendment that can at least somewhat address who controls the projects, funds, etc. (Federal vs Regional, you know, all that jazz.) That sounds reasonable enough. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 26, 2009, 05:45:56 PM Ideally I would prefer alot more funds.. but I'm unsure if any more than 15 billion could pass.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2009, 05:56:25 PM Ideally I would prefer alot more funds.. but I'm unsure if any more than 15 billion could pass. Well since Chrysler and GM have burnt through $87 billion since December, I would agree more is needed. However I two doubt it would pass. Too many Senators just hate Michiganders or something. :) I have a question regarded to clause B dealing with the Research. Does Atlasia have the same R&D program that we have in RL and use for military, Aerospace, and Medical research? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 28, 2009, 07:01:15 AM This might be the next amendment. If not I might have missed this one.
Quote Section 3 is struck from the bill, with subsequent sections re-numbered accordingly. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 28, 2009, 07:13:15 AM I proposed that, and subsequently withdrew it. This should not be on the table.
Aye. I withdraw my amendment, in hopes that Franzl or Yankee come up with a compromise. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on July 28, 2009, 05:45:19 PM What is the amendment queue on this bill? Do we have any more pending?
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 28, 2009, 06:20:28 PM Could we get an update on where the bill stands currently as amended so far? I have a few ideas but I need to see what has already been done, first. We have been debating this for a good 2 weeks.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 29, 2009, 07:01:44 AM Just an FYI that I'm a little busy now so I'll get to this bill come tonight. I'll post an updated version of the bill and open the next amendment vote then (if there is one).
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 29, 2009, 07:22:11 PM I still need to go back and check the amendment queue but here should be the current version of the bill, unless I missed something:
Quote Recognizing the strain that the economic downturn has put on Atlasian families and businesses, seeking to offer struggling Atlasians relief while investing in an economic recovery, the Senate of Atlasia authorizes the following: Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($254 billion) a. $100 billion for Medicaid b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50 c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits d. $20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding) Section 2: Infrastructure Investment ($532.5 billion) a. $150 billion to be distributed to shovel ready highway, road, bridge construction/repair projects b. $20 billion for urban public transportation construction and repair projects c. $30 billion to immediately fund the 2009 High Speed Rail Act (FL 30-8) d. $30 billion to increase rural broadband coverage e. $30 billion for infrastructure repair and construction projects in the Social and Economic Development Zones enacted in FL 31-19 f. $30 billion to repair and modernize government facilities and buildings g. $30 billion to repair sewage lines and drinking water infrastructure. h. $10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid. i. $100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids. j. The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to fund the projects in Clause i alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be given to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid in clause i. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. k. $20 billion is to be distributed amongst the regions for the construction of additional public hospitals and clinics. l. $50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities. m. State governments will be required to pave or re-gravel all township roads and re-pave all township roads that have not been paved since January 1, 1999 by December 31, 2014. $6.5 billion is allocated to each region for this effort n. All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction. Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($20 billion) a.) The corporate tax rate on automakers shall be reduced to 20% for a period of 2 years. b.) Atlasia shall provide $5 billion towards research for advanced fuel efficient vehicles, particularly hybrid cars. A special reseach group shall be appointed by the Senate to conduct the appropriate research in a professional and cost efficient manner. c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $5 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Section 4: Regional & Local Fiscal Relief ($150 billion) a. $100 billion in financial aid to the regions, to decrease and prevent budget cuts of essential services and layoffs or cutbacks of government workers (This financial relief will be prioritized to state governments on the basis of budget severity) b. $50 billion to aid school districts facing budget shortfalls, to prevent cutbacks or layoffs Section 5: Responsible Individual & Business Tax Relief ($42+ billion) a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010 b. $8 billion to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit c. $6 billion to provide a voluntary annual $700 tax credit to home-owners who make use of solar, wind, or hydroelectric sources of energy (To qualify for the tax credit, home-owners must have at least 25% of their electricity generated from the aforementioned sources.) d. $3 billion to provide an expanded sales tax deducation from automobile purchases from Atlasian automobile companies e. The business tax rate shall be reduced by 2% f. Individual businesses making $300,000 or less in total annual income shall be exempt from all business taxes for exactly one year after The 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act is made law. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 29, 2009, 09:58:41 PM Ok, this is the next amendment. I'll open up the vote tomorrow morning on it.
I propose the following to amend C in Section 3: Quote c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $12 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on July 30, 2009, 07:08:59 AM I hereby open up the vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
I propose the following to amend C in Section 3: Quote c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $12 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on July 30, 2009, 07:16:41 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Hash on July 30, 2009, 07:28:24 AM aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on July 30, 2009, 07:46:56 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on July 30, 2009, 09:16:18 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MaxQue on July 30, 2009, 04:58:55 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on July 30, 2009, 05:21:38 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 30, 2009, 05:44:02 PM Aye
The first two sections alone are bigger then the RL Stimulus bill. The current bill stands at $998 Billion dollars. Which will cross the Trillion mark once this amendment passes. We are nearly done. I have two potential amendments one would appropriate $2 Billion to replenish crisis funds through Social Services, and the other would increase Clause b of Section of Section 3 from $5 Billion to $10 Billion dollars. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on July 31, 2009, 12:09:15 PM With 8 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 31, 2009, 09:59:00 PM I introduce the following amendment.
Quote The following is inserted in Section 1. i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds. Fairly straight forward amendment. This program is meant for to help the poor in "emergency" situations, however they also cover unpaid electric bills, so you can guess what has happened to hear, they have been severly depleted. So this amendment replenishes there reserves and the timing couldn't be worse with Hurricane season already underway. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Vepres on July 31, 2009, 10:15:41 PM Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody?
Remember, we actually have an active GM now. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 01, 2009, 12:56:48 PM Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody? Remember, we actually have an active GM now. If any inflation were created it would actually help and a falling dollar helps our exports and our manufacturing sector. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Purple State on August 01, 2009, 09:06:37 PM Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody? Remember, we actually have an active GM now. If any inflation were created it would actually help and a falling dollar helps our exports and our manufacturing sector. Exactly. Assuming we have a similar recession to the US, deflation has been so severe that the inflation caused by this spending would either be minimal or simply right the ship. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Vepres on August 01, 2009, 10:46:29 PM Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody? Remember, we actually have an active GM now. If any inflation were created it would actually help and a falling dollar helps our exports and our manufacturing sector. Exactly. Assuming we have a similar recession to the US, deflation has been so severe that the inflation caused by this spending would either be minimal or simply right the ship. I'm just worried about hyperinflation down the road. Of course, BrandonH hasn't given us numbers on the national debt and such yet. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Purple State on August 01, 2009, 11:05:08 PM Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody? Remember, we actually have an active GM now. If any inflation were created it would actually help and a falling dollar helps our exports and our manufacturing sector. Exactly. Assuming we have a similar recession to the US, deflation has been so severe that the inflation caused by this spending would either be minimal or simply right the ship. I'm just worried about hyperinflation down the road. Of course, BrandonH hasn't given us numbers on the national debt and such yet. The temporary spending in this bill will not do anything to inflation long-term. Only injecting massive amounts of liquid capital Fed-style could do that and we don't have a Fed so... Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 02, 2009, 12:53:27 PM Have any of you considered the consequences of this spending. Inflation anybody? Remember, we actually have an active GM now. If any inflation were created it would actually help and a falling dollar helps our exports and our manufacturing sector. Exactly. Assuming we have a similar recession to the US, deflation has been so severe that the inflation caused by this spending would either be minimal or simply right the ship. I'm just worried about hyperinflation down the road. Of course, BrandonH hasn't given us numbers on the national debt and such yet. The temporary spending in this bill will not do anything to inflation long-term. Only injecting massive amounts of liquid capital Fed-style could do that and we don't have a Fed so... We don't have a Fed? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: afleitch on August 02, 2009, 12:57:04 PM Aye, belatedly, FTR.
My god this bill is boring the hell out of me. I know that's not very Senator like to say but there you go :P Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 02, 2009, 03:57:26 PM I'm pretty sure we do have a Fed (granfathered in from the United States) unless the Senate passed a bill getting rid of it or something. It's just not something we model in the game.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: afleitch on August 02, 2009, 04:05:09 PM I'm pretty sure we do have a Fed (granfathered in from the United States) unless the Senate passed a bill getting rid of it or something. It's just not something we model in the game. Id say we do based on how we've legislated in the past. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Purple State on August 02, 2009, 11:02:11 PM I'm pretty sure we do have a Fed (granfathered in from the United States) unless the Senate passed a bill getting rid of it or something. It's just not something we model in the game. Id say we do based on how we've legislated in the past. Do we decide what it does? Or do we assume it does what the US one does? Our economy could very well vary from the US economy soon enough. The Fed wouldn't be expected to address the two situations in the same way. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 03, 2009, 05:52:57 AM After NCY's I'll introduce my final amendment (that may or may not be difficult to work in and might cause a bit of controversy, but whatevs) and then I'll be ready to just let this go forward. I think we're nearly done here, finally.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating)) Post by: MasterJedi on August 03, 2009, 07:39:23 AM I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote The following is inserted in Section 1. i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds. Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on August 03, 2009, 12:06:15 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 03, 2009, 04:41:17 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on August 03, 2009, 05:02:07 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MaxQue on August 03, 2009, 09:46:32 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: afleitch on August 06, 2009, 03:14:32 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: afleitch on August 06, 2009, 03:21:12 AM I will have to take some time to look over this bill; see if I can run the figures through to see how much everything is going to cost; same goes for any tax reduction. If it's not too laborious (!) i'll post a calculation here. Hopefully I can get access to a good economic simulation program.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on August 06, 2009, 07:32:37 AM With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 06, 2009, 05:02:09 PM I will have to take some time to look over this bill; see if I can run the figures through to see how much everything is going to cost; same goes for any tax reduction. If it's not too laborious (!) i'll post a calculation here. Hopefully I can get access to a good economic simulation program. If you find such a program please feel free to share it. :) By my rough estimates I think it is about $1.01 Trillion for this stimulus bill. I eagerly await Marokai's last "controversial" amendment? oh, what could it possibly be that so controversial. :P Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 06, 2009, 05:53:41 PM Can the current amended bill as it stands be pieced together for reference?
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 06, 2009, 06:23:03 PM Can the current amended bill as it stands be pieced together for reference? I still need to go back and check the amendment queue but here should be the current version of the bill, unless I missed something: Quote Recognizing the strain that the economic downturn has put on Atlasian families and businesses, seeking to offer struggling Atlasians relief while investing in an economic recovery, the Senate of Atlasia authorizes the following: Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($256 billion) a. $100 billion for Medicaid b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50 c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits d. $20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding) i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds. Section 2: Infrastructure Investment ($532.5 billion) a. $150 billion to be distributed to shovel ready highway, road, bridge construction/repair projects b. $20 billion for urban public transportation construction and repair projects c. $30 billion to immediately fund the 2009 High Speed Rail Act (FL 30-8) d. $30 billion to increase rural broadband coverage e. $30 billion for infrastructure repair and construction projects in the Social and Economic Development Zones enacted in FL 31-19 f. $30 billion to repair and modernize government facilities and buildings g. $30 billion to repair sewage lines and drinking water infrastructure. h. $10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid. i. $100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids. j. The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to fund the projects in Clause i alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be given to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid in clause i. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. k. $20 billion is to be distributed amongst the regions for the construction of additional public hospitals and clinics. l. $50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities. m. State governments will be required to pave or re-gravel all township roads and re-pave all township roads that have not been paved since January 1, 1999 by December 31, 2014. $6.5 billion is allocated to each region for this effort n. All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction. Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($27 billion) a.) The corporate tax rate on automakers shall be reduced to 20% for a period of 2 years. b.) Atlasia shall provide $5 billion towards research for advanced fuel efficient vehicles, particularly hybrid cars. A special reseach group shall be appointed by the Senate to conduct the appropriate research in a professional and cost efficient manner. c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $12 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Section 4: Regional & Local Fiscal Relief ($150 billion) a. $100 billion in financial aid to the regions, to decrease and prevent budget cuts of essential services and layoffs or cutbacks of government workers (This financial relief will be prioritized to state governments on the basis of budget severity) b. $50 billion to aid school districts facing budget shortfalls, to prevent cutbacks or layoffs Section 5: Responsible Individual & Business Tax Relief ($42+ billion) a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010 b. $8 billion to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit c. $6 billion to provide a voluntary annual $700 tax credit to home-owners who make use of solar, wind, or hydroelectric sources of energy (To qualify for the tax credit, home-owners must have at least 25% of their electricity generated from the aforementioned sources.) d. $3 billion to provide an expanded sales tax deducation from automobile purchases from Atlasian automobile companies e. The business tax rate shall be reduced by 2% f. Individual businesses making $300,000 or less in total annual income shall be exempt from all business taxes for exactly one year after The 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act is made law. This is it from Page 13. The only thing added since then was my amendment which just passed(Section 1 Clause i) and an amendment dealing with the Automakers section(Section 3 Clause c), both which I just included. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 06, 2009, 06:36:29 PM Thank you NCY :)
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 06, 2009, 06:43:01 PM Earned Income Tax Credit probably needs to be looked at. A blanket increase for a credit that some 25% (?) of those entitled to it do not claim doesn't really expand the depth of the scheme or help those most at need. I'll pick through it at the weekend.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 06, 2009, 08:09:18 PM Earned Income Tax Credit probably needs to be looked at. A blanket increase for a credit that some 25% (?) of those entitled to it do not claim doesn't really expand the depth of the scheme or help those most at need. I'll pick through it at the weekend. We have some time, but let's get this done before the election, eh? ;) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 06, 2009, 08:27:54 PM Earned Income Tax Credit probably needs to be looked at. A blanket increase for a credit that some 25% (?) of those entitled to it do not claim doesn't really expand the depth of the scheme or help those most at need. I'll pick through it at the weekend. Well we really can't do nothing about that but for those that do claim it, and I know it from experience that period in Jan-Feb during the year is usually the period when we buy cars, washers, dryers, refridgerators, stoves, etc. The reason being is that we have the money to do so and when you live pay check to pay check you can't do it any other time. These little things break or are getting rickedy and are going to break, will get purchased in that period. It boosts factory orders and orders of durable goods at the time when its usuall the glut of retail sales as people expend most of there money in Nov-Dec on the Christmas shopping season. People then tend to build up there savings during the first part of the next year or pay back bills that fell behind in that period. So the Income tax refunds generally provide a good counter-cyclical effect at a point in the year when there is very little economic activity. Since the EITC increases those returns I think the economic effect of it is important and its a good way to increase disposable incomes without raising the minimum wage, which impacts even fewer people probably, and some people tend to beleive it increases unemployement, I don't necessarily believe that, but EITC is much more acceptable cause that potential risk isn't posed. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 06, 2009, 09:14:27 PM Earned Income Tax Credit probably needs to be looked at. A blanket increase for a credit that some 25% (?) of those entitled to it do not claim doesn't really expand the depth of the scheme or help those most at need. I'll pick through it at the weekend. Well we really can't do nothing about that but for those that do claim it, and I know it from experience that period in Jan-Feb during the year is usually the period when we buy cars, washers, dryers, refridgerators, stoves, etc. The reason being is that we have the money to do so and when you live pay check to pay check you can't do it any other time. These little things break or are getting rickedy and are going to break, will get purchased in that period. It boosts factory orders and orders of durable goods at the time when its usuall the glut of retail sales as people expend most of there money in Nov-Dec on the Christmas shopping season. People then tend to build up there savings during the first part of the next year or pay back bills that fell behind in that period. So the Income tax refunds generally provide a good counter-cyclical effect at a point in the year when there is very little economic activity. Since the EITC increases those returns I think the economic effect of it is important and its a good way to increase disposable incomes without raising the minimum wage, which impacts even fewer people probably, and some people tend to beleive it increases unemployement, I don't necessarily believe that, but EITC is much more acceptable cause that potential risk isn't posed. Also, with the publicity of this bill, hopefully more people will realize they are eligible. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Vepres on August 06, 2009, 09:40:39 PM How do the honorable Senators feel about a decrease in the capital gains tax?
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 06, 2009, 09:46:43 PM How do the honorable Senators feel about a decrease in the capital gains tax? No. If anything I would like to raise it when the economy stabilizes. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 06, 2009, 10:59:05 PM How do the honorable Senators feel about a decrease in the capital gains tax? No. If anything I would like to raise it when the economy stabilizes. I would like to abolish it for those that make less then $250,000 a year, and drop it to 15% for those that make more then that, The same goes for the Dividend and interest taxes, once the economy stabilizes more. :P I would drop the Corporate Income Tax rate to 25% to reduce outsourcing and remove a lot of exemptions and deductions that have been worked in due to the special interests. The exception being the Auto companies and Alternative Energy companies. I would then create either a Corporate Profits tax, or a Corporate Consumption tax to discourage short-term profit making in favor of long term investment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 07, 2009, 05:19:46 AM Amendment:
Quote Section 6: Administration 1. Upon the event of a Region rejecting funds outlined under the 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act the federal government itself shall, where possible, conduct or fund infrastructure projects independent of the regional government, and distribute the rejected funds specifically for that region equally among the remaining regions. Doesn't mess with taxes, as that would be unconstitutional, so the tax rates for businesses and such would still be uniform throughout Atlasia. Distributes allocated funds to other regions if they're rejected to continue economic development to compensate for the lost recovery. Is totally within the federal government's power to institute or fund infrastructure projects on it's own. Etc. etc. All perfectly sensible and legit. No basis for opposing this unless you're an anarchist or a sucker for regional supremacy. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 07, 2009, 10:22:13 AM So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good.
Also, one last amendment from me: Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 07, 2009, 01:34:45 PM So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good. Also, one last amendment from me: Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." Seconded. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 07, 2009, 02:12:38 PM Right I've had time to pick through this
$30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits Over 10% of Atlasians claim food stamps, mostly the unemployed and those on very very low wages with large households. Anyone know the income limits for food stamps? $20 billion to fund additional Pell Grants, which shall be increased to $6,000 per individual I had to look this one up :) Surely this can be decreased given the steps taken to open up tertiary education through the Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009? e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs Would have been easy to attach to the provision detailed within the Modified Welfare Reform Act. However this was overturned. We are effectively 'policyless.' I have however introduced a replacement bill. a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010 How is this taxed? Is it treated as income and taxed or is it taxed seperately? I ask because the 2007 tax bill could mean that this already goes untaxed. c. $6 billion to provide a voluntary annual $700 tax credit to home-owners who make use of solar, wind, or hydroelectric sources of energy (To qualify for the tax credit, home-owners must have at least 25% of their electricity generated from the aforementioned sources.) Not liking this on reflection. First of all you have to be a homeowner. Then you have to 'make use' of renewables; is this by choice as in generating this within the home? To set up the facilities to generate 25% of your power from home made renewables is expensive. Only the well to do will benefit. Secondly if by 'making use' of means simply plugging into the national grid, then are we to reward those who through luck and geography live close to a major renewable power supplier? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 07, 2009, 03:21:37 PM So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good. Also, one last amendment from me: Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 07, 2009, 04:12:54 PM So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good. Also, one last amendment from me: Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own. It is unclear whether that is the case. In fact, inaction by a region could be read as rejection of the money. This sets up a mechanism to address that. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 07, 2009, 04:27:30 PM I propose a further amendment.
Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($256 billion) a. $100 billion for Medicaid b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50 c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding) i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds. --- I believe that because of the steps taken through the Help Atlasia Study Act, extra funding for Pell Grants is unneccesary. I would appreciate Senators comments on the matter. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 07, 2009, 04:34:16 PM So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good. Also, one last amendment from me: Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own. It is unclear whether that is the case. In fact, inaction by a region could be read as rejection of the money. This sets up a mechanism to address that. That's silly, you may as well include a clause in every bill asking every region whether or not they want to support or reject the legislation. This seems like nothing more than encouraging regions to screw things up. I propose a further amendment. Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($256 billion) a. $100 billion for Medicaid b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50 c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding) i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds. --- I believe that because of the steps taken through the Help Atlasia Study Act, extra funding for Pell Grants is unneccesary. I would appreciate Senators comments on the matter. An unnecessary cut, in my opinion, especially since we were winding down. I'll support it if it will get this freaking process moving and have a final vote called sooner. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 07, 2009, 04:39:46 PM An unnecessary cut, in my opinion, especially since we were winding down. I'll support it if it will get this freaking process moving and have a final vote called sooner. I wasn't trying to be obtuse about it and I certainly don't want to hold things up too much! But the Help Atlasia Study Act will raise sufficient funds to subsidy tertiary education from the 0.5% top rate tax hike; I don't see why it should be given a further $20bn. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 07, 2009, 04:41:56 PM An unnecessary cut, in my opinion, especially since we were winding down. I'll support it if it will get this freaking process moving and have a final vote called sooner. I wasn't trying to be obtuse about it and I certainly don't want to hold things up too much! But the Help Atlasia Study Act will raise sufficient funds to subsidy tertiary education from the 0.5% top rate tax hike; I don't see why it should be given a further $20bn. I'm not upset with you, I just want this passed before the election considering this bill has been debated for nearly a month. :P I'll accept your amendment, though, so we don't have to add two more days to this bill's lifespan. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 07, 2009, 04:47:11 PM So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good. Also, one last amendment from me: Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own. It is unclear whether that is the case. In fact, inaction by a region could be read as rejection of the money. This sets up a mechanism to address that. That's silly, you may as well include a clause in every bill asking every region whether or not they want to support or reject the legislation. This seems like nothing more than encouraging regions to screw things up. So we just assume the regions accept the funding? I'm not saying do this for every bill, but when it involves direct funding to the regions (which, as far as I can tell, they have the right to reject) I think we should make sure the money actually gets there. We have instituted these sorts of provisions in a plethora of legislation to good effect, most notably the Help Atlasia Study Act. I'm not really sure I understand your reasoning. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 07, 2009, 05:07:25 PM So the amendment takes any rejected stimulus money and reallocates it to federal projects and equally among the remaining regions that have accepted the money? Sounds good. Also, one last amendment from me: Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." I don't like that, it's not necessary and could out the time this money gets out into the economy. If a region wants to refuse it, they can vote on their own. It is unclear whether that is the case. In fact, inaction by a region could be read as rejection of the money. This sets up a mechanism to address that. That's silly, you may as well include a clause in every bill asking every region whether or not they want to support or reject the legislation. This seems like nothing more than encouraging regions to screw things up. So we just assume the regions accept the funding? I'm not saying do this for every bill, but when it involves direct funding to the regions (which, as far as I can tell, they have the right to reject) I think we should make sure the money actually gets there. We have instituted these sorts of provisions in a plethora of legislation to good effect, most notably the Help Atlasia Study Act. I'm not really sure I understand your reasoning. Can we get this damn thing finished already? I support Marokai Blue's amendment, but I oppose PS's. I also don't really see the need to hold this up over Afleitch's either, get it in or get it defeated, just do it quickly please. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 07, 2009, 05:08:03 PM a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010 How is this taxed? Is it treated as income and taxed or is it taxed seperately? I ask because the 2007 tax bill could mean that this already goes untaxed. I've looked this up but could do with a little help. It seems to be taxed as income. Which means in Atlasia the first $5000 and indeed more, is already untaxed (or rather subject to an effective 0% tax rate) Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 07, 2009, 05:10:44 PM Geez guys, we have, what, two weeks until the end of the session? We will get this passed. Calm down and let's finish this on a high note. There are two pending amendments, with Marokai accepting afleitch's as friendly. That isn't a lot and we have plenty of time.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 07, 2009, 05:16:14 PM Geez guys, we have, what, two weeks until the end of the session? We will get this passed. Calm down and let's finish this on a high note. There are two pending amendments, with Marokai accepting afleitch's as friendly. That isn't a lot and we have plenty of time. I am calm :) I am just concerned we may be allocating $25bn for a tax cut on unemployment compensation that we already have , $20bn on funding for tertiary education that has already been secured through another act and we may be give 700 bucks to those who switch to renewable sources when it's not clear what 'sources' we are counting. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 07, 2009, 05:19:48 PM Geez guys, we have, what, two weeks until the end of the session? We will get this passed. Calm down and let's finish this on a high note. There are two pending amendments, with Marokai accepting afleitch's as friendly. That isn't a lot and we have plenty of time. I am calm :) I am just concerned we may be allocating $25bn for a tax cut on unemployment compensation that we already have , $20bn on funding for tertiary education that has already been secured through another act and we may be give 700 bucks to for those who switch to renewable sources when it's not clear what 'sources' we are counting. It's not you I'm worried about afleitch. We actually have until the first Friday in September to finish this, right? That's 3 or 4 weeks. I'm not sure why more amendments are suddenly scary. I will be voting for this bill and we will be passing this before the session ends, but I want this bill to be as good as possible. I don't consider it to be at that level when there are serious questions about large chunk of spending and how the money is to be accepted by the regions. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 07, 2009, 05:46:08 PM Geez guys, we have, what, two weeks until the end of the session? We will get this passed. Calm down and let's finish this on a high note. There are two pending amendments, with Marokai accepting afleitch's as friendly. That isn't a lot and we have plenty of time. I am calm :) I am just concerned we may be allocating $25bn for a tax cut on unemployment compensation that we already have , $20bn on funding for tertiary education that has already been secured through another act and we may be give 700 bucks to for those who switch to renewable sources when it's not clear what 'sources' we are counting. It's not you I'm worried about afleitch. We actually have until the first Friday in September to finish this, right? That's 3 or 4 weeks. I'm not sure why more amendments are suddenly scary. I will be voting for this bill and we will be passing this before the session ends, but I want this bill to be as good as possible. I don't consider it to be at that level when there are serious questions about large chunk of spending and how the money is to be accepted by the regions. What a way to call me out, PS. What happened to doing things privately? :P I haven't been calm in about 2 years. I live a life of stress, I even have a stress related illness to prove it. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 08, 2009, 09:02:52 PM Geez guys, we have, what, two weeks until the end of the session? We will get this passed. Calm down and let's finish this on a high note. There are two pending amendments, with Marokai accepting afleitch's as friendly. That isn't a lot and we have plenty of time. I am calm :) I am just concerned we may be allocating $25bn for a tax cut on unemployment compensation that we already have , $20bn on funding for tertiary education that has already been secured through another act and we may be give 700 bucks to for those who switch to renewable sources when it's not clear what 'sources' we are counting. It's not you I'm worried about afleitch. We actually have until the first Friday in September to finish this, right? That's 3 or 4 weeks. I'm not sure why more amendments are suddenly scary. I will be voting for this bill and we will be passing this before the session ends, but I want this bill to be as good as possible. I don't consider it to be at that level when there are serious questions about large chunk of spending and how the money is to be accepted by the regions. What a way to call me out, PS. What happened to doing things privately? :P I haven't been calm in about 2 years. I live a life of stress, I even have a stress related illness to prove it. Just wanted to make sure afleitch doesn't think I'm calling him out. ;) But seriously guys, lets work on the remaining amendments and commit to getting a final vote by August 21st. We still have until September 4 before the new session starts, so that is plenty of time to both work on amendments and have a well placed final vote. Does that work for everyone? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 09, 2009, 06:35:25 PM Geez guys, we have, what, two weeks until the end of the session? We will get this passed. Calm down and let's finish this on a high note. There are two pending amendments, with Marokai accepting afleitch's as friendly. That isn't a lot and we have plenty of time. I am calm :) I am just concerned we may be allocating $25bn for a tax cut on unemployment compensation that we already have , $20bn on funding for tertiary education that has already been secured through another act and we may be give 700 bucks to for those who switch to renewable sources when it's not clear what 'sources' we are counting. It's not you I'm worried about afleitch. We actually have until the first Friday in September to finish this, right? That's 3 or 4 weeks. I'm not sure why more amendments are suddenly scary. I will be voting for this bill and we will be passing this before the session ends, but I want this bill to be as good as possible. I don't consider it to be at that level when there are serious questions about large chunk of spending and how the money is to be accepted by the regions. What a way to call me out, PS. What happened to doing things privately? :P I haven't been calm in about 2 years. I live a life of stress, I even have a stress related illness to prove it. Just wanted to make sure afleitch doesn't think I'm calling him out. ;) But seriously guys, lets work on the remaining amendments and commit to getting a final vote by August 21st. We still have until September 4 before the new session starts, so that is plenty of time to both work on amendments and have a well placed final vote. Does that work for everyone? Works for me. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on August 10, 2009, 07:40:28 AM I hereby open up a vote on this amendment. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote Section 6: Administration 1. Upon the event of a Region rejecting funds outlined under the 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act the federal government itself shall, where possible, conduct or fund infrastructure projects independent of the regional government, and distribute the rejected funds specifically for that region equally among the remaining regions. Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 10, 2009, 07:44:28 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Hash on August 10, 2009, 08:22:20 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on August 10, 2009, 10:26:30 AM Makes sense, Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: afleitch on August 10, 2009, 12:44:43 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MaxQue on August 10, 2009, 04:03:43 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Purple State on August 10, 2009, 06:55:23 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: Fritz on August 10, 2009, 09:04:49 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Amendment at Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on August 11, 2009, 07:03:56 AM With 8 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this amendment has passed.
I'll open up the next amendment vote tonight. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 12:13:15 PM I'm hoping to have a chance to defend my amendment before everyone just votes on it to get it done with.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 11, 2009, 04:22:04 PM Aye ftr
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 10:32:01 PM Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion?
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 11, 2009, 10:33:58 PM Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion? ..Why? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 10:42:20 PM Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion? ..Why? Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 10:43:33 PM Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion? ..Why? Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion? That is a false logic dichotomy. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 10:44:46 PM Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion? ..Why? Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion? Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 10:48:29 PM Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion? ..Why? Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion? Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid? That's not the point. Your logic goes that if I support $100 billion, might as well support $101 billion or $102 billion or $105 billion or $110 billion or $150 billion, etc. Unfortunately, without agencies or an active enough GM to provide exactly what amounts are needed for these things, it is up to the Senate to ballpark the figures. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 10:54:55 PM Could someone propose an amendment to raise 1a from $100 billion to $101 billion? ..Why? Why not? If $100 billion is necessary, why not $101 billion? Do you oppose giving an additional $1 billion toward Medicaid? That's not the point. Your logic goes that if I support $100 billion, might as well support $101 billion or $102 billion or $105 billion or $110 billion or $150 billion, etc. Unfortunately, without agencies or an active enough GM to provide exactly what amounts are needed for these things, it is up to the Senate to ballpark the figures. I don't see how that is not valid. Could it be that the Senate has not ballparked enough money toward Medicaid? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 10:56:56 PM Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 10:59:05 PM Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful. Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 11:02:27 PM Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful. Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful? Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise. This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 11, 2009, 11:03:20 PM This is a dumb argument. Honestly.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 11:06:35 PM Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful. Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful? Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise. This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do. Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 11:11:07 PM Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful. Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful? Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise. This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do. Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment? If a senator is willing to sponsor it as an amendment, that would indicate that there is not unanimous consensus among the senators at $100 billion and it would presumably be appropriate to vote on it. The other issue is that such things are, I believe, simply attempts to slow down and stall the process, which is unacceptable and should be dismissed by the PPT as an inappropriate amendment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 11:15:13 PM Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful. Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful? Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise. This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do. Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment? If a senator is willing to sponsor it as an amendment, that would indicate that there is not unanimous consensus among the senators at $100 billion and it would presumably be appropriate to vote on it. The other issue is that such things are, I believe, simply attempts to slow down and stall the process, which is unacceptable and should be dismissed by the PPT as an inappropriate amendment. So far only you and Marokai have commented on it. The whole Senate has not had the opportunity to see the amendment. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 11:19:54 PM Pending a statement from the GM saying otherwise, it cannot be assumed that $1 billion more is necessary or helpful. Then how can it be assumed that the initial $100 billion is necessary or helpful? Because that is what the Senate has deemed necessary and the GM has not indicated otherwise. This is why we need an active GM. Until numbers are provided by an authoritative source, it must be assumed that the numbers determined by the Senate are appropriate. Look at any other bill appropriating money for given purposes. Any number can be said to be arbitrary, but without additional information that is the best we can do. Except it was not Mthe Senate at large who decided on $100 billion but the bill's sponsor. Should it be fair for the Senate at large to be able to vote on the amendment? If a senator is willing to sponsor it as an amendment, that would indicate that there is not unanimous consensus among the senators at $100 billion and it would presumably be appropriate to vote on it. The other issue is that such things are, I believe, simply attempts to slow down and stall the process, which is unacceptable and should be dismissed by the PPT as an inappropriate amendment. So far only you and Marokai have commented on it. The whole Senate has not had the opportunity to see the amendment. I understand, but until now the change you propose has not even been mentioned, while many other changes to specific funding levels have been voted on, making me thing this is simply a way for you to stall a bill you don't support in the first place. I hope this is not the sort of thing we should expect if you are so lucky as to be elected to the Senate. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MaxQue on August 11, 2009, 11:40:01 PM Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 11:40:55 PM Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill. Should someone introduce an amendment to strike it or replace it with the current healthcare system? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: SPC on August 11, 2009, 11:42:29 PM I hope this is not the sort of thing we should expect if you are so lucky as to be elected to the Senate. How do you know that I was not genuinely concerned with Medicaid funding. Perhaps if I had not brought the issue up for debate, Maxque would not have noticed the section's flaw. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 11, 2009, 11:46:14 PM Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill. True, although it only phases it out slowly, while this is a short-term solution. But it is a good cocnern, so how about this amendment, offered as friendly: Quote Section 1, Clause a shall hereby read: "$100 billion for Medicaid or corresponding medical care programs for low-income individuals and families established under the Atlasian National Healthcare Act" Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 11, 2009, 11:51:47 PM Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill. True, although it only phases it out slowly, while this is a short-term solution. But it is a good cocnern, so how about this amendment, offered as friendly: Quote Section 1, Clause a shall hereby read: "$100 billion for Medicaid or corresponding medical care programs for low-income individuals and families established under the Atlasian National Healthcare Act" Accepted, though I doubt it will be a major problem either way, as the health care bill transfers everything from those programs to the new program. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on August 12, 2009, 07:03:29 AM Well PS wanted to defend it before it went to a vote. So defend it now before I open up the vote after work. :P
Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions shall have two months in which time they may vote, via representatives or public initiative, to accept or reject the funds provided herein. In the event that no such vote is held, the region shall be considered to have accepted the provisions of this Act in full." Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 12, 2009, 07:34:09 AM (Warning: The following post was made under extreme sleep deprivation and may be slightly rambling.) I find this amendment unnecessary and it sets a nasty precedent. By this logic we should now include clauses giving regions the option of holding an up or down vote on any spending bill, if not all legislation. We already have proposals that go through such a process; Constitutional amendments. And regions are more free to take legislation to court or act on their own. Encouraging regions to vote on every single piece of budgeting is not how you run a country. This amendment is useless and serves no purpose other than pro-regional showmanship and to give anarchists a chance to throw a cog in the wheels. Purple State's question earlier was something like "Could silence be taken as rejection of money?" Um.. No. That's not what happens with every piece of legislation and how every other system like this in the world governs as well. I can't imagine how anyone could think that question even needed to be asked. We implement a program, and it's run. We budget money to a goal, and it's sent out. In what world, and by what crooked interpretation, does not holding referendum over an issue imply rejection? We are representatives of the people and as such this amendment is, as I said unnecessary and just mind boggling as to why it was even presented. We do not govern by referenda here. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 12, 2009, 01:15:31 PM Thanks Jedi.
The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all? This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: tmthforu94 on August 12, 2009, 01:33:39 PM Thanks Jedi. The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all? This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned. So basically, we'd just be giving money to each region, which they get to decide how to spend? Personally, I think if the region is silent about it after 2 months, it should be stripped from the region, and distributed to the other 4 regions. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 12, 2009, 01:47:45 PM Thanks Jedi. The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all? This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned. So basically, we'd just be giving money to each region, which they get to decide how to spend? Personally, I think if the region is silent about it after 2 months, it should be stripped from the region, and distributed to the other 4 regions. No. There is money in the bill that gives the regions leeway in how to spend it. Also, some regions are simply not active enough to "accept" or "reject" the funding, so it is better that it just be considered accepted if a region does not act. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 12, 2009, 02:19:28 PM Thanks Jedi. The idea behind the amendment is the same as it was when this body passed the Help Atlasia Study Act. While certain money can be apportioned beyond the regions (such as Medicare), much funding is region specific, meaning it is up to the regional legislatures/people to choose if and how to spend the money. If we apportion the money to the regions, but the regions never act to use it, can we assume it was ever spent at all? This amendment fills that gap, saying that if they don't actively accept or reject it after two months, it is automatically accepted and apportioned. So basically, we'd just be giving money to each region, which they get to decide how to spend? Personally, I think if the region is silent about it after 2 months, it should be stripped from the region, and distributed to the other 4 regions. No. There is money in the bill that gives the regions leeway in how to spend it. Also, some regions are simply not active enough to "accept" or "reject" the funding, so it is better that it just be considered accepted if a region does not act. I would consider it most unusual for a region to reject 'free money' allocated to it by federal government; in rejecting it they do not gain anything in return as I am assuming funding is comeing from fairly uniform federal taxation. For example we do not say 'don't want $50bn?, here have a $50bn tax cut'; we simply claim it back and divide up amongst the rest. In a sense we aren't really giving regions a choice are we? They don't 'gain' anything by rejecting funding. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 12, 2009, 03:16:17 PM I agree with Marokai's argument here. What other bills has this Senate ever passed that required the individual approval of the regions? At the end of the day, the Senate has its spending domain and the regions have theirs; if a region believes that the Senate has overstepped their "spending domain" under the constitution with this bill, then they may bring their case to the courts.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 12, 2009, 05:28:26 PM I agree with President Lief, surprisingly. :)
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: afleitch on August 12, 2009, 05:38:33 PM I agree with President Lief, surprisingly. :) As do I. As I mentioned, there is nothing granted in 'return' (like lower taxes or a lower contribution to the 'federal pot') for a region rejecting all or some of the funding; so why would they? I think that makes the amendment unnecessary. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 12, 2009, 05:38:44 PM I would just like to point out that the Help Atlasia Study Act of 2009 did give the regions certain leeway in dispensing of funds. How about we bring the language of the amendment to this instead:
Quote Section 6 shall include the following as clause 2: "2. Regions may dispense funds alloted directly to them via contracts or separate legislation. Said distribution must abide by the broad specifications set forth in this Act." This lets the regions actually make the contracts that they are supposed to be able to, but makes sure that they don't take money for infrastructure and use it for other purposes. Is that better? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 12, 2009, 05:42:58 PM Why? Why is this necessary? You're not explaining why we need to give regions the say in where this money goes. This bill is very detailed and the money is going to very specific things, what "leeway" could they possibly need?
Besides, we're giving regions financial aid, which is general money to spend where necessary, which is enough leeway. Regions can hold this vote if they so desire, they don't need a clause in the bill to tell them to. And again, one bill giving regions some leeway in where to spend it is not the equivalent of giving regions the opportunity to reject it. I have no idea why you're pushing so hard to attach regional strings. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 12, 2009, 05:59:14 PM Alright, seeing as I'm unlikely to gain traction with this, I withdraw the amendment for the sake of letting this move forward in a timely fashion.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on August 12, 2009, 07:35:26 PM This is the last amendment then, debate:
Quote Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($256 billion) a. $100 billion for Medicaid b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50 c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits e. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers f. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments g. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs h. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding) i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 12, 2009, 07:36:32 PM Is that Afleitch's? I believe I accepted that, unless someone else objected and I didn't notice or he specifically laid it out for a vote.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on August 12, 2009, 07:56:47 PM Is that Afleitch's? I believe I accepted that, unless someone else objected and I didn't notice or he specifically laid it out for a vote. I missed that you accepted it as friendly so yeah, it's in there since I don't think anyone objected. So then, I'll give this until tomorrow morning for any other amendments. If not we can get a final vote started. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MaxQue on August 12, 2009, 08:55:28 PM Clause 1a has a real problem. Medicaid is abolished by the healthcare bill. True, although it only phases it out slowly, while this is a short-term solution. But it is a good cocnern, so how about this amendment, offered as friendly: Quote Section 1, Clause a shall hereby read: "$100 billion for Medicaid or corresponding medical care programs for low-income individuals and families established under the Atlasian National Healthcare Act" Accepted, though I doubt it will be a major problem either way, as the health care bill transfers everything from those programs to the new program. You forgot that friendly amendment, MasterJedi. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on August 12, 2009, 10:41:37 PM Could someone maybe summarize really shortly what has been going on here....? If it's not too much trouble....This thread is damn long.... :)
I don't need precise details... Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Purple State on August 12, 2009, 10:43:58 PM Could someone maybe summarize really shortly what has been going on here....? If it's not too much trouble....This thread is damn long.... :) I don't need precise details... We have a stimulus bill without Buy America, with about $1 trillion worth of funding, promoting shovel-ready projects, and possibly under threat that the Filthy South (they renamed?) won't accept some funding. It also promotes renewable energy reforms. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on August 12, 2009, 10:45:56 PM OK, thanks PS.
What happened to the auto industry? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 12, 2009, 10:47:43 PM OK, thanks PS. What happened to the auto industry? Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on August 12, 2009, 10:49:20 PM OK, thanks PS. What happened to the auto industry? Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low. So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture? Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 12, 2009, 10:51:07 PM OK, thanks PS. What happened to the auto industry? Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low. So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture? It is indeed. Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: Franzl on August 12, 2009, 10:53:00 PM OK, thanks PS. What happened to the auto industry? Increased the "emergency loans" as they were pitifully low. So I take it the nationalization is completely out of the picture? It is indeed. Alright, thanks! Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (Debating) Post by: MasterJedi on August 13, 2009, 07:09:56 AM I hereby open up a final vote on the bill below. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Quote Recognizing the strain that the economic downturn has put on Atlasian families and businesses, seeking to offer struggling Atlasians relief while investing in an economic recovery, the Senate of Atlasia authorizes the following: Section 1: Direct Aid to Struggling Atlasians ($254 billion) a. $100 billion for Medicaid or corresponding medical care programs for low-income individuals and families established under the Atlasian National Healthcare Act b. $70 billion to extend unemployment benefits for eighteen months, individual unemployment compensation checks will be increased by $50 c. $30 billion for a 25% increase in individual food stamp benefits d. $12 billion to increase the availability of Section 8 Housing Vouchers e. $10 billion to increase and extend welfare payments f. $10 billion to job training and disabled worker rehabilitation programs g. $2 billion for food program funding, including free school lunch programs, food banks, and meals programs for seniors (General food banks shall recieve priority funding) Section 2: Infrastructure Investment ($532.5 billion) a. $150 billion to be distributed to shovel ready highway, road, bridge construction/repair projects b. $20 billion for urban public transportation construction and repair projects c. $30 billion to immediately fund the 2009 High Speed Rail Act (FL 30-8) d. $30 billion to increase rural broadband coverage e. $30 billion for infrastructure repair and construction projects in the Social and Economic Development Zones enacted in FL 31-19 f. $30 billion to repair and modernize government facilities and buildings g. $30 billion to repair sewage lines and drinking water infrastructure. h. $10 billion to repair and modernize the power grid. i. $2 billion to replenish the federal "Crisis" program's funds. j. $100 billion to develop and implement alternative energy power sources and $50 billion for necessary power distribution grids. k. The office of Private Energy Investment Coordinator is established. The duties of this office include securing private capital to fund the projects in Clause i alongside the Gov't effort. Special attention is to be given to securing the investment necessary to build the power grid in clause i. The amount of private capital should in all cases be equal to the amount provided by the Gov't, except for the above power grid in which Private funing can equal as much as 55% of the total amount of funding private+public. l. $20 billion is to be distributed amongst the regions for the construction of additional public hospitals and clinics. m. $50 billion to repair, replace and modernize military equipment and facilities. n. State governments will be required to pave or re-gravel all township roads and re-pave all township roads that have not been paved since January 1, 1999 by December 31, 2014. $6.5 billion is allocated to each region for this effort n. All projects and purchased materials related to highway, road, and bridge construction or repair projects funded through this legislation are required to go through a competitive bidding process. Preference in bidding shall be given to companies that hire American workers for projects and are closest to the start of construction. Section 3: Aid to the Atlasian Auto Industry ($20 billion) a.) The corporate tax rate on automakers shall be reduced to 20% for a period of 2 years. b.) Atlasia shall provide $5 billion towards research for advanced fuel efficient vehicles, particularly hybrid cars. A special reseach group shall be appointed by the Senate to conduct the appropriate research in a professional and cost efficient manner. c.) Should GM, Ford or Chrysler be in imminent danger of liquidation within the next 2 years, an emergency government loan of up to $12 billion each shall be available upon consideration by the Senate. This emergency funding may only be used once by any single automaker. Section 4: Regional & Local Fiscal Relief ($150 billion) a. $100 billion in financial aid to the regions, to decrease and prevent budget cuts of essential services and layoffs or cutbacks of government workers (This financial relief will be prioritized to state governments on the basis of budget severity) b. $50 billion to aid school districts facing budget shortfalls, to prevent cutbacks or layoffs Section 5: Responsible Individual & Business Tax Relief ($42+ billion) a. $25 billion to exempt the first $5000 collected through unemployment compensation from taxation until December 31, 2010 b. $8 billion to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit c. $6 billion to provide a voluntary annual $700 tax credit to home-owners who make use of solar, wind, or hydroelectric sources of energy (To qualify for the tax credit, home-owners must have at least 25% of their electricity generated from the aforementioned sources.) d. $3 billion to provide an expanded sales tax deducation from automobile purchases from Atlasian automobile companies e. The business tax rate shall be reduced by 2% f. Individual businesses making $300,000 or less in total annual income shall be exempt from all business taxes for exactly one year after The 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act is made law. Section 6: Administration 1. Upon the event of a Region rejecting funds outlined under the 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Act the federal government itself shall, where possible, conduct or fund infrastructure projects independent of the regional government, and distribute the rejected funds specifically for that region equally among the remaining regions. Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (At Final Vote) Post by: Marokai Backbeat on August 13, 2009, 07:20:58 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (At Final Vote) Post by: Purple State on August 13, 2009, 08:16:32 AM Good morning to you too MJ. (8am vote ;) )
Aye Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (At Final Vote) Post by: Hash on August 13, 2009, 08:26:42 AM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (At Final Vote) Post by: tmthforu94 on August 13, 2009, 02:38:53 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (At Final Vote) Post by: MaxQue on August 13, 2009, 03:55:35 PM Aye
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (At Final Vote) Post by: MasterJedi on August 13, 2009, 04:07:54 PM With 6 Ayes, 0 Nays and 0 Abstentions this bill has passed. I hereby present it to the President for his signature.
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (On the President's Desk) Post by: Franzl on August 13, 2009, 04:16:41 PM Aye ftr
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (On the President's Desk) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 13, 2009, 04:56:15 PM Aye ftr
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (On the President's Desk) Post by: Lief 🗽 on August 13, 2009, 09:15:21 PM I'd like to thank the Senate for working so diligently and debating so passionately on this important piece of legislation. This bill will help the Atlasian economy and the Atlasian worker weather the worst of this recession and allow us to emerge from it stronger and more prosperous than before.
X Lief Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (On the President's Desk) Post by: afleitch on August 14, 2009, 03:39:45 AM Bloody hell that was quick! I was only on for a few minutes last night and I come back and find it all signed sealed and delivered :) Can I even do a FTR vote?
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (On the President's Desk) Post by: MaxQue on August 14, 2009, 03:42:40 AM Bloody hell that was quick! I was only on for a few minutes last night and I come back and find it all signed sealed and delivered :) Can I even do a FTR vote? Yes Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (On the President's Desk) Post by: Fritz on August 14, 2009, 07:08:50 AM Aye ftr
Title: Re: 2009 Atlasian Economic Relief and Recovery Bill (On the President's Desk) Post by: afleitch on August 14, 2009, 07:11:59 AM Aye ftr.
This bill is not perfect, this bill takes huge gambles with our money and I was on the fence through most of it; but there is a sense of where it is going and what is trying to achieve. There is also come micromanagement of the money. |