Mideast Discussion: Mideastern Budget Amendment

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'll have to oppose this. A supermajority requirement for budget issues is a problem.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Franzl and Senator Ben, and they've already articulated the main reasons I oppose this bill.  However, if Speaker Inks would like me to give my own additional reason, I'm happy to oblige him have an additional reason as well.  There have been attempts to compromise.  First it was 125% and then it got reduced all the way to 110%.  I suggested splitting the difference at 117% (in the interest of compromise).  That was rejected and I don't think it's wise to reward the supporters of a bill that I already think is a bad idea for refusing to compromise and taking a "my way or the high way" approach (which has been taken by certain, though not all, supporters of the bill).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As a compromise, what if we raise the limit to 115% or 120%? Not quite as much as what the Left wants (125%) but still ok and maybe able to swing a few votes.

115% would be fine with me, although 110% would be preferable.

I'd definitely support 120%, or even 117%. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As a compromise, what if we raise the limit to 115% or 120%? Not quite as much as what the Left wants (125%) but still ok and maybe able to swing a few votes.

115% would be fine with me, although 110% would be preferable.

I'd definitely support 120%, or even 117%. 

I figured 115% would be OK with you since you once proposed 113%.

I didn't propose it, you did and I made a one-time offer in the spirit of compromise and as a good-will gesture (although I admittedly could've been more clear that it was a one-time only offer).  It was rejected, so here we are

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

115% is a clean-looking and decent compromise. I wouldn't support 120%, and 117% would get my very reluctant support.

I proposed 117% because 117.5% is splitting the difference between 125% and 110%.  That seems fair to me.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This thread reads sort of like an auction.

Do all of you really care whether it's 110%, 113%, or 117%!?

I think you've all been watching too much Pawn Stars

You win.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This thread reads sort of like an auction.

Do all of you really care whether it's 110%, 113%, or 117%!?

I think you've all been watching too much Pawn Stars

Thank you.

Of course, this just as easily applies to you Governor

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This thread reads sort of like an auction.

Do all of you really care whether it's 110%, 113%, or 117%!?

I think you've all been watching too much Pawn Stars

Thank you.

Of course, this just as easily applies to you Tmth

I was fine with 110%. I then proposed 115% to try to put this all to rest, since 3% lower was just too much for you to bear. I'm not the one waffling between 113% or 117% or 150% etc. etc. - I think this whole thing is completely petty and ridiculous.

I'm not waffling on anything and you know it  And people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, either neither side is being petty and ridiculous or both are.  117% is a fair compromise.  

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

This thread reads sort of like an auction.

Do all of you really care whether it's 110%, 113%, or 117%!?

I think you've all been watching too much Pawn Stars

Thank you.

Of course, this just as easily applies to you Tmth

I was fine with 110%. I then proposed 115% to try to put this all to rest, since 3% lower was just too much for you to bear. I'm not the one waffling between 113% or 117% or 150% etc. etc. - I think this whole thing is completely petty and ridiculous.

I'm not waffling on anything and you know it  And people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, either neither side is being petty and ridiculous or both are.  117% is a fair compromise.  

You were ok with 113%, and I've agreed to go as high as 115% (from my ideal 100%).  Any higher above 115% and I vote NAY.

"Ok with 113%" is not an accurate description.  I made a one time only offer and Tmth rejected it.  If he doesn't like how that turned out then that's on him, not me.  If 110% didn't pass, there's no way 100% would.  117% is fair, and I see no reason for a debt ceiling and will vote against any bill which writes a fixed debt limit (i.e. an actual dollar amount) into the Constitution.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It's completely absurd that people are willing to vote against an amendment over a 2% difference, especially when before, they supported a number that was even lower.

And yes, "ok" is an accurate description, as you wouldn't have made the offer if you weren't personally "ok" with it. You can't just go back now and say "Oh, well even though I proposed 113%, I didn't actually support it." That just doesn't make sense.

And I don't follow your argument at all on the fact that 100% wouldn't pass so because of that, the compromise has to be between 110% and 125%. 125% also probably wouldn't pass because too many conservatives would think they're giving up too much. A compromise is when you take both sides interests and find common ground. The right wanted completely balanced, and the left has been lobbying for 125%. By that regards, 115% is actually more favorable to the left than the right.

I am asking for 117% NOT 125% precisely because a compromise is when you find common ground.  Split the difference, it's simple math.  And with all due respect, kindly stop misrepresenting what I said.  I didn't want to be so blunt about it and I really don't like to accuse about this stuff, but I've explained repeatedly what I meant and you're just ignoring it.  And if saying a one-time only offer is...well...one-time only is waffling, what do you call you switching from 125% to 110%?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Actually 110% was the number Inks and I came up with, but I honestly don't care about the final percentage now, as long as we don't go over 125%. I will not support a version without a debt ceiling either.

Despite my earlier opposition to any debt ceiling, in the interest of compromise and actually getting something done, let's try to find common ground here.  Make me an offer I can't refuse   Note: Tmth, this is not waffling, this is compromising in the interest of getting something done.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

The (very concise) reason I want I debt ceiling is to prevent 115% budgets year after year. I've elaborated before, and I'll do so again if you don't remember, Senator X.

I agree we need to reach a compromise here, but a debt ceiling is vital for me.

Okay, but what number would the debt ceiling be.  That's what I mean, make me an offer Assemblyman Texasdem

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Had I known there'd be this much bickering I'd have voted for the original

Since some don't seem too interested in finding a reasonable compromise on the %, maybe we should just do a re-vote on 110%.

I love how you post this right as an actual compromise is being negotiated

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

What do you think of my idea, Senator X?

Make it $85 billion and I'll take that deal.