Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Emsworth]

Most of the states in District 1 may enjoy higher than average state per capita personal incomes, most of mine don't. All of the states you represent bar Maine (34) is in the national top 25. In District 4, only Virginia makes the top 10 and Florida just scrapes in the top 25 (at 24), while Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi are in the bottom 10

The defense and its related industries are major employers in my neck of the woods- and I 'd say it's pretty important in parts of yours too. Connecticut, Maryland and Massachusetts just might be able to cushion the negative impact of defense cuts, but I don't think most of the states I represent could

I'm thinking of the little guy who works hard to support his family, here

'Hawk'

The sole purpose of the military is to defend the country. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to suggest that there is any legitimate reason for training men to kill, and for building weapons that can destroy lives and property, aside from the defense of the republic. The slippery slope begins with the argument that the military should be funded not for reasons of national defense, but for economic causes. Once this argument is accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step, and conclude that we should not only build up a military, but also go to war, for economic reasons.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this line of reasoning in 1961. Days before leaving office, he said:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Forty-five years later, we should continue to pay heed to Eisenhower's warning. Once we start down the road of military buildup for reasons entirely unrelated to defense, it is difficult to stop.

[Democratic Hawk]

The sole purpose of the military is to defend the country. In my opinion, it is inappropriate to suggest that there is any legitimate reason for training men to kill, and for building weapons that can destroy lives and property, aside from the defense of the republic. The slippery slope begins with the argument that the military should be funded not for reasons of national defense, but for economic causes. Once this argument is accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step, and conclude that we should not only build up a military, but also go to war, for economic reasons.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against this line of reasoning in 1961. Days before leaving office, he said:

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society."

Forty-five years later, we should continue to pay heed to Eisenhower's warning. Once we start down the road of military buildup for reasons entirely unrelated to defense, it is difficult to stop.

The national security and defense of the nation is of paramount importance to me. The fact of the matter is the defense sector is a major employer, upon which the livelihoods of thousands, if not millions, of Atlasians, ultimately, depend. Atlasia's military muscle sits at the very heart of what it means to be a great nation. And yes, I will do whatever I can to safeguard the national interest and the living standards of hard working Atlasians

As I've pointed out major defense cuts could potentially lead to unacceptable increases in spending elsewhere. Money spent on defense is money well spent, money spent on welfare is a tragic waste of human potential but, as long it's necessary, to protect those who are unable to provide for themselves, then we must

Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Major defense cuts could exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is. I dread to think the socio-economic trauma major cuts would cause for, potentially, thousands of families, whose livelihoods depend on the defense sector

I'm not proposing to increase defense spending and, at this point in time, I've no intention of doing so. If the circumstances ever warrant it (i.e the defense and national security of our nation), it's something the Senate would need to consider

On this matter, you and I can respectfully agree to differ

'Hawk'

[Emsworth]

Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Defense cuts would exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree with this line of reasoning. The federal government should not legislate in the interests of one district or another; no part of the country is entitled to special treatment. I do not mean to suggest that you should ignore the interests of your constituents. I am only saying that the fact that District 4 might suffer should be weighed against the benefits that the whole nation will receive.

If we need weapons, then, by all means, we should build them. However, I do not think that it makes sense to acquire arms that we do not need, merely to keep someone employed. The military is not a source of employment; it exists only to defend the country.

This line of reasoning could be used whenever any budget cut is proposed. It must be admitted, of course, that all budget cuts will somehow affect the jobs of some individuals, perhaps the jobs of many individuals. But that alone cannot, in my opinion, be an argument against making the cut. Unless we make difficult choices now, we will have to make even more difficult choices later, when the budget deficit is even higher.

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

[Democratic Hawk]

Parts of District 4 lag behind many parts of Atlasia, economically. It's gone on for far too long. Defense cuts would exacerbate what is far from the optimum situation as it is.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree with this line of reasoning. The federal government should not legislate in the interests of one district or another; no part of the country is entitled to special treatment. I do not mean to suggest that you should ignore the interests of your constituents. I am only saying that the fact that District 4 might suffer should be weighed against the benefits that the whole nation will receive.

I'm not asking that the federal government legislate in the interests of one district or another. The defense and national security of the nation is what, some might argue, the primary role of the federal government. I ran as a 'defense' candidate, after all. I intend to my true to those convictions

What I am prepared to do is work with fellow Senators to do whatever we can to diversify, significantly defense-reliant, local economies Defense cuts, if necessary, might not be quite such a blow if alternative employment opportunities were available. As things stand, I think large scale defense cuts would have a disproportionately negative impact on most states in District 4 and I'd like to think cuts could be proportional or relative to the state's economic strength were they to be made

As it happpens, I don't think cuts beyond 1.4% (or up to 2.5% max.) is a feasible option. Not at the moment anyway. Still, I see no reason why we can't start preparing for what may be the inevitable and seeking to diverisfy local defense-based economies would be a start. I see a role regions could play in that

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

[jokerman]

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

Agreed.  We slash spending heavily we will choke our economy and cut off our tax base, thus deapening the problem of the deficit.

[WMS]

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

Furthermore, why are all of Senator Texasgurl's proposed cuts coming out of the military budget? I find this...targeting...of one particular department to be a bit suspicious in all honesty.

[The Dowager Mod]

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

Furthermore, why are all of Senator Texasgurl's proposed cuts coming out of the military budget? I find this...targeting...of one particular department to be a bit suspicious in all honesty.

Why not just have the balls to ask me instead of speculating.

[WMS]

For these reasons, I would fully support Senator TexasGurl's plan to reduce defense funding. A great bulk of defense spending is pork; I fear that the suggested reduction of 10% may not go far enough.

Cuts of that scale are born-out of isolationist dogma. $95bn (10% plus that cut from the legislation she sought to repeal). Might as well just add it to the welfare pot because it's going to need it. I can'tsee  Atlasia being better off from either a defense/national security standpoint or a socio-economic standpoint

For a progressive Senator, to propose cuts which could potentially generate a higher level of unemployment and worse still destroy communities, just dismays me unutterably

'Hawk'

Furthermore, why are all of Senator Texasgurl's proposed cuts coming out of the military budget? I find this...targeting...of one particular department to be a bit suspicious in all honesty.

Why not just have the balls to ask me instead of speculating.

My, haven't we been hostile lately...

OK then, I was being polite, but: I think all your talk of balancing the budget is a smokescreen for a leftist attempt to gut the military. Why else would you only target one department?

[The Dowager Mod]

Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

[WMS]

Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

*whispers* Just having some In-Character Fun

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program.

[Bono]

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program.

Typical neocon, throwing our defensive capability out the window.

I guess it's more important to be capable to wipe out several dictators with funny hats at the same time than to protect american soil.

[WMS]

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program.

Typical neocon, throwing our defensive capability out the window.

I guess it's more important to be capable to wipe out several dictators with funny hats at the same time than to protect american soil.

There's no pleasing some people

[The Dowager Mod]

We need at the very least a 5% cut in defense spending, Which would be fairly easy if the military quit spending 500 bux for toilet seats.

[Democratic Hawk]

We need at the very least a 5% cut in defense spending, Which would be fairly easy if the military quit spending 500 bux for toilet seats.

$500 for a toilet seat? Is it gold-plated like? They had better have "Made in Atlasia" written on em

'Hawk'

[Democratic Hawk]

Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

*whispers* Just having some In-Character Fun

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program.

I'll need to review that proposal on its own merits, once it reaches the floor of the Senate, and if it's not in Atlasia's interests to cut it, then I'll oppose it

'Hawk'

[WMS]

Because it is the only department left that hasn't been cut.

*whispers* Just having some In-Character Fun

OK, fair enough. I'm willing to look at cutting the Missile Initiative program.

I'll need to review that proposal on its own merits, once it reaches the floor of the Senate, and if it's not in Atlasia's interests to cut it, then I'll oppose it

'Hawk'

Fair enough.

And after having looked back on the original debate I still stand behind the creation of the two divisions, especially the pay raise I got put in there after PM-ing with John Ford. I'm willing to look at other parts of the military budget, but I won't vote to cut troop levels.

Oh, for Bono, on the creation of the first military division:

I vote YEA, for the record.

[Q]

Would it be possible for the Senate to pass legislation instructing the Governors to conduct redistricting in a certain manner, or would a resolution recommending such be the best this body could do?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof.  About the only thing the Senate could do to reform the redistricting process by law would be to move the census date a bit earlier so as gve the Governors a bit more time to cogitate if they need it.  They cranked out a plan reasonably fast this time (Too fast some might say.) but we have more leisurely conclaves of the Governors.

[Emsworth]

My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof. 

I would have to agree that the ability of the Governors to make the ultimate decision cannot be regulated by the Senate. However, it can be argued the necessary and proper clause empowers the Senate to regulate the manner in which that decision is reached. For example, the Senate would be able to set a deadline for the submission of proposed maps, limit the number of maps each Governor may submit, or determine what voting system shall be used.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My reading of Article IV Section 4 makes it reasonably clear that the Senate controls the Census and the Governors control tthe redistricting thereof. 

I would have to agree that the ability of the Governors to make the ultimate decision cannot be regulated by the Senate. However, it can be argued the necessary and proper clause empowers the Senate to regulate the manner in which that decision is reached. For example, the Senate would be able to set a deadline for the submission of proposed maps, limit the number of maps each Governor may submit, or determine what voting system shall be used.

I'd have to disagree with that.  For better or worse redistricting is located in Article IV which is dealing with the Regional governments and not " the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or ... any department or officer thereof".  Furthermore, if one were to make that argument, it would render superfluous the language in Article IV Section 4 Clause 2 that give the Senate the power to regulate the conducting of the census.

Even if one were to accept that the Senate could tell the Governors what to do in this limited context, I fail to see how the Senate could enforce that law.  To be homest I see that as a bit of a weakness in our system, but not a critical one.

[Emsworth]

I'd have to disagree with that.  For better or worse redistricting is located in Article IV which is dealing with the Regional governments and not " the government of the Republic of Atlasia, or ... any department or officer thereof".

It could be argued that the Governors are acting on behalf of the Republic of Atlasia when redistricting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A lot of explicit powers are superfluous, as they would be covered by the necessary and proper clause. For instance, the necessary and proper clause together with the power to "provide for the common defense of the Republic of Atlasia" would render a lot of the military-related powers superfluous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like the Constitution, all fantasy laws, and all fantasy judicial decisions, it would depend upon the good faith of the officers in question. None of our laws can really be "enforced."

[Peter]

Dear Vice President Q and Senator MasterJedi, PPT

As you know, the territory of Puerto Rico is caught amid a storm of cotroversy at present and in particular has demanded Regionhood. Whilst the Senate has no power to grant Regionhood, it has been suggested by some that Puerto Rico might be granted Statehood and legislation has been introduced to this effect.

Whilst I have grave concerns about the legislation as submitted, it is correct that this legislation be considered as soon as possible. Whilst all five debate slots are presently occupied, three pieces of legislation are presently at their final vote and a slot will likely open within the next 48 hours. When this occurs I urge you to use your power as enumerated in Article VII, Section 1 of the OSPR to bring this legislation to our immediate consideration.

Regards,

Peter

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The State Department backs what Senator Bell just said.

[MasterJedi]

I've posted to bump it up and now Q just have to agree with it and it'll be next to come up.