We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Balanced Budget Amendment
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2044
Description[?]:
| This bill would seek to fix government fiscal policy to maintain a balanced budget. The governemnt shall not be allowed to hold more than 2% of revenues as debt at any given time. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:27:44, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | You are voting on whether we shall roleplay this item of fiscal policy. If passed, you will be bound to explain you propose to pay for all spending including tax cuts or social entitlements. |
| Date | 10:12:24, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | We don't believe that such a figure is sustainable over a long period of time., particularly during a recession. |
| Date | 18:50:22, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | This is no real problem. Once we set aside a rainy day fund, that can be tapped into during a recession. Otherwise taxes can be raised or spending cut. However, I am open to other suggestions as well. |
| Date | 01:53:02, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | This should definitely be set into play. The problem, of course, is that such a policy is militanty anti-socialist. That doesn't mean social programs can't be enacted, but it means they must be in moderation and watched carefully to maintain efficiency and prevent corruption - perfect. |
| Date | 02:16:35, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | It also means that a large military is unsustainable throught a whole economic cycle. |
| Date | 09:08:04, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | No any type of fiscal change -tax cuts...or spending bills would have to be explained - in the sense of where the money would come from....so it not an anti left bill or anti right bill... |
| Date | 16:17:07, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | Welfare would be untenable. Military expenses would be unexplainable. Corporate welfare would look even stupider than it already does. We NEED this in place. |
| Date | 17:17:25, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | I'm suprised I thought this bill would have more support- it isn't biased against anybody in particular. |
| Date | 17:20:31, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | Well all you'll have to say is hey i'm going to tax more for such and such a thing...or i'm going to borrow to fund tax cuts...and then we'll vote on whether we will raise the finances...or not. |
| Date | 20:45:34, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | Why is there such widespread dislike of this bill? All it assures is that our government won't kill itself with debt like many do. There's no point in ANY program if it can't be funded properly. |
| Date | 21:41:31, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | We feel that we should not tie future governments into a very tight monetarist policy that would preclude use of public funds during a recesion or disaster. Also we feel that 2% is an unachievable target. |
| Date | 22:22:35, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | Like I said we can leave enough room by creating a separate area for discretionary spending. That can be used in short term fiscal policy. |
| Date | 00:45:54, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | Why should a government ever run into debt? We shouldn't aim for 2% debt, we should aim to be running surplus constantly - THAT would give even more room for maneuvering in disasters and recessions. |
| Date | 08:57:06, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Balanced Budget Amendment | | Message | Sometimes debt is used as a way of carrying an economy through a recession, or to pay for large militaries or simply because the economy shrinks faster than government spending. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 88 |
| no | Total Seats: 79 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy is completely free! If you want to support the game financially, feel free to make a small donation to the lievenswouter@gmail.com Paypal account. |
| Random quote: "The great economic, social and political scientist, Karlstein Metz, accurately predicted over 2,500 years ago that capitalism is doomed to destruction by its inherent weaknesses and contradictions, and must inevitably be replaced by a communist form of social, political and economic organisation." - Friedrich Pfeiffer, former Dorvish politician |