Advertisement
by Knootoss » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:05 pm
by Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:06 pm
Knootoss wrote:Nothing stops nations from donating to the fund voluntarily, I suppose. But a replacement would certainly need to be passed in the medium- to long term.
by Knootoss » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:07 pm
by Sanctaria » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:12 pm
Knootoss wrote:You cannot amend a resolution that has been repealed.
by Ossitania » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:13 pm
Knootoss wrote:Nothing stops nations from donating to the fund voluntarily, I suppose. But a replacement would certainly need to be passed in the medium- to long term.
by Knootoss » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:17 pm
by Astrolinium » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:20 pm
by Ossitania » Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:24 pm
Knootoss wrote:Adding new functions to committees is always a possibility. A revenue resolution would be "new" if the old revenue resolution is gone.
by Bears Armed » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:27 am
Knootoss wrote:Or does Mr. Castro honestly believe that only Kennyite duplicity could possibly ensure a majority for the WA spending money on things?
by Unibot II » Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:41 am
Vocenae wrote:Unibot, you have won NS.
General Halcones wrote:Look up to Unibot as an example.
by Knootoss » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:21 pm
Glen-Rhodes wrote:our offer, I will take it up. I have real-life engagements this week, though, including possibly heading back to my university to see the President give a speech on energy. I don't know when I'll be able to offer a replacement. But it will probably be before the week is over.
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:37 am
Knootoss wrote:BELIEVES that the World Assembly should not spend money without a fair, honest and transparent debate about funding for its expenditures;
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Knootoss » Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:03 am
by Cinistra » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:38 am
Glen-Rhodes wrote:If you have a replacement, please make it public, so that we can judge whether or not it's even likely to pass. Glen-Rhodes isn't going to vote to strip the World Assembly of its progressive funding mechanism, only to end up in a situation where no other mechanism is ever passed. So many resolutions depend upon the General Fund. We've used it to remove the necessity of spending half our resolution text on determining how something should be funded. If the replacement is not viable, then how do you suppose these things will be funded?
- Dr. B. Castro
by Merfurian » Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:47 am
by Knootoss » Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:05 pm
by Retired WerePenguins » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:00 pm
by Astrolinium » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:10 pm
Retired WerePenguins wrote:Ladies and gentlemen. I have to admit that I am of a mixed mind about this repeal. I find the objections of those who are against this repeal bordering on the moronic. “Oh my,” I hear, “how shall we fund this?” Bah humbug! Let us consider the possible implications should this be repealed.
- Direct taxes upon WA citizens is no longer prohibited.
- Allows the WA to either operate as a for profit or through deficit spending.
- Allows the creation of minor funds that can either operate with a profit or through deficit spending.
Yes I hate funding as much as the next person. Voluntary contributions sound nice but I fear that voluntary contributors will place strings on all their donations. The problem is not the fund; the problem is that we recklessly create needless committees that need to be funded. The committees will grow multiply and consume more and more resources. Such is the fate of all progressive utopian organizations and the WA is no different from all the other failed states in the history of the Multiverse.
You know, now that I think of it. Allowing the WA to run as a for profit organization might be a good thing. We could all get dividends at the end of the fiscal year. We could fund the WA by slapping protective tariffs on all non WA member nations. Yes, It's so evil that it would work!
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:18 am
Knootoss wrote:Becausepublic spending without fairness, transparency and honesty is prone to corruption and bereft of responsibility.
The fact that several authors who are keen on big spending resolutions are outright stating that they like the fact that WA General Fund cheats the voters out of their money is deeply disturbing.
Astrolinium wrote:Retired WerePenguins wrote:You know, now that I think of it. Allowing the WA to run as a for profit organization might be a good thing. We could all get dividends at the end of the fiscal year. We could fund the WA by slapping protective tariffs on all non WA member nations. Yes, It's so evil that it would work!
I like the way you think, ambassador. Direct taxation? Protective tariffs? Dividends? It's an IntFed's wet dream! I change my position to "FOR".
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Ossitania » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:12 am
by Southern Patriots » Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:23 am
Merfurian wrote:Do you not realise that the General Fund is the mechanism by which we are all paid to do this job?
Panzerjaeger wrote:Why would Cleopatra have cornrows? She is from Egypt not the goddamn Bronx.
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:25 am
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:31 am
by Ossitania » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:36 am
Knootoss wrote:I disagree with the Ossitanian assessment that repealing a resolution would somehow amend existing resolutions. The only way that was possible is if all these existing resolutions were amendments to the General Fund in the first place, in which case they should have been removed for duplication. If the Ossitanian line of reasoning made its way into a campaign I would dismiss it, in strong terms, as baseless scaremongering.
by Knootoss » Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:44 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Mechanocracy
Advertisement