The Oregon Debates Pt. 1
Day 491, 08:18
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Hari Michaelson
---Letter-From-The-Editor---
I would like to shamelessly remind all of our readers in Delaware that I once walked across a lake to heal an injured swan, something that former Delaware Congressman Gates Schellinger can attest to.
-Editor-on-the-Edge-
Hari Michaelson
---
I was approached by Oregon candidates ssomo and CaptainCAPS to host a "debate" of sorts, asking each congressional candidate questions of my own devising. So far ssomo, CaptainCAPS, and ligtreb have given me responses, which I will share with the voting public (in alphabetical order no less).
Q1: What is your opinion of ATLANTIS as it currently stands, both in terms of an organized alliance and its utility to America? Do you feel the USA holds an obligation to assist other ATLANTIS membernations in wars of aggression?
CaptainCAPS: My opinion of ATLANTIS is that they are on a high horse. The charging America 900 gold to pay for a rule that America and two other ATLANTIS nations had broke was ridiculous. I would have only supported paying the fine if the nations that voted for the fine were revealed, and if the other nations that broke the same rule also got fined the same amount. But when we look at ATLANTIS and the fine fiasco we have to realize that only two of the voting nations voted to pass the fine, and ATLANTIS rules made it so an overwhelming majority was needed to ignore the fine once officially noticed. Also Sweden and the U.K gave The U.S back their share of the fine. We have Allys in ATLANTIS, but we also have two unknown jerks in the alliance. The alliances utility to America is basically a guarantee we won’t ever be taken over. Along with that, is some ATLANTIS help in the wars we get into. The taco bell wars are not a great example of this, but the wars in Eurasia are a great example of ATLANTIS aid. The U.S only has an obligation to help ATLANTIS as much as ATLANTIS has an obligation to help the U.S. If we never receive any aid, maybe it is time to make it an issue, and start boycotting support.
ligtreb: In my original platform, I supported staying in ATLANTIS (with attempts at revisions to the treaty), but as time passes, I'm becoming more open to leaving and forming a new alliance. I'd like to first see if we can change ATLANTIS to make it work better for us, but if that's not possible, we need a new alliance.
It's important to have allies and ATLANTIS provides the basic framework for a multi-nation alliance, making it preferable to something entirely new. But it needs changes, including lowering the 48-hour attack notice to 24 hours, and lowering the 4/5 requirement to a smaller fraction like 3/5 or 2/3.
The USA does not hold an obligation to assist other ATLANTIS members in wars of aggression, but it certainly can if it's in our interest to do so.
ssomo: I don’t know enough yet about Atlantis to have firm opinions, but here’s my thinking. Atlantis is too opaque & it doesn’t seem to function as an alliance. Its main utility seems to be defensive unity – which is all implemented by MPP outside of the Atlantis structure.I haven’t studied our obligations under Atlantis, but it’s a mistake to be a rubber stamp for anybody – especially for wars of aggression. It’d have to be addressed on a case by case basis.
---
Q2: The current PANEC tax plan is set to be evaluated on April 4th, meaning that whoever is elected tomorrow will be one of those to review it. Is there anything you feel that the current taxes do not address? If given the opportunity to make changes, is there anything you feel it would be prudent to implement?
CaptainCAPS: I feel the current taxes do not address a variety of issues. For example, import taxes on goods. I believe, that import taxes should, on a whole, be higher, and income taxes made lower. The exception to the rule is the Iron industry. As we have no high iron region the PANEC import tax on that as it currently is, 1%, is as good as its going to get. Also PANEC taxes on Hospitals and defense systems are WAYYY TOO high. Those building directly help the U.S gov. They should be income taxed at a lot lower of a rate, and import tax also raised. Just like we don’t buy tanks from china (in RL) we don’t buy defenses from Swaziland... Those are the changes i feel would be prudent to implement.
ligtreb: I don't currently see anything that PANEC fails to address. I don't want to promise or commit to any changes until the April 4th review date so we get a good sample size of data to see what the results are.
I have an open mind though, I'd be willing to either decrease or increase parts of the tax plan depending on what the needs are. I think PANEC is currently working better, as the cashflow is increasing and prices seem to be stabilizing.
ssomo: I am newly appointed to the Economic Council as of Mar 10. I don’t know what the current taxes address. We cannot assess PANEC without understanding the ebb & flow of tax money – how fast it comes in and where it is being spent. Sorry as it may be, we do not track that info now. And so, to properly assess PANEC, we need to have that data (duh) and that’s the first thing we need implement. The good news is that Ananias is the new chair of the EC, and he is very focused on doing exactly that. The other members are very smart guys. By April 4 we will have a much clearer picture of what’s been happening since PANEC passed. And due to Operation Taco Bell & other events…the data may not be pretty.
I would like to shamelessly remind all of our readers in Delaware that I once walked across a lake to heal an injured swan, something that former Delaware Congressman Gates Schellinger can attest to.
-Editor-on-the-Edge-
Hari Michaelson
---
I was approached by Oregon candidates ssomo and CaptainCAPS to host a "debate" of sorts, asking each congressional candidate questions of my own devising. So far ssomo, CaptainCAPS, and ligtreb have given me responses, which I will share with the voting public (in alphabetical order no less).
Q1: What is your opinion of ATLANTIS as it currently stands, both in terms of an organized alliance and its utility to America? Do you feel the USA holds an obligation to assist other ATLANTIS membernations in wars of aggression?
CaptainCAPS: My opinion of ATLANTIS is that they are on a high horse. The charging America 900 gold to pay for a rule that America and two other ATLANTIS nations had broke was ridiculous. I would have only supported paying the fine if the nations that voted for the fine were revealed, and if the other nations that broke the same rule also got fined the same amount. But when we look at ATLANTIS and the fine fiasco we have to realize that only two of the voting nations voted to pass the fine, and ATLANTIS rules made it so an overwhelming majority was needed to ignore the fine once officially noticed. Also Sweden and the U.K gave The U.S back their share of the fine. We have Allys in ATLANTIS, but we also have two unknown jerks in the alliance. The alliances utility to America is basically a guarantee we won’t ever be taken over. Along with that, is some ATLANTIS help in the wars we get into. The taco bell wars are not a great example of this, but the wars in Eurasia are a great example of ATLANTIS aid. The U.S only has an obligation to help ATLANTIS as much as ATLANTIS has an obligation to help the U.S. If we never receive any aid, maybe it is time to make it an issue, and start boycotting support.
ligtreb: In my original platform, I supported staying in ATLANTIS (with attempts at revisions to the treaty), but as time passes, I'm becoming more open to leaving and forming a new alliance. I'd like to first see if we can change ATLANTIS to make it work better for us, but if that's not possible, we need a new alliance.
It's important to have allies and ATLANTIS provides the basic framework for a multi-nation alliance, making it preferable to something entirely new. But it needs changes, including lowering the 48-hour attack notice to 24 hours, and lowering the 4/5 requirement to a smaller fraction like 3/5 or 2/3.
The USA does not hold an obligation to assist other ATLANTIS members in wars of aggression, but it certainly can if it's in our interest to do so.
ssomo: I don’t know enough yet about Atlantis to have firm opinions, but here’s my thinking. Atlantis is too opaque & it doesn’t seem to function as an alliance. Its main utility seems to be defensive unity – which is all implemented by MPP outside of the Atlantis structure.I haven’t studied our obligations under Atlantis, but it’s a mistake to be a rubber stamp for anybody – especially for wars of aggression. It’d have to be addressed on a case by case basis.
---
Q2: The current PANEC tax plan is set to be evaluated on April 4th, meaning that whoever is elected tomorrow will be one of those to review it. Is there anything you feel that the current taxes do not address? If given the opportunity to make changes, is there anything you feel it would be prudent to implement?
CaptainCAPS: I feel the current taxes do not address a variety of issues. For example, import taxes on goods. I believe, that import taxes should, on a whole, be higher, and income taxes made lower. The exception to the rule is the Iron industry. As we have no high iron region the PANEC import tax on that as it currently is, 1%, is as good as its going to get. Also PANEC taxes on Hospitals and defense systems are WAYYY TOO high. Those building directly help the U.S gov. They should be income taxed at a lot lower of a rate, and import tax also raised. Just like we don’t buy tanks from china (in RL) we don’t buy defenses from Swaziland... Those are the changes i feel would be prudent to implement.
ligtreb: I don't currently see anything that PANEC fails to address. I don't want to promise or commit to any changes until the April 4th review date so we get a good sample size of data to see what the results are.
I have an open mind though, I'd be willing to either decrease or increase parts of the tax plan depending on what the needs are. I think PANEC is currently working better, as the cashflow is increasing and prices seem to be stabilizing.
ssomo: I am newly appointed to the Economic Council as of Mar 10. I don’t know what the current taxes address. We cannot assess PANEC without understanding the ebb & flow of tax money – how fast it comes in and where it is being spent. Sorry as it may be, we do not track that info now. And so, to properly assess PANEC, we need to have that data (duh) and that’s the first thing we need implement. The good news is that Ananias is the new chair of the EC, and he is very focused on doing exactly that. The other members are very smart guys. By April 4 we will have a much clearer picture of what’s been happening since PANEC passed. And due to Operation Taco Bell & other events…the data may not be pretty.
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Thanks for printing this Hari. You're the king!
Also thanks to CaptainCAPS for suggesting this & doing all the legwork.
Both CaptainCAPS and ligtreb are class guys, and if I lose to either of them eOregon will be well served in Congress.
Hey ssomo, I was just about to PM you.
I highly suggest ya'll try and print articles about these later in the day, just to make sure people who log on later don't miss out.
Voted, thanks for hosting Hari. This is awesome, and I will definitely print an article linking to this.
And ssomo, thanks for the kind words. Obviously, I hope I win, but I'm also confident that if you or CaptainCAPS win, eOregon will still be well-represented.
You guys are way too civil. This is so not RL. All you guys talk about are "issues". Where are the gutter personal attacks? Where are the "have you stopped beating your wife questions?"
We're Americans-- we want dirt!
I did that Jon. These guys did nothing but kill me with classiness in return. They get props from me from now on (dang it).