Break the Chains Act (Take 2) [LAW'D]

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

NAY

[Franzl]

Nay

[Bacon King]

Abstain

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

NAy

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[k-onmmunist]

The DoI opposes the amendment as it feels that even a chain of 15-39 needs to be expected to pay more.

[Badger]

AYE.

[Bacon King]

2 ayes, 4 nays, 1 abstention, 3 left to vote...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Bacon King]

With five nays and an abstention the amendment has failed.

[Bacon King]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Senators, we are now voting on the following amendment. Please vote aye, nay or abstain.

[Bacon King]

Aye, I suppose.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh c'mon, does Badger ever give up trying to destroy this bill? Talk about obstructionism...

Senator Badger has never given a compelling reason to support this sort of thing, and I've thoroughly demolished his attempts to do so earlier by making a disingenuous comparison to the personal income tax. All this amendment would do is substantially weaken an already weakened-bill, while creating a lot more work for accountants and bureaucrats, plus a lot more dead trees.


A resounding NAY!

[Franzl]

Aye

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Nay.

[Badger]

Oh c'mon, does Badger ever give up trying to destroy this bill? Talk about obstructionism...

Senator Badger has never given a compelling reason to support this sort of thing, and I've thoroughly demolished his attempts to do so earlier by making a disingenuous comparison to the personal income tax. All this amendment would do is substantially weaken an already weakened-bill, while creating a lot more work for accountants and bureaucrats, plus a lot more dead trees.


A resounding NAY!

Oh Libertas.

My "obstructionist" measures have helped to take what was intially (in Take 1) a bill opposed by a vast majority of the Senate and transform it into one that has already passed once, and may likely do so again if this amendment is approved. For that matter isn't it a bit disingenuous for you to level accusations of "obstructionism"? When the Take 1 version of this bill only needed modifications making it quite similar to this current proposal in order to earn Purple State's signature, you instead withdrew the bill altogether.

Frankly, Senator, I've worked hard to save this measure, not destroy it. This crucial amendment is part of that process.
Now back to the bill itself. The "lot more work for accountants and bureaucrats" claimed here is based on the preposterous misconception that businesses don't already know two simple pieces of readily available information:

1) The order in which their stores were opened; and
2) The annual profit of each store.

Rhetoric aside, can anyone specifically explain how any business with at least 15 stores wouldn't already know this (or at worst, figure it out within minutes)? The owner of a smaller chain could probably tell the order of the last several stores they opened off the top of their head. As for larger chains, even I was able to get that information for Wal-Mart in a minute on-line!

http://www.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/data/WalMart/store_openings.csv
http://www.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/data/WalMart/store_openings.html

Again, stores already know this stuff. As for store profits, does anyone really believe that any business (or at least one successful enough to expand to at least 15 stores) doesn't already watch their profits from each store like a hawk to stay competitive and respond to changes in demand? Most probably closely record weekly store profits, let alone annual profits. That's Business Management 101.

Sweeping inaccurate generalizations about "increased bureaucracy" are entertaining, but in reality this amendment keeps imposition of taxes under this measure simple, makes assessment of such tax rates infinitely fairer, and doesn't create artificial "lines in the sand" against economic growth.

Accordingly, I vote: AYE.

[Bacon King]

three ayes, two nays.

[Hans-im-Glück]

AYE

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Oh c'mon, does Badger ever give up trying to destroy this bill? Talk about obstructionism...

Senator Badger has never given a compelling reason to support this sort of thing, and I've thoroughly demolished his attempts to do so earlier by making a disingenuous comparison to the personal income tax. All this amendment would do is substantially weaken an already weakened-bill, while creating a lot more work for accountants and bureaucrats, plus a lot more dead trees.


A resounding NAY!

Oh Libertas.

My "obstructionist" measures have helped to take what was intially (in Take 1) a bill opposed by a vast majority of the Senate and transform it into one that has already passed once, and may likely do so again if this amendment is approved. For that matter isn't it a bit disingenuous for you to level accusations of "obstructionism"? When the Take 1 version of this bill only needed modifications making it quite similar to this current proposal in order to earn Purple State's signature, you instead withdrew the bill altogether.

Uh, no, that's a blatant lie. This bill in a respectable form would have passed the Senate a long time ago were it not for your relentless grandstanding to pass stupid, pointless, and destructive amendments just because you want to leave your fingerprints on everything.

From the beginning, you've done nothing but try to obstruct, water-down and destroy this bill, and I won't forget it. One amendment fails, and you start pushing another one right away rather than ever let the Senate vote on the bill as it was.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again you manage to make a long post entirely devoid of content. Give a single reason why this amendment is necessary. You can't. I asked you to do so during the earlier debate session and you couldn't do so then either.

So, people who are voting Aye, I invite you do to same thing. Tell me why this bill needs to be weakened further than it already is. Or does personal loyalty to Badger trump reason and logic?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Nay

[bullmoose88]

Present and Abstaining.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay


Now stop pestering me about this, you two!!!!

[Bacon King]

4-4 with one abstention, only bgwah is yet to vote

[bgwah]

Abstain