SENATE BILL: The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill (Law'd)

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I want it to be known that I sponsored this bill as a favor to Polnut- I strongly oppose it. With the exception of emergency notification the government has NO place in broadcasting and what makes this bill even more egregious is the fact that it comes with a tax increase.

Mr. President- the people don't need a tax increase and they certainly do not need it for THIS... I strongly oppose this bill

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Mr. President- you say you are "sick of cheap, tacky television"- so am I. The difference is I do not want the taxpayers to have to chip in to give me a new channel. If the people do not like TV as it is- demand for a new station will create one...I do not believe we are elected to judge the quality of television programs and add to the bloat of government if we see a lack in that quality

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I support the amendment but oppose the bill...

I appreciate Polnut's response to my concerns but I do not belive the government should be creating a station because the President doesn't like what's on television...and CERTAINLY there should not be a tax increase to crate it...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I respect the Presidnt's point about supporting arts or programs that may not be commercially sustainable...but I believe now is a time to think of how we can have less gov't, not more...and more only in the event of a national emergency. I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.

PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.

PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes

But it is federally funded.

And anyway, would cutting more important things than this really be worth saving a few people a few tax dollars?

Nope- and you have made my point for me...there are MANY more important things so why add a burden to the people for this..." a few tax dollars" add up, kid

And President Polnut- you can call it whatever you want- for all intents and purposes a levy = tax

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I also resent your description of me Polnut as "close-minded" considering I was the one who sponsored this bill upon your request...

[CLARENCE 2015!]

As a former small business owner- I had many years where my business took in more then $350K and I took home less then $50K... let's not even discuss the double taxation that many small business owners (sole proprietors) face and just pretend their business income is thir personal income...

A restaurant owner takes in 400K let's say... your levy would take away $2000...that means a lot for a small business. All employees and the owner have to take that out of their salaries...prices would have to be raised potentially- $2000 for a non-necessary part of gov't doesn't seem like a fair price for me

The President seemingly forgets small businesses that will be affected by a corporate income levy- many of which make more then $350K but would still be heavily affected by this levy

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I move to amend the .5% to .000000000000000001% and change $350,001 and up to $100,000,001 and up

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I am sorry- what was wrong with that amendment htat I put forward?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

How do I use the strike through feature?

[CLARENCE 2015!]

That amendment was somewhat facetious... I cannot support any levy on anyone for this cause

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I believe so- neither side is moving an inch... but it has been a productive and fun debate

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Nay

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I will be introducing a repeal bill as soon as the new Senators are sworn in