SENATE BILL: Atlasian Senior Care Act (Law'd)

[TNF]

I object. 5% is insane, so 2.5% is worse. That is giving people free housing and food for 10$/month. People in hospice care will obviously have less expenses (because hospice care takes care of some needs), so it's normal than a signifcant part of their income goes to housing/food, like everyone.

It would be unfair for working people which have to work to get housing and food to give those things for free to seniors.

So what would you propose instead? Allowing working people to get housing and food for free? (I'd totally be down for that, but this Senate likely won't) Or encouraging seniors to die quickly?

[MaxQue]

I object. 5% is insane, so 2.5% is worse. That is giving people free housing and food for 10$/month. People in hospice care will obviously have less expenses (because hospice care takes care of some needs), so it's normal than a signifcant part of their income goes to housing/food, like everyone.

It would be unfair for working people which have to work to get housing and food to give those things for free to seniors.

So what would you propose instead? Allowing working people to get housing and food for free? (I'd totally be down for that, but this Senate likely won't) Or encouraging seniors to die quickly?

Raising the cost they'll pay. As all their subsitence fees will be covered by the hospice, they won't spend as much money. I'm pretty sure than most people spend more than 2.5% of their income on housing and food. If retirees decide to go in hospice, it's normal than they contribute twoards food and housing costs, in fairness to all other retirees which aren't in hospice.

Why do you want so low of a percentage? Why they shouldn't really contribute to their housing and food fees?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: Objection Filed by Senator MaxQue, a vote is now open on the above amendment, Senators please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[MaxQue]

Nay

[TNF]

Aye

[Napoleon]

Nay

[Sbane]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

NAY

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

One more nay, or more day. What's it gonna be?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Your chose, poorly.


Vote on Amendment 56:66:

Aye (1): TNF
Nay (5): MaxQue, Napoleon, NC Yankee, sbane and TJ in cleve
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (4): bore, Gass3268, HagridoftheDeep, and Polnut - This is ridiculous!

The amendment has failed.


What now?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If only the penalty for such choices were the same, then this would at least be entertaining.


Thursday! If nothing happens this goes to a final vote before the Senate ends.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn, even the bgwah strategy isn't working here.


Last day to get some direction here.

As the text currently stands, what are its deficiencies? How are they to be improved? What alternative structures are desired if the present one is lacking? If funding is a concern, how do we pay for it?

I am one of ten, I cannot answer these questions isolation that are to be answered by the collective opinion of six or more of us.

[MaxQue]

Well, we still have no clue how this will cost. How are we supposed to have an opinion without that important information?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Were any requests placed with the GM before he called a halt to further such information given pending his leaving the post?

[Maxwell]

Here's a boring procedural thing: In the original bill, Section 11 references itself for the age limits, when age limits are specifically mentioned in Section 10. I could make an amendment on that, along with the idea that giving extra 15 years of full benefits for particularly hard jobs but only 10 years of partial benefits is something I wish to amend, so that it is evenly weighted.

Here's an amendment idea I had:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

[TNF]

I am completely and totally opposed to that amendment. We should not create separate classes where none exist presently, so far as job category is concerned.

[Maxwell]

I am completely and totally opposed to that amendment. We should not create separate classes where none exist presently, so far as job category is concerned.

Well, if you look at the actual bill this stems from, it already does so. I am just balancing it out. It is my mistake of bolding the whole thing.

[Napoleon]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

[Maxwell]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

[Napoleon]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

Debating issues is fine. Cranking it up to maximum douchebaggery in multiple threads is what bothers me. Why do you "fully expect it to be hostile"?

[Maxwell]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

Debating issues is fine. Cranking it up to maximum douchebaggery in multiple threads is what bothers me. Why do you "fully expect it to be hostile"?

"maximum douchebaggery"? I was just being a Senator, trying to start on a good foot. I thought it was going to hostile because I was lessening benefits in the name of consistency.

[Napoleon]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

Debating issues is fine. Cranking it up to maximum douchebaggery in multiple threads is what bothers me. Why do you "fully expect it to be hostile"?

"maximum douchebaggery"? I was just being a Senator, trying to start on a good foot. I thought it was going to hostile because I was lessening benefits in the name of consistency.

Well after accusing me of wanting to obliterate the foundations of Atlasia and other things...

I don't see how passing judgment on the sponsor of a bill is trying to start on a good foot. I'm not illiterate.

"Hi guys! I have somethinf that could improve the bill, so the sponsor probably won't want it"

[Maxwell]

I fully expect this to be hostile, but who knows.

WTF

Since the bill you had was an amendment to the original bill, I decided to read section six through and through and saw some things that could use changes. I mean, again, debating issues is good dude.

Debating issues is fine. Cranking it up to maximum douchebaggery in multiple threads is what bothers me. Why do you "fully expect it to be hostile"?

"maximum douchebaggery"? I was just being a Senator, trying to start on a good foot. I thought it was going to hostile because I was lessening benefits in the name of consistency.

Well after accusing me of wanting to obliterate the foundations of Atlasia and other things...

I don't see how passing judgment on the sponsor of a bill is trying to start on a good foot. I'm not illiterate.

"Hi guys! I have somethinf that could improve the bill, so the sponsor probably won't want it"

Well, I'm sorry I was accusatory, I just was thinking that anything that may cut benefits would possibly be against your purpose of this bill, and you might've been hostile to it. Sorry.

[Napoleon]

Well if that's how you keant it then I apologize for taking it wrong but I don't know, you've been the same way in two other threads....