Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Purple State]

     For what it's worth, the argument of wanting to avoid the list continually shrinking seems quite weak. As far as I can see, there's no meaningful difference between having someone on the list who has left the forum & not having that person on there.

It affects the size of the Northeast Assembly and the GM population and budget numbers. Not sure if that is a strong enough reason, but those are reasons.

[Peter]

I would have to say that I never favoured the extension to 8 months - I didn't really say much about it in 2006 because I was not an active participant, though I continued to watch and vote whilst posting in the International boards, so my post there was simply commentary to give historical context.

[Јas]

Thanks Inks!!!

I did some digging into the history behind this, here is the original debate.  Peter, Ernest, and Jas all participated in it.  Perhaps they could speak up in the current amendment's debate as well.

IIRC, Dave Hawk and others wanted the voting requirement removed altogether - asserting that once on the voter rolls, citizens should remain on the voter rolls regardless of activity. I, and others, felt it better to maintain a regular purging of the rolls to remove inactive voters. The 4 election rule was a compromise.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     For what it's worth, the argument of wanting to avoid the list continually shrinking seems quite weak. As far as I can see, there's no meaningful difference between having someone on the list who has left the forum & not having that person on there.

It affects the size of the Northeast Assembly and the GM population and budget numbers. Not sure if that is a strong enough reason, but those are reasons.

     The Northeast Assembly issue is actually a good reason to repeal it. The bloated registration numbers mean that the Northeast gets more Representatives, which reduces the competitiveness of the elections since it is harder to recruit more candidates than there are seats so there can be a contested election.

[bgwah]

I'm just posting this here since I don't want to propose anything right now, but what would you guys think about introducing fusion voting to Atlasia? The most difficult part would of course be primaries, but I think it might be fun...

[Badger]

I'm just posting this here since I don't want to propose anything right now, but what would you guys think about introducing fusion voting to Atlasia? The most difficult part would of course be primaries, but I think it might be fun...

Define "fusion voting".

Didn't we recently reject a measure proposing some sort of fusion voting?

[Hash]

I would just like to alert my, uhm, 'esteemed colleagues' that Atlasian legislation requires that the Senate read and approve the SoEA's latest Foreign Policy Review, which was completed over a month ago. Nudge nudge wink wink, pals.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nationalisation of the Petroleum Industry Act

Recognising the failure of the petroleum industry in it's duties of supplying oil at affordable prices

And recognising that there is a need for petroleum to be organised as a social service rather than for profit, and that there is a need for all profits to be divested in further increasing efficiency.

BE IT HEREBY ENACTED THAT: All oil and petroleum companies will be hereby taken into public ownership as the Atlaspetrol Corporation and shall be run as a subsidary of the Department of the Interior on behalf on the people of Atlasia.

lol Nationalization is not the answer to this problem. A prime example would be the failure that has been Pemex in Mexico. The job of the oil companies is not to provide oil at the prices my newly minted Communist friend's views as "affordable". Their job is to supply a demand for energy and make a profit by doing it. The global market dictates the oil prices and it is clear that with the exception of short term speculation the long term upward trends in oil prices are driven by the strength/weakness of the dollar and the most of all by rising global demand, especially in India and China. Consider also that Corporate profits on oil are 8 cents on the dollar. A good but not extreme rate of return. There is no evidence of widespread price gouging. What there is evidence of it, is gov't regulations restricting the production and refining capacities and thus raising the prices. If you want to lower prices and maybe even  create some jobs, why not lesson some of the environmental restrictions and ease the red tape and allow the building of a 50 our so new refineries with up to date technology which would be 1) more efficient, and 2) much safer, then the aging overworked refineries currently in service. Let us also remember that oil reached the lowest prices in the history of the industry when the evil monopolist John D. Rockefeller was working that detestable black magic known as free market capitalism.

You want to lower oil prices, well lets follow the rules of the market. Supply goes up and the prices drop. To create more supply you have to hire thousands of new workers. Another way is to reduce demand, lets diversify the energy and transportation system, get airplanes running on coal to liquid, get car fleet running on 3 or 4 different fuels (like gas, diesel, Natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen). Get the Busses running on Natural gas. Switch people over from heating oil to Natural gas. Thats called innovation, and competition, the prime movers of the free market. I will take that any day over some bureaucrat in DC dictating the prices and causing long lines and fuel shortages in the process. Some gov't intervention may be required but nothing as destructive and counterproductive as this.

I agree, what happened to old freedom fighter?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would just like to alert my, uhm, 'esteemed colleagues' that Atlasian legislation requires that the Senate read and approve the SoEA's latest Foreign Policy Review, which was completed over a month ago. Nudge nudge wink wink, pals.

I would suggest a direct PM to a specific Senator with instructions of what to do would be more effective. This is why I kind of hoped HW would have been elected to the Senate because there currently is no one who really digs foreign policies. Maybe we should deligate certain responsibilities to a specific Senator whose job is to handle business with the SoEA as opposed to just putting the stuff out there and hope a Senator passes by. Whenever I found myself in situation to get the ball rolling, I take the initiative but in this case, I haven't the slightest idea how that particular process works.

[k-onmmunist]

Nationalisation of the Petroleum Industry Act

Recognising the failure of the petroleum industry in it's duties of supplying oil at affordable prices

And recognising that there is a need for petroleum to be organised as a social service rather than for profit, and that there is a need for all profits to be divested in further increasing efficiency.

BE IT HEREBY ENACTED THAT: All oil and petroleum companies will be hereby taken into public ownership as the Atlaspetrol Corporation and shall be run as a subsidary of the Department of the Interior on behalf on the people of Atlasia.

lol Nationalization is not the answer to this problem. A prime example would be the failure that has been Pemex in Mexico. The job of the oil companies is not to provide oil at the prices my newly minted Communist friend's views as "affordable". Their job is to supply a demand for energy and make a profit by doing it. The global market dictates the oil prices and it is clear that with the exception of short term speculation the long term upward trends in oil prices are driven by the strength/weakness of the dollar and the most of all by rising global demand, especially in India and China. Consider also that Corporate profits on oil are 8 cents on the dollar. A good but not extreme rate of return. There is no evidence of widespread price gouging. What there is evidence of it, is gov't regulations restricting the production and refining capacities and thus raising the prices. If you want to lower prices and maybe even  create some jobs, why not lesson some of the environmental restrictions and ease the red tape and allow the building of a 50 our so new refineries with up to date technology which would be 1) more efficient, and 2) much safer, then the aging overworked refineries currently in service. Let us also remember that oil reached the lowest prices in the history of the industry when the evil monopolist John D. Rockefeller was working that detestable black magic known as free market capitalism.

You want to lower oil prices, well lets follow the rules of the market. Supply goes up and the prices drop. To create more supply you have to hire thousands of new workers. Another way is to reduce demand, lets diversify the energy and transportation system, get airplanes running on coal to liquid, get car fleet running on 3 or 4 different fuels (like gas, diesel, Natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen). Get the Busses running on Natural gas. Switch people over from heating oil to Natural gas. Thats called innovation, and competition, the prime movers of the free market. I will take that any day over some bureaucrat in DC dictating the prices and causing long lines and fuel shortages in the process. Some gov't intervention may be required but nothing as destructive and counterproductive as this.

I agree, what happened to old freedom fighter?

I don't believe in the 'free market'. I believe in supplying people's needs. Cheap oil is, until we can develop alternate sources of energy, needed. Otherwise, we will have the long lines and fuel shortages of which you speak anyway. Believe it or not, nationalization is supported by alot of conservatives for pragmatic reasons. Only the new right and their free market fundamentalist friends oppose it truly.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Nationalisation of the Petroleum Industry Act

Recognising the failure of the petroleum industry in it's duties of supplying oil at affordable prices

And recognising that there is a need for petroleum to be organised as a social service rather than for profit, and that there is a need for all profits to be divested in further increasing efficiency.

BE IT HEREBY ENACTED THAT: All oil and petroleum companies will be hereby taken into public ownership as the Atlaspetrol Corporation and shall be run as a subsidary of the Department of the Interior on behalf on the people of Atlasia.

lol Nationalization is not the answer to this problem. A prime example would be the failure that has been Pemex in Mexico. The job of the oil companies is not to provide oil at the prices my newly minted Communist friend's views as "affordable". Their job is to supply a demand for energy and make a profit by doing it. The global market dictates the oil prices and it is clear that with the exception of short term speculation the long term upward trends in oil prices are driven by the strength/weakness of the dollar and the most of all by rising global demand, especially in India and China. Consider also that Corporate profits on oil are 8 cents on the dollar. A good but not extreme rate of return. There is no evidence of widespread price gouging. What there is evidence of it, is gov't regulations restricting the production and refining capacities and thus raising the prices. If you want to lower prices and maybe even  create some jobs, why not lesson some of the environmental restrictions and ease the red tape and allow the building of a 50 our so new refineries with up to date technology which would be 1) more efficient, and 2) much safer, then the aging overworked refineries currently in service. Let us also remember that oil reached the lowest prices in the history of the industry when the evil monopolist John D. Rockefeller was working that detestable black magic known as free market capitalism.

You want to lower oil prices, well lets follow the rules of the market. Supply goes up and the prices drop. To create more supply you have to hire thousands of new workers. Another way is to reduce demand, lets diversify the energy and transportation system, get airplanes running on coal to liquid, get car fleet running on 3 or 4 different fuels (like gas, diesel, Natural gas, electricity, and hydrogen). Get the Busses running on Natural gas. Switch people over from heating oil to Natural gas. Thats called innovation, and competition, the prime movers of the free market. I will take that any day over some bureaucrat in DC dictating the prices and causing long lines and fuel shortages in the process. Some gov't intervention may be required but nothing as destructive and counterproductive as this.

I agree, what happened to old freedom fighter?

I don't believe in the 'free market'. I believe in supplying people's needs. Cheap oil is, until we can develop alternate sources of energy, needed. Otherwise, we will have the long lines and fuel shortages of which you speak anyway. Believe it or not, nationalization is supported by alot of conservatives for pragmatic reasons. Only the new right and their free market fundamentalist friends oppose it truly.

Saying you "don't believe in the free market" is like saying you don't believe in evolution or gravity.

The laws of economics cannot be repealed by any action of the state. Nationalization of the oil industry is a bad idea.

[k-onmmunist]

It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

[k-onmmunist]

It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?

Stop being ridiculous.

Your proposal doesn't even put forward an actual plan as to how you would go about "nationalising" the oil industry.

It's just more of your usual grandstanding.

[k-onmmunist]

It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?

Stop being ridiculous.

Your proposal doesn't even put forward an actual plan as to how you would go about "nationalising" the oil industry.

It's just more of your usual grandstanding.

The consolidation of all oil companies into one publicly owned corporation, owned on behalf of the people, rather than owned by, you know, people who rip us off for profit.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's more like saying you don't believe in creation.

Are you going to anything other than write platitudes?

Your entire proposal is based on meaningless platitudes. It would not produce cheap oil, but rather result in inefficient, expensive oil production.

I'm afraid you are wrong. But what's the point in arguing this with the man who believes free markets are always right and everyone will be miraculously rich as long as the government doesn't exist?

Stop being ridiculous.

Your proposal doesn't even put forward an actual plan as to how you would go about "nationalising" the oil industry.

It's just more of your usual grandstanding.

The consolidation of all oil companies into one publicly owned corporation, owned on behalf of the people, rather than owned by, you know, people who rip us off for profit.

Yeah, that's still not a real plan as to how you would accomplish this 'consolidation'.

And I don't see what great benefit there is to gain from this. Replacing big business with big government is like replacing Mussolini with Hitler.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

[k-onmmunist]

Ludlow Amendment

Except in the event of an invasion of the Republic of Atlasia or attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of the Senate to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum. The Senate, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the Regions, the question to be voted on being, 'Shall Atlasia declare war on ________?' The Senate may otherwise by law provide for the enforcement of this section.

I like referenda, but this seems just a step too far..

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.

In certain areas yes but not in all where the small stores have gone out of business already. Its an unnecessary move in a time in which we can ill afford to do so.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.

In certain areas yes but not in all where the small stores have gone out of business already. Its an unnecessary move in a time in which we can ill afford to do so.

So when would be a good time for something like this then? After all the small businesses have gone out of business already?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Break the Chains Act

1. Companies or individuals which possess 2 to 3 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 1% on their annual profits.

2. Companies or individuals which possess 4 to 9 retail outlets or stores, inclusive, shall be assessed a differential tax of 4% on their annual profits.

3. Companies or individuals which possess 10 or more retail outlets or stores shall be assessed a differential tax of 7% on their annual profits.

4. Funds collected from these taxes shall be deposited in what will be established as a Small Business Protection Fund.

5. Companies or individuals which possess only 1 retail outlet shall be eligible to apply for a credit to be paid from this Fund.

6. Based on the total number of businesses which apply each year, credits issued to each business should be an equal share of the total fund, except that no business may receive a credit equivalent to more than 100% of its total annual tax burden.

7. The Fund may not be used for any other purpose, unless specifically allocated by future laws.

A fine and noble law if one's goal is to add 2% to the unemployement line.

Any loss of jobs on the part of big business would be more than offset by the success of small businesses which will be able to hire more employees- and stay in business in the first place.

In certain areas yes but not in all where the small stores have gone out of business already. Its an unnecessary move in a time in which we can ill afford to do so.

So when would be a good time for something like this then? After all the small businesses have gone out of business already?

When unemployement is lower, then we might be able to "consider" it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Our maybe all those campaign donations from Wal-Mart executives are clouding my judgment.

Nah, that couldn't be.

[Franzl]

That's not a poor idea in theory, although I do share Senator Yankee's concerns that it would raise unemployment (at least temporarily).