Pacific Supreme Council Thread

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Well I started the thread on time, didn't I?

Anyway, the process according to the law should be something like this:

Law proposed -> Debate for a day or two -> Vote -> Send it to the People's Assembly for a final vote.

Sounds good.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

So yes....who wants to propose the landmark first law?

The debate rules you mentioned sound good. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Anyone want to debate the rules provided by Archangel?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Anyone want to debate the rules provided by Archangel?

I think it is ready for a vote, if we are gonna vote on it that is.

Yes, I agree.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Okay, here's a draft:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Is voting open?

Yes. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Okay, here's a draft:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

With Fuzzy's bill, I don't think there are any objections to putting this to a vote.  Voting will be open for a 48 hour period since it's simply procedural rules.

Aye.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

And the last vote.......

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Excellent!  


I would like to put up a bill for consideration:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill is designed to improve health care costs in low income areas, by taxing a product which can be a bit of a drag on our system (except in the case of Medical Marijuana).  Due to the increasing demand of doctors and costs which rocket ever higher, we must insure that our hospitals (in the poorest of places) are up to speed on supplies and staff.  This tax would fund exactly that.

I give up the floor.  

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I would support putting the same tax on tobacco and alcohol.

That's a good idea.  Funny story, I actually took alcohol and tobacco taxes so for granted in the political system that I didn't check to see if we had any before I wrote the bill.  It turns out we don't, so I'd be willing to support your amendment.

  lol

[Fuzzybigfoot]

You guys had great suggestions.  Here's a new bill, which takes place of "The Taxation of Marijuana Act"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anything else?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I would like to offer the following changes:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I amended the bill so districts with up to $40,000  (average income) will receive funding, just to make sure.  

[Fuzzybigfoot]

So how long until we vote on this? Tonight?

I guess.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

A couple more bills I'd like to introduce when we're done with this one:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sorry if I did this out of order.

The two following bills are of some concern to me.  Yes, I personally disapprove of abortion, but there are many other factors to take into effect.  Will the child grow up in a safe and comfortable environment?  Are these people really ready to parent?   Can these folks be able to support a child without massive government assistance?  No is often the answer to these questions.  Although I find any sort of abortion disgusting, the consequence(s) of banning them from our coverage could do even more damage in the long run.   

[Fuzzybigfoot]

The two following bills are of some concern to me.  Yes, I personally disapprove of abortion, but there are many other factors to take into effect.  Will the child grow up in a safe and comfortable environment?  Are these people really ready to parent?   Can these folks be able to support a child without massive government assistance?  No is often the answer to these questions.  Although I find any sort of abortion disgusting, the consequence(s) of banning them from our coverage could do even more damage in the long run.   

Adoption, foster care, orphanages ect are all much better options than death. It is not right to punish the unborn for the shortcomings of their parents.

Being born can definitely be even worse punishment, if the mother is using drugs while pregnant, or if the parents are really abusive and don't want to put up with a child. 

By the way, if this bill passes it will also ban abortions during the first trimester (when the fetus does not even have a heartbeat) from public health care treatment options.  That would definitely be a stretch.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

By the way, if this bill passes it will also ban abortions during the first trimester (when the fetus does not even have a heartbeat) from public health care treatment options.  That would definitely be a stretch.

Actually, I intentionally made my bills very specific. The only sections of the Public Funding of Abortion Act that would be repealed would be the one specifically for taxpayer subsidized abortions and the section that legalizes partial-birth abortion. I would have liked to have repealed the whole thing, but I want to be realistic about what can be done here.

As for my bills, they do not ban abortions in the first trimester. I did not repeal the subsidies to reproductive health clinics for maintenance, and I did not ban abortion in the third trimester again. I think that both of those things should happen, but that is not what is currently on the table.

I'm not saying it bans first trimester abortions altogether, I'm saying that it bans first trimester abortions from public coverage (as well as any other kind) by repealing the 1st section of the Public Funding in Abortion Act.  

[Fuzzybigfoot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The council vote is 3 for, 1 against.  hughughug

[Fuzzybigfoot]

Fuzzy, what is your opinion on the partial-birth abortion ban I've proposed?

I would be willing to compromise with you on that.  I think that it should only be used if there are no other options and the mother's health is at risk.  I've seen the procedure of partial birth abortion, and I admit it really goes too far. 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

How about this amendment? I admit, I'm not sure that the situation you describe realistically occurs, but just in case:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That looks good.  I know partial birth abortions are very rare, but just in case.  Thanks 

[Fuzzybigfoot]

I fully support the latter two bills that realistic introduced, but I am not sold on the 1st.

While I was governor/Emperor of the SE/IDS we brought in sweeping economic reforms that made the region a great place for new businesses. Lowered some taxes, abolished others, and gave credits to new businesses getting started. Now this bill would add an additional tax on top of old ones after just raising taxes on other various items in the previous bill. My point is that we will be chasing jobs out of our region and into places like the IDS.

And also the economy isn't exactly great at the moment, higher taxes like this and the previous bill can be paid for by big businesses, but the smaller local businesses that may be struggling already will suffer.

I honestly wouldn't be disappointed if we chased prositution jobs out of the region.

That said, if you have specific tax cut proposals, you are welcome to introduce them.

I agree, prostitution should be no vice for anyone who wants employment.   Want to ban it?

[Fuzzybigfoot]

How does it do that?

Oh, sorry, I thought it said Section 1 instead of 4.  My bad.

[Fuzzybigfoot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye

[Fuzzybigfoot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nay

[Fuzzybigfoot]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aye