Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2017, 05:38:38 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Gustaf)
| | |-+  The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Print
Author Topic: The Unwed and Teenage Mothers Protection Bill  (Read 18555 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: January 22, 2005, 04:33:27 pm »
Ignore

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Sections 5 & 6 actually help solve the problem, as opposed to just funding the problem.
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18718
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #101 on: January 22, 2005, 04:34:30 pm »
Ignore

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Section 5 is redundant.  Akno's bill already provides Day Care for all poor kids from the day they're born until they are a teen.

Section 6 is alot of money to spend.  College is expensive and 1.5 K isn't going to make a difference to some women.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #102 on: January 22, 2005, 04:42:30 pm »
Ignore

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Section 5 is redundant.  Akno's bill already provides Day Care for all poor kids from the day they're born until they are a teen.

Section 6 is alot of money to spend.  College is expensive and 1.5 K isn't going to make a difference to some women.

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

These women won't have as much time to work as, say a traditional working class college student, so every little bit helps.  The day-care is to assist in that as well.

Where is Akno's bill?  Has it passed yet?
Logged

The Duke
JohnD.Ford
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9394


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

View Profile
« Reply #103 on: January 22, 2005, 04:43:14 pm »
Ignore

You can't simply declare that there is no compelling state interest, simply because you don't believe there to be.  Supersoulty obviously believes there is a compelling interest, or he wouldn't have proposed the bill.

I have said that I am more than open to suggestions. Since Supersoulty "obviously believes there is a compelling interest" perhaps he would care to share. Remember, the burden is on him to prove that what he is doing is a compelling interest, as opposed to being on a business (or me) to show that it is not a compelling interest.

Quote
You most certainly do object to the bill, you object to section 3e.  Don't pretend otherwise.

I object to one particulary co-incidental part of the bill; Its removal (or appropriate modification to not apply to companies who receive no federal funding) would have little effect on the bill, and I would then find it entirely acceptable barring spelling mistakes.

Quote
So what if I don't know you personally?  None of us know each other personally.  It absurd to say I can't disagree with you without knowing you.

You are totally misconstructing my remarks. You said that I was pro-choice. I stated that you had no basis to make such remarks. You are now saying you are disagreeing with me, when in fact you were just painting my position for me in the first place. Your response is totally non-sequitur.

Quote
So if I shot a tourist, would that be alright?  he's not a citizen of my nation, what government interest does Washington or Sacramento have to regulate the killing of tourists?

Don't be ridiculous. Everybody has a right to life, whether they be citizens or not. You are engaging in the logical fallacy of a straw man.

Actually, it was your argument that was weak enought to be a straw man.  You had to know the moment you said that the government's responsibilities are limited to protecting the rights of citizens that my response would be exactly what it was.  You walked right into it, so you don't have much ground to be mad at me.

Its like Randy Moss says: If you don't want me to celebrate, keep me out of the end zone.
Logged

Shut you hole... Conservatism is dead. I hope I get to see your head paraded on a pike with it.
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 61499
United Kingdom


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: January 22, 2005, 04:48:48 pm »
Ignore

I strongly support reducing the economic need for abortions and generally helping people live happier lives... and as this bill does that I strongly support it.

Now, there's a few bits than need tweaking and generally cleaned up (although the spelling isn't really Super's fault as IIRC he's dyslexic) and I'd be happy to post an ironed out bill tomorrow (after I've got some much needed sleeeeeeeep...)
Logged



John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: January 22, 2005, 04:49:01 pm »
Ignore

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).
Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #106 on: January 22, 2005, 04:51:22 pm »
Ignore

You had to know the moment you said that the government's responsibilities are limited to protecting the rights of citizens

...when they are obligating a company to do something for which they pay the company absolutely no money whatsoever to do. In these situations, all the government should be doing is protecting rights.

The government has many responsibilities, and they all ultimately return to the point of protecting rights or providing services. Supersoulty's proposal is in the business of providing a service that will reduce abortions, which is great, but he doesn't have the power to make companies advertise it for him without anything approaching a compelling interest.

Except for when you unfairly and without basis painted my position on abortion for me, I'm not mad at you.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #107 on: January 22, 2005, 04:54:50 pm »
Ignore

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.
Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: January 22, 2005, 04:59:37 pm »
Ignore

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.

1. You said it would solve the problem. I'm saying that so few will use this part of the service that it will be ineffectual, that your expectations are too high. That's all.

2. But aren't 'living expenses' still provided? That's what I meant when I mentioned the shelters. So, how much will these living expenses be?
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: January 22, 2005, 05:00:23 pm »
Ignore

You had to know the moment you said that the government's responsibilities are limited to protecting the rights of citizens

...when they are obligating a company to do something for which they pay the company absolutely no money whatsoever to do. In these situations, all the government should be doing is protecting rights.

The government has many responsibilities, and they all ultimately return to the point of protecting rights or providing services. Supersoulty's proposal is in the business of providing a service that will reduce abortions, which is great, but he doesn't have the power to make companies advertise it for him without anything approaching a compelling interest.

Except for when you unfairly and without basis painted my position on abortion for me, I'm not mad at you.

As for you... The interest lies in assuring that governemnt funding is not going to waste and that people aren't being cheated out of options that should know they have.  Its called education, and we certainly work to enforce it in other ways.  I find no reason why this case is fundamentally different from anyother that can be suggested.

The government has an interest in protecting its people from both extermination and poverty, making sure that they know what their rights are and enforcing that, if need be.

I knew this would happen, but I still find it amazing that people are so threatened by the amazing oppertunities presented in this bill.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: January 22, 2005, 05:04:00 pm »
Ignore

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.

1. You said it would solve the problem. I'm saying that so few will use this part of the service that it will be ineffectual, that your expectations are too high. That's all.

2. But aren't 'living expenses' still provided? That's what I meant when I mentioned the shelters. So, how much will these living expenses be?

Perhapes you don't understand something... the money will be granted mostly to private organizations that are already up and running so that they can expand their facilities and care options.  These will not be government run shelters, or at least 90% of them won't be.
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18718
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #111 on: January 22, 2005, 05:04:48 pm »
Ignore

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Section 5 is redundant.  Akno's bill already provides Day Care for all poor kids from the day they're born until they are a teen.

Section 6 is alot of money to spend.  College is expensive and 1.5 K isn't going to make a difference to some women.

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

These women won't have as much time to work as, say a traditional working class college student, so every little bit helps.  The day-care is to assist in that as well.

Where is Akno's bill?  Has it passed yet?

Akno's Bill passed in October.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: January 22, 2005, 05:05:44 pm »
Ignore

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Section 5 is redundant.  Akno's bill already provides Day Care for all poor kids from the day they're born until they are a teen.

Section 6 is alot of money to spend.  College is expensive and 1.5 K isn't going to make a difference to some women.

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

These women won't have as much time to work as, say a traditional working class college student, so every little bit helps.  The day-care is to assist in that as well.

Where is Akno's bill?  Has it passed yet?

Akno's Bill passed in October.

May I see it?  Do you have the thread?
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #113 on: January 22, 2005, 05:07:55 pm »
Ignore

I strongly support reducing the economic need for abortions and generally helping people live happier lives... and as this bill does that I strongly support it.

Now, there's a few bits than need tweaking and generally cleaned up (although the spelling isn't really Super's fault as IIRC he's dyslexic) and I'd be happy to post an ironed out bill tomorrow (after I've got some much needed sleeeeeeeep...)

Thank you for your support, Senator, both personal and for the bill.
Logged

Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18718
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

View Profile
« Reply #114 on: January 22, 2005, 05:08:36 pm »
Ignore

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Section 5 is redundant.  Akno's bill already provides Day Care for all poor kids from the day they're born until they are a teen.

Section 6 is alot of money to spend.  College is expensive and 1.5 K isn't going to make a difference to some women.

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

These women won't have as much time to work as, say a traditional working class college student, so every little bit helps.  The day-care is to assist in that as well.

Where is Akno's bill?  Has it passed yet?

Akno's Bill passed in October.

May I see it?  Do you have the thread?

Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act
Section A
From the second a child is born into a family that is below the poverty line, that child's parents will have the option of sending the child to a day-care center, operated from 6 AM until 7 PM, until the child is ready to attend the normal public school. The day-care center will be cost free, and it will attempt to instill positive traits in children at a young age, so that they will be better adults. The federal government will allocate funds for this, but will leave all decisions up to local governments.

Section B
For children who live with families below the poverty line, totally free before and after-school care will be provided until the child graduates middle school. The rest is the same as Section A.

Section C
The estimated cost of this is 18.9 billion dollars this year, and 17.65 billion dollars every other year. That cost is split between hiring people to run the programs, providing equipment for the programs, and, if needed, constructing new facilities.

Passed by the Third Congress of the A.F.F. (October 20, 2004)
Presented to the President on October 22, 2004
Entered into law after 7 days with no executive action.



http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=9882.0
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: January 22, 2005, 05:09:46 pm »
Ignore

The rest of the bill doesn't work if you eliminate Sections 5&6 because the cycle of poverty will just continue.

Section 5 is redundant.  Akno's bill already provides Day Care for all poor kids from the day they're born until they are a teen.

Section 6 is alot of money to spend.  College is expensive and 1.5 K isn't going to make a difference to some women.

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

These women won't have as much time to work as, say a traditional working class college student, so every little bit helps.  The day-care is to assist in that as well.

Where is Akno's bill?  Has it passed yet?

Akno's Bill passed in October.

May I see it?  Do you have the thread?

Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act
Section A
From the second a child is born into a family that is below the poverty line, that child's parents will have the option of sending the child to a day-care center, operated from 6 AM until 7 PM, until the child is ready to attend the normal public school. The day-care center will be cost free, and it will attempt to instill positive traits in children at a young age, so that they will be better adults. The federal government will allocate funds for this, but will leave all decisions up to local governments.

Section B
For children who live with families below the poverty line, totally free before and after-school care will be provided until the child graduates middle school. The rest is the same as Section A.

Section C
The estimated cost of this is 18.9 billion dollars this year, and 17.65 billion dollars every other year. That cost is split between hiring people to run the programs, providing equipment for the programs, and, if needed, constructing new facilities.

Passed by the Third Congress of the A.F.F. (October 20, 2004)
Presented to the President on October 22, 2004
Entered into law after 7 days with no executive action.



http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=9882.0

Danke.  I will review this and give a response in a minute.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: January 22, 2005, 05:13:43 pm »
Ignore

My proposal differs from this bill in that my bill provides for child care unwed women living with a family or gaurdian above the poverty line, but not far above.

I refere you to Section 7, which I added after some debate.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=15608.15
Logged

Peter
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6097


Political Matrix
E: -0.77, S: -7.48

View Profile
« Reply #117 on: January 22, 2005, 05:19:19 pm »
Ignore

The interest lies in assuring that governemnt funding is not going to waste

The government can't make other entities do things because of its own impotence in implementing its policies.

Quote
that people aren't being cheated out of options that should know they have.

Thats certainly reasonable, though I wouldn't agree that compelling abortion providers to promote these shelters is a particularly good way to promote them. Generally most people who go to an abortion clinic have already made up their mind. A genuine OBGYN wouldn't need to be compelled by law, he would already have offered the subject in a discussion with the patient. Social security offices seems a bizarre place to put it in my opinion if only because they rarely deal with abortion, though obviously your bill is directed at poorer women, so that might explain that partly.

Quote
The government has an interest in protecting its people from both extermination and poverty, making sure that they know what their rights are and enforcing that, if need be.

Well obviously, but in my opinion you need to draw a compelling link between this bill and that interest in order for you to compel other entities to assist you. I can begin to see a casual link certainly, but not enough IMO.

Quote
I knew this would happen, but I still find it amazing that people are so threatened by the amazing oppertunities presented in this bill.

Beyond the above hair-splitting points, I have little to no ideological objection to the bill.

I am not opposed to the ideological goals of this bill, and I stated so before I engaged in this tete with the Secretary. I am opposed to the State unnecessarily compelling businesses to do things without basis, which I also stated.
Logged

Retarded babies should be fed to crocodiles.
John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #118 on: January 22, 2005, 05:31:36 pm »
Ignore

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.

1. You said it would solve the problem. I'm saying that so few will use this part of the service that it will be ineffectual, that your expectations are too high. That's all.

2. But aren't 'living expenses' still provided? That's what I meant when I mentioned the shelters. So, how much will these living expenses be?

Perhapes you don't understand something... the money will be granted mostly to private organizations that are already up and running so that they can expand their facilities and care options.  These will not be government run shelters, or at least 90% of them won't be.

Ok, well, 'operations and opening' in the first section seems to imply these will be government run, at least to me. Consider rewording. I still don't approve, but that makes things slightly better since the burden is no longer entirely on the taxpayer.

Still, you haven't answered my question - how much is the 'necessary living expenses' provided in section 3 of the bill, per year? Defining 'necessary' might also help - that word is often up to interpretation.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: January 22, 2005, 05:36:01 pm »
Ignore


Thats certainly reasonable, though I wouldn't agree that compelling abortion providers to promote these shelters is a particularly good way to promote them. Generally most people who go to an abortion clinic have already made up their mind. A genuine OBGYN wouldn't need to be compelled by law, he would already have offered the subject in a discussion with the patient. Social security offices seems a bizarre place to put it in my opinion if only because they rarely deal with abortion, though obviously your bill is directed at poorer women, so that might explain that partly.

But not all OBGYN's will, and therefore, we should have some sort of way of distributing information if they don't.  This honestly isn't so that I can enforce my moral will on others, as you have suggested.  It is just so that we know the information is out there and accessable to people who don't have internet access.

And, my suggestion for Social Security and Social Service offices is because poorer people do tend to spend so time there and those considering the economic asspects of abortion/having the child will be able to find the information there.  You might think this trivial, as the social workers should tell them, but there are some people out there who acctually promote abortion as opposed to simply condoning it, and they really want to see as many abortions as possible happen.

I don't want a single abortion to occure in this country simply because a woman did not have access to the infomation that could have prevented it.

Quote
Well obviously, but in my opinion you need to draw a compelling link between this bill and that interest in order for you to compel other entities to assist you. I can begin to see a casual link certainly, but not enough IMO.

We are approuching this for two different viewpoint.  I see the interest as being obvious and self-evident, and thus I don't really know how to debate you on it.
Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #120 on: January 22, 2005, 05:42:57 pm »
Ignore

Section 6 goes along with addition government grants that usually total about $5,000.  That would make it about $6,500 per semester, enough for anyone to get into a decent state run college.

Sorry, I disagree. If you want to get into a good school, it still requires a high school diploma and a decent SAT score(unless your parents can afford to buy a building for the school, in which case you don't apply to this). We have no gaurantee that even half of these women will want to go, much less be able. And even if they do, they'll still have a problem passing - they have a baby, they have to study, and I would also presume they have to hold some form of work to provide for themselves and the child(the shelters can't provide everything, and if they did it would be far more expensive than I projected before).

Saying that some of these women will not utilize this benefit, no matter what the percentage in, does not go very far towards arguing that it should not be in place for those who do want to utilize it.

The shelters are only for the pregnacy and 3-4 months afterwards.

1. You said it would solve the problem. I'm saying that so few will use this part of the service that it will be ineffectual, that your expectations are too high. That's all.

2. But aren't 'living expenses' still provided? That's what I meant when I mentioned the shelters. So, how much will these living expenses be?

Perhapes you don't understand something... the money will be granted mostly to private organizations that are already up and running so that they can expand their facilities and care options.  These will not be government run shelters, or at least 90% of them won't be.

Ok, well, 'operations and opening' in the first section seems to imply these will be government run, at least to me. Consider rewording. I still don't approve, but that makes things slightly better since the burden is no longer entirely on the taxpayer.

Still, you haven't answered my question - how much is the 'necessary living expenses' provided in section 3 of the bill, per year? Defining 'necessary' might also help - that word is often up to interpretation.

I'll rewrite those parts of the bill in order to make them more clear.  I was hoping that we could have a debate on what is "nessesary" while debating the bill.
Logged

Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon
htmldon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9021
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -2.26

View Profile
« Reply #121 on: January 22, 2005, 08:50:04 pm »
Ignore

Super,

This is an excellent piece of legislation.  I hope that the differences can be worked out and this bill can become law.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #122 on: January 23, 2005, 01:17:11 pm »
Ignore

Section 1

The Federal Government of Atlasia will appropriate $250 million over the next 5 years to assist in funding the opperations and opening of shelters for unwed mothers, all accross Atlasia.

          a) Shelters must pass regional and federal
              standards, in order to recieve funds.

          b) Atlasia reserves the right to discontinue
              funding of any group, organization or shelter
              that does not meet those standards.

          c) Women in the care of those shelters will be
              granted legal protection and adaquate monitary
              compensation to move to the nearest shelter that
              matches those standards.

Section 2

State and Federal funds to CHIP programs will resume to insure the protection of all children or fetus' classified as "unborn.  This will be done in such a way so that funding and coverage is  commensurate with pre-2004 levels.

Section 3

Nessesary living expenses for new mothers will be provided for by all of those who apply, by the Federal government of Atlasia, for up to and including 5 years after the birth of the child.

         a)  These benefits will be provided for food, rent
                  and medical expenses and are to be set at the
                  minimum rage for what is considered "Sandard
                  of Living" in the mothers municipality or county.


             b) These funds will be terminated if any of the
                  following occure with in that time span.
     
                       1a) Another child is born to the same mother

                       2a) The woman enters a state of marriage

            c) No woman living with a "perminant" male
                partner, or in a common law marriage will be
                allow to collect funding.

            d) Monthly interviews with each woman on the
                program will be required.  If that woman is found
                to be:

                       1c) Abusing the child

                       2c) Abusing legal or illegal subsatances

                       3c) Deemed to be in someother way
                             violating the spirit of the program

               Then her child will be put into foster care and she
               will be removed from the program and all benefits
               taken away.

              e) Any government employee found to be abusing
                  his or her clients, or in someother way impeding
                  their rights, will be immediatly fired or otherwise
                 or other wise punished in a court of law.

              f) Pamphlets advertising these benefits will be
                  made available at all Social Security offices,
                  OBGYN's offices and licensed abortion clinics
                  in Atlasia.  Failure to comply will bring about
                  fines of a maximum of $20,000.

continued on next post...
« Last Edit: January 23, 2005, 01:20:16 pm by Senator Supersoulty »Logged

12th Doctor
supersoulty
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20666
Ukraine


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: January 23, 2005, 01:18:31 pm »
Ignore

Section 4

Funding for the above will be provided by the Federal Government of Atlasia, amounting to $500 million over the next 5 years.

Section 5

The federal government will provide a stipened of $1,000/year to all mothers who qualify for the program for:

           a) Child/Day care.

           b) Other form of Daytime Child Care.

Section 6

The federal government will provide upto $1,500/semester in additional grants for all mothers who apply for the program.  This is to be used for:

           a) Enrollment in Community College

           b) Enrollment is Technical College

           c) Enrollment in State University.

Section 7

          a) No woman with an annual personal income of greater than
              $30,000 per year will qualify for any of the benefits mentioned
              in sections 1,3 & 4 and may only apply for those benefits in
              Section 6 if they do not already have at least an associates
              degree.

          b) No woman will qualify for the benefits mentioned in sections
              1, 3 & 4 if they live with a family (or other support structure,
              i.e.gaurdians) who make an annual incom of greater than
              $35,000 per year.  She will still have full access to the benefits
              mentioned in Sections 5-6.

Logged

John Dibble
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18782
Japan


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: January 23, 2005, 02:08:37 pm »
Ignore

Even though I still detest the bill, I'd like to suggest some improvements - I want to minimize abuse of the program and minimize the amount of taxpayer money spent.

Section 3, part a - Some spelling errors(rage should be rate, Sandard should be Standard). Now, more importantly, while I would view those as mostly 'necessary', I do want a stipulation placed. The mother needs to find work after some period of time if she is not already working(though, this might apply to a different degree, or perhaps exempt entirely, if the woman is in college using section 5), and must not stay in an unemployed status for too long, otherwise benefits should be taken away. Perhaps make there be a max total time for unemployement rather than time between employment always being the same, so they can't get a job, quit, and then get a job again when their time runs out. Benefits for living expenses given will be dependent upon the income of the job - the benefits basically would add to income, rather than being an absolute amount, so that total income does not exceed $30k a year, which is the limit to exempt the woman from the program. i.e. a person who makes $10k a year will receive more benefits than someone who makes $25k. I ask for this work stipulation because we do not want these women dependent upon the program, because after five years if they are unemployed the child will still need care that costs money, and they will no longer have any income at all. We also don't want people simply mooching off society. So, this stipulation would encourage them to become or productive members of society.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines