Senate Protest and Analysis Thread

[Jake]

Repeal of the Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act

Co-Sponsor:  Senator NixonNow (ACA-NJ)

Clauses

1.     The Education and Care for Children in Poverty Act is hereby repealed.

2.   The projected savings to the Federal Government is projected to be $17.65 Billion dollars for FY 2006 and a projected $176.50 Billion dollars over the next ten years.

3.     All funds previously appropriated by the Senate for FY 2005 to fulfill the requirements of this legislation shall be honored by the Federal Government.

4.   All appropriations and other moneys set to be authorized for fulfillment of this legislation in the Preliminary Version of the Federal Budget for FY 2006 and all future Fiscal Years shall be terminated.

5.   If previous appropriations have resulted in the construction of new facilities or the purchase of land for the construction of new facilities, the land or new facilities must be sold at a fair price to private concerns and the resulting revenue must be included in the Education Sub-Department of the Treasury and Social Services Department revenue figures for the proceeding Fiscal Year.

6.   A sum of no less than three-fourths (75% or $13.2375 Billion dollars) and no greater than the whole (100%) of the appropriations and moneys procured by this repeal of this Act must be designated towards the general Budgetary fund and the necessity of covering the present Budget’s shortfall and may not be authorized by the Senate to fund any other appropriations in this present Fiscal Year (2006).

7.   A sum of no less than none (0%) and no greater than (25% or $4.4125 Billion dollars) of the appropriations and money procured by the repeal of the Act may be authorized by the Senate in future legislation to fund appropriations and expenditures exclusively within the Education Sub-Department for FY 2006.

Discussion on the latest bill?

[Jake]

Depends on what you call wasteful.  If you don't like the Missle Defense Research, you would cut that, if you think, like Akno, that we shouldn't build a replacement for 30 year old fighters, you could cut the F-35 and F-22 programs, if you think we don't need new amphibious assault ships, you can cut funding to build the new San Antonio Class warships. 

[Jake]

Which is why you're currently stalling legislation and wasting space.

[Jake]

As to MAS's bill for the procurement of 15 Apache-Ds and 50 Cobra-Zs, why is this necessary and what units specifically require new attack helicopters?

[Jake]

Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill

For every tree cut down by a company, co-operative or individual working in the forestry industry, that company, co-operative or individual must plant two or more trees in the same forest or other woodland environment

Good bill, Al.  Though I'd recommend stating that the newly planted trees must be protected for a certain length of time after planting.  Otherwise the same individuals will just cut down the new ones as soon as they've planted them, and so on, and the whole thing becomes a giant mess.

Most forestry companies re-plant the area after they have made their selective cut anyway. Also, I know that alot of the time, trees are harvested simply to thin out the forest. This bill would prevent that action.

[Jake]

Food for thought:

Adoption Bill
1. No adoption agency run by or funded, either in full or in part, by the federal government of Atlasia shall bar any individual or couple from adopting a minor based solely or primarily on their sexual orientation.
2. Any agency outlined above shown to be in violation of this act shall be liable to a three month suspension of their funding pending further investigation.
3. This act shall not be construed as to deny adoption agencies the ability to deny adoption rights to someone with a criminal record of sexual misconduct, nor shall the definition of "sexual orientation" be interpreted to include predators of children.

This is not the Republic of Sodom and Gomorrah

[Jake]

We've gone over this, though many of you refuse to accept the argument that a child needs parents of both sexes to develop normally. The fact that adoption policies are discriminating against gays is not reason enough to change laws.

[Jake]

I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying the child's development will be hindered without both a male and female role model. We're already seeing the affects of single parent families in the US, and ignoring the economic factors involved, I think we'd see similar emotional and social problems with children raised by a same sex couple.

Also, the issue of different sex parents raising their own children is not germane to this topic. Bad parents are screened out as best as possible at adoption agencies.

[Jake]

I think he's more referring to what exactly is encompassed by "universal health care". Will medical facilities be taken over by the government and no one be charged for use, will the government be billed for medical expenses, will it cover luxuries like braces, Viagra, and plastic surgery, etc.

[Jake]

I'm thinking most people are from the "It's a US simulation game, I don't want to change it" camp. They're not going to accept PR-STV no matter what, despite the fact that it's a better system for us to use and that it'll make things easier. The anti-Region argument just doesn't make sense. It removes one single regional power, and one that if done correctly shouldn't have any bearing at all on how regions function.

Just bring it up again, pass it, and try to see if those few SE voters will not show up.

[Jake]

I suppose "Hive Mind" is a bit ungracious, but arbitrary voting based on someone else's vote is clearly not a sign of a healthy political atmosphere.

"Hive Mind" is exactly correct however.

And I've always wondered whether Alcon is simply Jesus's attempt to return to the forum's good graces.