SENATE BILL: The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill (Law'd)

[Secretary Polnut]

I support the amendment but oppose the bill...

I appreciate Polnut's response to my concerns but I do not belive the government should be creating a station because the President doesn't like what's on television...and CERTAINLY there should not be a tax increase to crate it...

It's not as simple as that, and you know that. It's about support for the Atlasian creative industries that isn't reliant on commercial revenues, as well as a way to export to the rest of the world. I appreciate the Senator's position, but would urge him to reconsider his position and perhaps read-up on the history of public broadcasting in the rest of the world, but retain full respect regardless.

I support Senator Yankee's amendment for the record.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators have 24 hours to object to the playability amendment offered your esteemed, benevolent, madman in control.


I am still patiently awaiting a reponse to ILV's and my concern regarding the existing of cross over institutions from the US.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Aren't all institutions carried over unless explicitly changed (see the NUDA debate)?

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

Oh, I can speak there now.
I will oppose this bill in the any form.
Why?
1 - I oppose any new taxes
2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.

"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.

"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.

And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.

"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.

And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.

[ilikeverin]

Aren't all institutions carried over unless explicitly changed (see the NUDA debate)?

Yes, but we may have changed PBS somewhere down the line.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.

"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.

And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.

And so my point is proven. 'Liberal' is a dirty word nowadays, as it has been slammed in the faces of the average Atlasian by right-leaning outlets.

Now, back to my original point: how has the government, IRL, been brainwashing people with PBS or NPR, which it does not control?

[Senator Clarence]

I respect the Presidnt's point about supporting arts or programs that may not be commercially sustainable...but I believe now is a time to think of how we can have less gov't, not more...and more only in the event of a national emergency. I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

[TJ in Wisco]

I'm not ideologically opposed to this bill, but I don't see a compelling reason why we need government-funded broadcasting when there is no shortage of private options already available. Why do we need this?

[Governor Scott]

2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

Really, Pingvin? This is a democratic republic here, not China. PBS isn't brainwashing Americans IRL.

"Hate speech" term is often used by liberals to censor "radical conservative" commentators.

And 'liberal-biased' is often used to slander media outlets that aren't Fox News.

[Secretary Polnut]

I'm not ideologically opposed to this bill, but I don't see a compelling reason why we need government-funded broadcasting when there is no shortage of private options already available. Why do we need this?

I believe I've given a number of strong reasons, given that, I doubt I can do anything to convince you.

Oh, I can speak there now.
I will oppose this bill in the any form.
Why?
1 - I oppose any new taxes
2 - Gov't will use National Broadcaster as a method of brain-washing. Knowing our current administration, it will have a liberal/progressive bias.

I understand concerns about the first but I completely and utterly reject the second as pure, ill-informed paranoia.

[Senator Clarence]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.

[Senator Clarence]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.

PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes

[Secretary Polnut]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

This is a levy, which can be reduced, and if the people are soooo reactionary to consider a MAXIMUM 0.5% levy, some assault on rights, freedoms etc etc... then we have much bigger problems.

And for the record I don't believe such hyperbole.

I believe we can reduce the costs, and so reduce the levy, I continue to respect the issues MOST of the Senators opposed have presented, but I also think there is a degree of closed-mindedness to the benefits.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.

PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes

But it is federally funded.

And anyway, would cutting more important things than this really be worth saving a few people a few tax dollars?

[Secretary Polnut]

I would like to invite sympathetic Senators to work with the administration to develop amendments for a graduated levy and lower levy.

[Senator Clarence]

I can not support this bill ESPECIALLY when it raises taxes- it would be much less objectionable if it cut somethign else to pay for it but as it stands I bet there is national outrage over this...

So you'd rather cut, say, the ANHP than raise taxes a fraction of a percent on a wealthy fraction of the population? We'll see how that flies with the voting public.

This bill- if proposed in real life- would get Polnut and me (because I technically sponsored it) thrown out of office...an outright tax increase for a new TV channel...the population on this board who knows

But in real life, no one's ever lost an election because they used your tax dollars to fund PBS and NPR.

PBS is a mostly local-run, not national, and is mostly funded by donations- not taxes

But it is federally funded.

And anyway, would cutting more important things than this really be worth saving a few people a few tax dollars?

Nope- and you have made my point for me...there are MANY more important things so why add a burden to the people for this..." a few tax dollars" add up, kid

And President Polnut- you can call it whatever you want- for all intents and purposes a levy = tax

[Senator Clarence]

I also resent your description of me Polnut as "close-minded" considering I was the one who sponsored this bill upon your request...

[Secretary Polnut]

I also resent your description of me Polnut as "close-minded" considering I was the one who sponsored this bill upon your request...

I'm not calling you closed-minded, but I think you have displayed a degree of closed-mindedness to this Bill, I see a difference, but understand if you don't and I apologise for the inference. I appreciate your sponsorship of it, but it's not like you didn't express a clear position from day one and have not shifted.

I didn't expect you too and I appreciate what you've presented in the debate, regardless of how much I disagree with you.

[Senator Sbane]

The Atlasian National Broadcaster Bill

This Bill will create a National Broadcaster.

a) Funding
The Atlasian National Broadcaster will be funded through a national levy that will be added to personal and corporate tax determinations. The additional levy will be 0.5% of taxable income.

Personal tax
- a National Broadcasting Levy of 0.5% 0.25% of annual taxable income will be placed on individual incomes above $40,001 50,000and household incomes above$50,001$65,000. Any shortfall will be made up by donations.

Corporate taxation
- a National Broadcasting Levy of 0.5% of annual taxable income will be placed on corporate incomes of $350,001 and up.

Advertising
- No advertising for non-National Broadcasting programs or products will be permitted on television or radio.

b) Structure
Television
- this Bill will create one national television network within 12 months of this Bill being passed. An analogue signal will be in place until July 2014 and a digital signal in place from the inception.

Radio
- this Bill will create one national radio station within 12 months of this Bill being passed.

c) Management
This Bill create a advisory and management Board. The Board will be appointed by a Senate vote, based on public nominations. The Government will have no control over content.

The Management Board
- will consist of 5 Atlasians, with 6 month terms
- a Chair will be elected within the Board
- the role of the Management Board will be to determine programming, budget allocations and merchandising

The Advisory Board
- will consist of 3 Atlasians with 3 month terms
- the role of the Advisory Board will be to advise the Management Board in their deliberations.

I propose an amendment to reduce the taxes associated with this bill. I highly doubt we would have needed as much money as the original bill was asking for.