HOUSE BILL: Atlasian Transportation Access Act (Failed)

[wxtransit]

In this respect, only the local transportation authority has the power to set/change prices and offer discounts. Not even the regions have the authority to set the prices, as transportation authorities are private companies and the government would be out of its jurisdiction (and the government shouldn't be meddling with private companies, anyways).

[wxtransit]

In this respect, only the local transportation authority has the power to set/change prices and offer discounts. Not even the regions have the authority to set the prices, as transportation authorities are private companies and the government would be out of its jurisdiction (and the government shouldn't be meddling with private companies, anyways).

Not all bus services are private. In the case of private companies, the government can subsidise them or purchase bus passes and distribute them to citizens.

So you're proposing for the government to take over private companies and run them?

[wxtransit]

In this respect, only the local transportation authority has the power to set/change prices and offer discounts. Not even the regions have the authority to set the prices, as transportation authorities are private companies and the government would be out of its jurisdiction (and the government shouldn't be meddling with private companies, anyways).

Not all bus services are private. In the case of private companies, the government can subsidise them or purchase bus passes and distribute them to citizens.

So you're proposing for the government to take over private companies and run them?

Do you understand what a subsidy is?

I read it wrong, I thought you meant to subsidize the company. And, in this respect, governments already subsidize fares; in fact, fares would not be what they were without it, and you're proposing to lower them more. The government can't responsibly pay to subsidize the fares further.

[wxtransit]

In this respect, only the local transportation authority has the power to set/change prices and offer discounts. Not even the regions have the authority to set the prices, as transportation authorities are private companies and the government would be out of its jurisdiction (and the government shouldn't be meddling with private companies, anyways).

Not all bus services are private. In the case of private companies, the government can subsidise them or purchase bus passes and distribute them to citizens.

So you're proposing for the government to take over private companies and run them?

Do you understand what a subsidy is?

I read it wrong, I thought you meant to subsidize the company. And, in this respect, governments already subsidize fares; in fact, fares would not be what they were without it, and you're proposing to lower them more. The government can't responsibly pay to subsidize the fares further.

Ok. I get concerns about how much this would cost but it most certainly wouldn't take over the company.

Yes, of course. My concern here is that the government can't afford to continually subsidize fares.

[wxtransit]

The subsidies don't necessarily have to go to the bus companies directly (and remember a number of them are municipal and state owned as well). You could have a system like Food stamps that follows the person if that makes sense. This is also similar to the way that we did healthcare and that way, the companies still have to provide decent service because they aren't assured to get that money.

I agree with this plan.

[wxtransit]

I am very very sorry, but I am objecting.

I didn't really think this out, and the senator made some fair points, I am motioning for a vote to able, as while I think this would be a great bill, we need to get ourselves out of the deficit, and that should be a top priority.

I second the motion.

[wxtransit]

You know, it is not to be a hard ass that I often end up being a hard ass but for the simple fact that when you cut corners or make sloppy motions, it basically leads to a procedural train wreck.

1. If you object to an amendment it triggers a vote on the amendment. If an amendment sponsor no longer wants to proceed with an amendment, they should withdraw the amendment.

2. If you motion for a final vote, such can only happen once debate is ceased, but if you have triggered a vote on an amendment debate has not ceased.

So if anyone wonders why I often take the time to ask for clarification on what one desires it is because not doing so, would take even longer. Especially considering that the amendment votes we just had were attended to with an "expeditious zeal" on the part of the house members.


So in conclusion, it is my understanding that the sponsor wishes to withdraw the proposed amendment and has motioned for a final vote on the legislation, is this correct?

If I believe correctly, he was attempting to withdraw, but I'm not 100% sure. (I thought, possibly in error, that I seconded a motion for a final vote).

[wxtransit]

Nay.