SB 107-01: Atlasian Steel Act (Rejected)

[Schiff for Senate]

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

[Schiff for Senate]

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I agree with WM's point. Frankly, nationalization of certain utilities, such as healthcare, might be justifiable. But this attempt to nationalize the steel industry is unreasonable, random, and has no justification. It is, in fact, borderline communism (in a literal sense of the word), and therefore, I will most likely oppose it, barring revolutionary amendments to the bill that would significantly alter and temper it.

[Schiff for Senate]

Oh come on, we already tried implementing communism! Get a new attack.

Whatever you are saying, this is communism, pure and simple, and I oppose it.

[Schiff for Senate]

I would like to support this bill, but I believe we need to reduce the usage of steel in general. Producing steel itself releases many carbon emissions, and if we are bringing the steel industry into government ownership, reducing steel production, itself, to deal with this problem would be ideal. If this can be remedied, I would gladly support this bill as I believe steel production can best be reduced by the government and not by the private sector. Also lol at this being communism, if it was communism, I'd never support it, I'm probably actually more capitalist than many of the opponents of this bill, but we won't go there.

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I am a pretty strong capitalist, but ultimately some issues are bigger than the free market or promoting competition in the market and climate change is one of those issues. It is the most important issue of our time, and dealing with it is imperative, and we are running out of time to deal with it. Sometimes we must put our principles of economic liberalism aside and recognize that sometimes the government does indeed need to intervene in the economy. I agree that we do need to be judicious about when we intervene, because too much intervention can cause economic stagnation, but I do not believe that is where this bill will take us. Also believe me if this was actually communism, I would not vote for it. (Better Dead than Red) Frankly, the post-war period is over, no one is interested in mass-nationalizing anymore. By the 1970s, it had clearly failed and with stagnation setting in, it became clear that nationalizing everything was not the answer, and indeed the neoliberal reforms made to the economy should mostly stay, but there are some exceptions of course. Rest assured that this bill is not going to take us down the path that led to the excesses of the Post-War Consensus.

I agree with much of what you said, and I'm sure you know I am a strong supporter of combatting climate change in any way possible, but I don't see how this is necessary or the only action that can be taken. I would support heavier regulation but I don't think it's at all a good idea to give government a monopoly of the steel industry; it would leave ripe opportunities for abuse and while I'm sure most members of the government, if not all, are honest, it's not a risk worth taking considering all the problems that might arise. I strongly oppose the government taking sole control over steel. I think it's communism, and frankly, even if it's not (which one could argue), it's still a terrible policy that I would have a lot of trouble supporting. I intend to vote against unless the bill is dramatically altered before a final vote.

[Schiff for Senate]

I would like to support this bill, but I believe we need to reduce the usage of steel in general. Producing steel itself releases many carbon emissions, and if we are bringing the steel industry into government ownership, reducing steel production, itself, to deal with this problem would be ideal. If this can be remedied, I would gladly support this bill as I believe steel production can best be reduced by the government and not by the private sector. Also lol at this being communism, if it was communism, I'd never support it, I'm probably actually more capitalist than many of the opponents of this bill, but we won't go there.

I lean against this since if I'm not wrong, this is literally small-scale communism. But I could be persuaded otherwise to support this bill.

I concur with my honorable colleague. Successive Labor administrations have sought to nationalize and nationalize (e.g., taking energy companies under federal control under the Labor Red-Green New Deal). As long as this party stands in the majority, the growth of big government will never end. Nationalization of industry after industry, in this case the steel industry, is a brisk step in the march toward communism.

I am a pretty strong capitalist, but ultimately some issues are bigger than the free market or promoting competition in the market and climate change is one of those issues. It is the most important issue of our time, and dealing with it is imperative, and we are running out of time to deal with it. Sometimes we must put our principles of economic liberalism aside and recognize that sometimes the government does indeed need to intervene in the economy. I agree that we do need to be judicious about when we intervene, because too much intervention can cause economic stagnation, but I do not believe that is where this bill will take us. Also believe me if this was actually communism, I would not vote for it. (Better Dead than Red) Frankly, the post-war period is over, no one is interested in mass-nationalizing anymore. By the 1970s, it had clearly failed and with stagnation setting in, it became clear that nationalizing everything was not the answer, and indeed the neoliberal reforms made to the economy should mostly stay, but there are some exceptions of course. Rest assured that this bill is not going to take us down the path that led to the excesses of the Post-War Consensus.

I agree with much of what you said, and I'm sure you know I am a strong supporter of combatting climate change in any way possible, but I don't see how this is necessary or the only action that can be taken. I would support heavier regulation but I don't think it's at all a good idea to give government a monopoly of the steel industry; it would leave ripe opportunities for abuse and while I'm sure most members of the government, if not all, are honest, it's not a risk worth taking considering all the problems that might arise. I strongly oppose the government taking sole control over steel. I think it's communism, and frankly, even if it's not (which one could argue), it's still a terrible policy that I would have a lot of trouble supporting. I intend to vote against unless the bill is dramatically altered before a final vote.

What do you propose we do to support and help the steel industry then?

You tell me. Subsidies and regulations on what and how much carbon emmissions are allowed would be a good starter point. And very frankly, doing nothing would be better than the radical steps (which I still call communism) that are proposed in the bill. But actions can be taken. It's not 'all-or-nothing' where we either pass this bill or do nothing at all, though like I said if it came to that (which it shouldn't and won't), I would opt for nothing at all.

[Schiff for Senate]

I vote aye, though I don't think I'd support this bill even with the provision added.

[Schiff for Senate]

I agree with Yankee. It's almost bad faith of the government to not trust the steel industry and help them out (and regulate them too), but instead want to take them over to fix them. Yes, it needs to be fixed, but that doesn't mean the government can/should take it over.

[Schiff for Senate]

Unsure how to go about this, and feel free to disregard this if I'm going against any procedural rule, but I would like to motion for a final vote (i.e., just get a vote on the final bill once and for all).

[Schiff for Senate]

Nay