OLD: Comprehensive Social Security Reform Act (See new thread: Reference Only)

[Ban my account ffs!]

This is my first bill, so it must be an important one. Hopefully this will fuel some debate in the Senate.


Comprehensive Social Security Reform Act

Comprehensive Social Security Reform Act
1. Any statutory act (law, section or article) relative to Social Security in Atlasia, i.e. to the intervention of the Federal Government aimed to protect its citizens from social risks, prior to this Act is hereby repealed.
2. The National Social Security Agency (NSSA) is hereby established.
3. Any responsibility and authority in the domain of Social Security shall be vested in the NSSA. Said domains may be further specified by appropriate legislation.
4. The NSSA shall be under the responsibility of the Department of Internal Affairs.

Section 1: Administration

1. The NSSA shall be administered by a deliberative body called Superior Council.
2. The Superior Council of the NSSA shall be composed as follows:    
    a) One third of its members shall be delegates of workers. They shall be democratically elected by every working or actively unemployed (see below) person. Labor Unions shall be responsible of organizing fair elections regularly.
    b) One third of its members shall be delegates of employers, designed by the organizations representing them.
    c) One third of representatives of the Federal Government, designed by the Department of Internal Affairs.
3. The Superior Council of the NSSA shall elect a presiding officer, adopt an internal ruling, and decide the frequency and the duration of their sessions.
4. The NSSA shall be divided into five separate Administrations, called:    
    a) The Health Insurance Administration
    b) The Unemployment Insurance Administration
    c) The Parenthood Insurance Administration
    d) The Old Age Insurance Administration
    e) The Minor Insurances Administration
5. The institutions administering each of previously cited Administration shall be designed by the Superior Council of the NSSA through procedures specified by it.

Section 2: Budget

1. The NSSA shall have its proper budget, independent from the Federal budget.
2. The budget of the NSSA shall serve to ensure the proper functioning of the Agency and the fulfillment of the tasks devolved to it through proper legislation.
3. The budget of the NSSA shall be managed by the Superior Council provided that its administration respects subsection 2. The Department of Internal Affairs is in charge of ensuring the respect of subsection 2.
4. Each of the five Administrations of the NSSA shall have its proper budget, which shall be a part of the global NSSA budget.
5. The budget of an Administration of the NSSA shall serve exclusively to fulfill the Administration's social task, by ensuring the compensation of persons as specified by legislation. The budget of an Administration of the NSSA shall be financed through the contributions of people eligible to the insurance program each Administration is responsible of.
6. The budget of the NSSA shall also comprise its Functioning funds. Said funds shall serve to ensure the proper functioning of the NSSA, by paying for the necessary infrastructures and remunerating its employees. Said funds shall be managed by the Superior Council of the NSSA.
7. The Federal Government shall be responsible for providing the Functioning funds to the NSSA. The Department of Internal Affairs shall be able to decide the amount of those funds. The Functioning funds devolved to the NSSA shall be subject to a vote in the Senate.
8. If the budget of one or more of the five administrations of the NSSA present a surplus, such surplus shall be attributed to a Balanced Budget Fund managed by the Superior Council of the NSSA.
9. If the budget of one or more of the five administrations of the NSSA presents a deficit, the Balanced Budget Fund shall be used to fill such deficit.
10. If the Balanced Budget Fund isn't sufficient to ensure a balanced budget in every administration, the Federal Government shall lend to the NSSA the money necessary for that. In such case, the Balanced Budget Funds shall be used to reimburse such loan as soon as possible.

Section 3: Tasks

1. The role of the NSSA is to compensate the victims of the social risks specified by legislation, through mechanisms and for an amount specified by legislation.
2. The social risks recognized by Atlasia are: illness, unemployment, parenthood, old age, handicap, working incidents, death of the spouse or the parent, catastrophe and excessive debt.
3. Each of the five Administrations of the NSSA shall be responsible to cover one or more of previously specified social risks.

Section 4: Health Insurance

1. The Health Insurance Administration shall be responsible to compensate the victims of illness and make their cure as easy as possible.
2. Any household shall be mandatorily registered to the Health Insurance Administration.
3. Any household registered to the Health Insurance Administration shall pay a contribution amounting to 2% of its salary and 5% of its other incomes.
4. Contributions shall be received by the Health Insurance Administration, monthly for salaries and annually for other incomes.
5. Households whose income is subject to the first two brackets of the Income tax as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act shall be exonerated from paying said contribution.
6. The Health Insurance Administration shall reimburse any purchase of a duly prescribed necessary medicine and any medically necessary services realized by a member of a registered household.
7. The administration of the Health Insurance Administration shall be responsible to establish a list of necessary medicines, as well as a list of medically necessary services. The list of medically necessary services shall include all those mentioned on section 1, subsection (b) of the Atlasian National Healthcare Act.

Section 5: Unemployment Insurance

1. The Unemployment Insurance Administration shall be responsible to compensate the victims of unemployment, to help them recovering a job and to ensure that recovering a job is economically beneficial to them.
2. Any employee or actively unemployed person shall be mandatorily registered to the Unemployment Insurance Administration.
3. To be deemed as "actively unemployed", a person shall meet the following requirements:    
    a) Not exercising any remunerated job.
    b) Actively researching a job, as defined under subsection 9.
    c) Being enrolled in or scheduled to be enrolled in a vocational education course or program as laid out in subsection 11.
4. The Unemployment Insurance Administration shall receive contributions, amounting to 6% of a registered employee's salary. Such contributions shall be paid monthly, by half by concerned employee, and by half by the business employing it.
5. Any registered employee losing its job shall receive from the Unemployment Insurance Administration a monthly revenue amounting to :
    a) 90% of the individual's previous salary during the first year following the loss of its job
    b) 80% of the individual's previous salary during the second year following the loss of its job
    c) 70% of the individual's previous salary during the third year following the loss of its job
    d) 60% of the individual's previous salary during the fourth year following the loss of its job
    e) 50% of the individual's previous salary after four years of unemployment
6. Notwithstanding subsection 5, no registered unemployed individual shall receive less than $600 per month, neither more than $4000 per month.
7. Any actively unemployed individual registered to the Unemployment Insurance Administration who had never been previously employed shall receive from the Unemployment Insurance Administration monthly revenue of $600 per month.
8. The Unemployment Insurance Administration shall provide registered unemployed individual with reasonable employment proposals. To be considered as reasonable, those proposals shall meet following requirements:    
    a) A salary equivalent to at least 90% of the individual's current revenue provided by the Unemployment Insurance Administration.
    b) A time necessary to reach workplace from the individual's home inferior to two hours.
    c) A domain corresponding to the individual's qualifications.
9. Any registered unemployed individual refusing three successive reasonable employment proposals shall be considered as inactive and deregistered from the Unemployment Insurance Administration.
10. Any registered individual previously unemployed recovering a job with net income inferior to 110% of the total benefits he received as an "actively unemployed" worker, as defined in Section 5, Clause 3, shall receive an allowance for the difference between his new employment's net income and 110% of total benefits last received as an "actively unemployed" worker.
11. For the purposes of this act, a vocational education course shall be defined as any course college or career training that seeks to improve one skills in their current occupation or train them for a new occupation entirely. Courses must be taught either online in connection with, or onsite of, an accredited university, community college, junior college, technical institute or other accredited institution offering continuing education courses.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Section 6: Parenthood Insurance

1. The Parenthood Insurance Administration shall be responsible to compensate the parents for the expenses necessary to raise one or more children.
2. Any household shall be mandatorily registered to the Parenthood Insurance Administration.
3. Any household registered to the Parenthood Insurance Administration shall pay a contribution equivalent to one twentieth of the amount of its income tax. Said contributions shall be paid concurrently with the income tax.
4. Any household composed by two or more adults shall receive from the Parenthood Insurance Administration a monthly allowance amounting to:    
    a) $200 per child aged between 0 and 3 years
    b) $250 per child aged between 3 and 8 years
    c) $300 per child aged between 8 and 18 years
5. Any household composed by one adult shall receive from the Parenthood Insurance Administration a monthly allowance amounting to:    
    a) $300 per child aged between 0 and 3 years
    b) $400 per child aged between 3 and 8 years
    c) $500 per child aged between 8 and 18 years
6. Notwithstanding subsections 4 and 5, no household whose income is subject to the sixth, seventh or eighth brackets of the Income tax as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act shall receive any allowance from the Parenthood Insurance Administration.
7. Any household whose income is subject to the third, fourth or fifth brackets of the Income tax as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act shall receive only half of the allowances established on subsections 4 and 5.

Section 7: Old Age Insurance

1. The Old Age Insurance Administration shall be responsible to guarantee elderly people decent standards of living.
2. Any adult shall be mandatorily registered to the Old Age Insurance Administration.
3. The Old Age Insurance Administration shall receive contributions, amounting to 10% of a registered employee's salary. Such contributions shall be paid monthly, by half by concerned employee, and by half by the business employing it.
4. Actively unemployed individuals registered to the Old Age Insurance Administration shall not pay any contribution.
5. Any household in which no individual is concerned by subsections 3 and 4 shall pay a contribution equivalent to one twentieth of its income tax. Said contributions shall be paid concurrently with the income tax.
6. Any person retiring shall receive a monthly old age pension from the Old Age Insurance Administration.
7. The full old age pension shall amount to 80% of the average salary during the 10 years in which an individual has earned the most as an employee, if this amount is superior to $1000. Otherwise, the full old age pension shall amount to $1000.
8. For the purpose of determining eligibility to retire and receive old age pensions from the Old Age Insurance Administration, a system based on points shall be used.
    a) One full month of work shall earn an individual three points.
    b) One full month of active unemployment shall earn an individual two points.
    c) One full month of studies or other training shall earn an individual one point.
9. Any individual having earned 1600 points shall have the right to retire and be entitled to a full old age pension.
10. Any individual having earned more than 1200 points shall have the right to retire and be entitled to an old age pension corresponding to a full old age pension multiplied by the number of points it has earned divided by 1600.
11. Notwithstanding sections 9 and 10, any person aged of more than 65 years shall be entitled to retire and receive an old age pension amounting to 75% of its full old age pension. Any person aged of more than 70 years shall be entitled to retire and receive a full old age pension.
12. Age limits mentioned on section 11 shall be lower for individuals having exercised particularly hard jobs. The administration of the Old Age Insurance Administration shall be responsible to establish a list of particularly hard jobs and the retirement ages corresponding to each. Those limits shall not be lower than 55 years old for a 75% pension and 60 years for a full pension.

Section 8: Minor Insurances

1. The Minor Insurances Administration shall be responsible to compensate the victims of social risks not covered by previously cited administrations. That is handicap, working incidents, death of the spouse or the parent, catastrophe and excessive debt.
2. Any household shall be mandatorily registered to the Minor Insurances Administration.
3.  Any household registered to the Minor Insurances Administration shall pay a contribution amounting to 2% of its salary and 5% of its other incomes.
4. Contributions shall be received by the Minor Insurances Administration, monthly for salaries an annually for other incomes.
5. Any adult officially deemed as handicapped by legitimate medical authorities who is not actively unemployed shall receive from the Minor Insurances Administration a monthly allowance amounting to $600.
6. Any adult officially deemed as handicapped by legitimate medical authorities who is actively unemployed shall receive from the Minor Insurances Administration a monthly allowance amounting to $300, which can be drawn concurrently with the allowance from the Unemployment Insurance Administration established in section 5.
7. Any household with one or more child officially deemed as handicapped by legitimate medical authorities shall receive from the Minor Insurances Administration a monthly allowance amounting to $100 per child, which can be drawn concurrently with the allowance from the Parenthood Insurance Administration established in section 6.
8. Any individual suffering from invalidity, illness or any injury caused by his work shall receive from the Minor Insurances Administration an indemnity proportional to the gravity of said injury. Said indemnity shall be comprised between $500 and $50,000. The Minor Insurances Administration shall be responsible to establish the appropriate levels of compensation relative to a specific injury.
9. Any household suffering from the death of an employed or actively unemployed member shall receive from the Minor Insurances Administration an indemnity equivalent to the expected financial loss caused by said death. Said indemnity shall be comprised between $5000 and $1,000,000. The Minor Insurances Administration shall be responsible to estimate the amount of the financial loss caused by the death of the member of a household, based on their potential income and life expectancy.
10. Any household suffering from the consequence of a natural or man-caused catastrophe shall receive from the Minor Insurances Administration an indemnity equivalent to the expected financial loss caused by said catastrophe. Said indemnity shall be comprised between $1000 and $1,000,000. The Minor Insurances Administration shall be responsible to estimate the amount of the financial loss caused by the catastrophe based on the direct and indirect damages caused by the catastrophe on the household's property.
11. Any household in a situation of excessive debt may ask for an exemption from the Minor Insurances Administration. The Minor Insurances Administration shall examine said household's financial situation and determine whether the amount of the debt might represent a threat for the household's economic security. In such case, the Minor Insurances Administration shall provide such household a loan without interest permitting them to reimburse their debt.

Section 9: Limitation of the tax burden

1. In order to avoid an excessive raise of government taxes, it is the will of the legislator that the passage of this bill doesn't result in an augmentation of the total amount of money collected by the government and its agencies of more than 10%.
2. This goal shall in priority be pursued through the repeal of any legislation regarding Social Security prior to this bill, thus nullifying the taxes established under this legislation.
3. One year after the passage of this bill, an independent commission shall be nominated by the Department of Internal Affairs, in order to calculate the amount of money collected by the government and its agencies in the previous year and what it would have been without the passage of this bill. The conclusions of said commission shall be published by the Game Moderator.
4. If the commission determines that the raise in the tax burden due to the passage of this bill has exceeded 10%, the Senate shall implement legislation in order to reduce its amount so that the raise in the tax burden doesn't exceed 10%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fellow Senators,

I have, of course, a lot to say on a bill, which is probably one of the longest ever introduced in Atlasia. That's why I will try to be as brief as possible.

Our Atlasian welfare system is established on a certain number of specific bills that have been added on a common base which is the US system. In one word, we have a confused cluster of legislation which certainly contraddict each other. This is not a situation our country can afford. What we need is the establishment of a unified legislation relative to social protection, of a new unified Social Security bill which can be used as the sole valid reference on this domain. In some way, we need to do for Social Security what we have recently done for our Constitution : a massive cleanup, clarification and improvement. This is an enormous ambition, I know that. Such an ambition needs a huge bill, and I hope mine is huge enough. But it's a too big task for me to do everything alone. My first draft probably requires to be improved, and this will be your job, fellow Senators.

My second ambition is not less great. I wish to endow Atlasia of a welfare system worthy of a developped country. Let's face it : Atlasia has a considerable retardation compared to most of Western societies. This retardation is due to the US's legacy : the legacy of a never achieved Great Society, of the disastrous Reaganomics and of 30 years of regression. Recently, important progresses were made, like the establishment of a Universal Health Care. But this is not enough : we need to extend the efforts made on health to other social risks like old age or unemployment. Our current system doesn't grant Atlasians their fundamental rights : the rights to a minimum standard of living, and to the protection against the unfairness of life. This bill is aimed to cover those different risks, through the work of the National Social Security Agency. Thanks to the NSSA, ill people will have their cure financed ; unemployed people will be granted a shelter against extreme poverty ; parents will have the possibility to raise their child(ren) in decent condition ; old people will not see their standards of living shrink after leaving their job ; people suffering from a loss will be duly compensated. Every society has its social safety net : it's time for us to have our own.

These, fellow Senators, are the reason which led me to work hard in order to draft this bill. This is a bill we need. Obviously, many questions remain to be asked. How much social protection do we need ? How to ensure a balanced budget for the NSSA while at the same time keeping the tax burden reasonable ? All of you will have the possibility to answer these questions through Amendments. I expect a passionate and constructive debate, which will allow us to make this bill better for everyone. I hope you all will enjoy engaging in this discussion with me. I'd just like to make a little premise before we start a debate. Some will claim we can't afford raising the tax burden in a period of recession, because this could harm consumption. To this objection, I will respond with two points. First of all the raise in the tax burden should be limited due to the repeal of a number of preceding bills : most of this work will result in replacing an existing tax with a new tax. Secondly, it's true this bill will result in a limited growth of the tax burden, but this raise will be more than compensated by the new allowances, pensions and indemnities we will establish, as they are going to benefit to the poorer people. Keynes teach us that giving money to low incomes is far more effective to stimulate growth than giving it to high incomes, because poor people tend, proportionally, to spend more money for consumption than wealthy people. Thus, I am certain that my bill will have a positive impact on growth.

So, I think it is time for the debate now. Please discuss this bill in every detail, propose dozens and dozens of Amendments, ask as much questions as you want. If you are ready to work as much as I did, we will have improved Atlasia more than most Senates have.

[HappyWarrior]

I need a day or so to read through and process this bill however I do applaud the effort to streamline the process.

[Lief 🗽]

I echo Senator Happywarrior's comments. I think such a bill is long overdue though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well I agree on the jumping off point atleast, from the perspective of increased efficiency and other such benefits of such a consolidation.


However (This should be 10 times as big in bolded red letters ), I must say I firmly disagree with the analysis and justification on which the specifics of this bill have been defended. I am sure most agree, and so do I that there is a definate need for a strong safety net. People do fall on hard times, problems come up, illnesses, family issues, families broken up for whatever reason. And these people can and should be helped where possible. However, at the same time, we must remember, even in darkness of recessions, that it is important to consider adverse disincentives that serve only to encourage dependency rather than to uplift and improves the lives of the poor.

I like the idea of a tiered (I know thats not spelled right, its just one of them days. ) unemployment based on time length as an incentive to find keep looking for work. However, I don't like the idea of setting up an open ended insurance comittment (yes even at 50%). There needs to be a cut-off date lest we encourage people to take advantage of this system in such a way that deprieves the needy and bankrupts the treasury. There should not be a need for >4 years of unemployment unless there is a seriously economic problem in the country, in which the root causes should be addressed and any such programs temporarily expanded as needed for the duration of the problem. If the person's occupation is dead, they should be encourage to enter into retraining of some kind. In normal times, a year at most should be the maximum with exceptions for retraining workers etc etc, and lengthened only in times of severe pro-longed unemployment.

Another problem with the Unemployment section is the funding. The type of tax suggested is basically a payroll tax similar to that used by SSI and the like, and it has been shown that it is the most desirious or the second most desirious (Depending on the study) form of taxation when it comes to employment. As such I have concerns that the method of funding here will lead to higher unemployment and lower wages.

The final problem with the Unemployment section is the final clause, which essentially subsidizes not only the wages of a person up to the amount they previously had but also gives them a 10% raise funded by the tax payer. This would be an incentive to become unemployed. And considering there are no standards for the causation of the unemployment included in the text (from my searching of it), this would be an open invitiation to get fired or quit to get a raise.

I would argue that Keynes was an important figure in the study of economics and we would not be where we are today without his work. However, I do find it hilarious that we are in a position where the gov't not taking the productive wealth from the wealth is considered giving it to them. Now if you mean no corporate welfare or special tax breaks givin to a few companies, then I would most certainly agree. But when it goes further then that. When the act of not taking more is the gov't giving money to the rich, I am afraid I must draw the line. Giving money to the poor does help the economy but it does so "to an extent" and for purposes beyond which, it will do little. And economy needs both supply and demand to function and more importantly it needs long term investment from not only the public sector in education, infrastructure, science, technology etc etc, but also from the private sector as well. There are certain levels beyond which, progressive income taxation becomes innefficient. The best situation for a poor person, in my opinion, is one that has an economy running on all 8 cylinders. An economy that has 5% unemployment (But more important than that, job creation in large numbers, as opposed to the demographically induced, low job creation 5% in the 2000's), low to moderate inflation, as well as, a strong, robust safety net. Because of this, I think it would be a mistake to focus on the safety net at the expense of the growth, when both are as important as the right and left wings of an airplane. I would point out that Sweden has a strong welfare state, but at the same time has a lower corporate tax rate in the mid 20's. I think rather than pursuing one at the expense of the other, lets work to provide a strong balance between pro-growth policies and between a strong safety net, that will provide the most of each possible.

I am confident this bill can be improved but each section needs to be carefully reviewed with an eye towards both what I said above and toward preventing possible misuse or it being taken advantage of it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow ! It seems that, once again, we have a lot to discuss...

I like the idea of a tiered (I know thats not spelled right, its just one of them days. ) unemployment based on time length as an incentive to find keep looking for work. However, I don't like the idea of setting up an open ended insurance comittment (yes even at 50%). There needs to be a cut-off date lest we encourage people to take advantage of this system in such a way that deprieves the needy and bankrupts the treasury. There should not be a need for >4 years of unemployment unless there is a seriously economic problem in the country, in which the root causes should be addressed and any such programs temporarily expanded as needed for the duration of the problem. If the person's occupation is dead, they should be encourage to enter into retraining of some kind. In normal times, a year at most should be the maximum with exceptions for retraining workers etc etc, and lengthened only in times of severe pro-longed unemployment.

I agree with the problem you point out but disagree with what you think would be the solution. Yes, we need to encourage unemployed people to recover a job and try not to sustain them eternally. However, what if someone really doesn't manage to find a job for more than 4 years, should we let him without any help ? If we do, it can only be worse for him : extreme poverty is the best way to lose any qualification and become a "parasite".

However, part of the solution could be IMO already in the bill :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Simply : if you are not interested in recovering a job, you will lose your unemployment benefits. I think this is the best incentive the government can provide. In this case, I think it's strong enough to discourage any "parasite" behaviour. Maybe my criteria for a reasonable offer are too strict, do if you think loosening them would be better, I'll see your proposal. Also, we can add retraining programs to this list of obligations in order to encourage them too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I'm not an expert on tax policy, so my form of funding was just a proposal. I came with that because that's the system used in France, but there's certainly something better to propose. Do you have any suggestion on how to fund it alternatively ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here I guess you misunderstood. The 10% raise funded by the government doesn't apply to one's previous salary, but instead to the unemployment benefits he received as unemployed. Ie to the income he percieved immediately before recovering a job.
For example, let's say Joe has just been fired and becomes unemployed. He perceives 90% of his previous salary. However, the market is good and Joe finds another job a couple of months later. Thanks to the clause, Joe is entitled to 10% more than what he received as unemployed, ie 90%x110%=99% of his previous salary. Which is still less and of course, with time, this amount decreases to 88%, 77%, 66% and 55%.
You said this would be an incentive to get fired : to the contrary, it's meant as an incentive to get a job. Indeed, with an equal revenue, someone would prefer to get it while doing nothing instead of while working. The small 10% incentive means that, whatever job you get, it will always be beneficial for you to get working again. Don't forget also that recovering a job implies some additional costs (the cost to commute, maybe to have a better hygiene, etc...), so maybe this only ensures that you don't lose buying power by getting a job.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are 100% right, we can't only rely on the safety net to get us out of the recession. Incentives to businesses are important, and that's what stimulus bills are for. I hope this bill won't be detrimental to growth, at least that certainly wasn't its purpose. Maybe the GM could help us with that. As for the corporate tax, I wouldn't mind reducing it if we can compensate it by the creation of a new income tax bracket. See my next bill, maybe we could reach a nice bipartisan agreement on this one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, thank you for spending some of your time trying to improve the bill, it's highly apreciated. I long forward your next reviews, and hope we will be able to reach agreements.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Then I would suggest some seriously reworking on the language of the text as "revenue previously received" is pretty vague, and the world "revenue" might not be the best one to use in this context either.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I'm again open to suggestions. Do I have to remember that English isn't my native language ?

Does "income" fit well ? "income recieved immediately before", would it work ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes, income does work a lot better there. Salary needs to be changed also as it commonly refers to a specific type of income, which most of the people who would be affected wouldn't be paid usually.

10. Any registered individual previously unemployed recovering a job with net/gross (one of the two would need to be used) income inferior to 110% of the total benefits he received as an "actively unemployed" worker, as defined in (insert Section and Clause), shall receive an allowance for the difference between his new employment's net/gross (Choose the same one you choose above) income and 110% of total benefits last received as an "actively unemployed" worker.

[Antonio the Sixth]

10. Any registered individual previously unemployed recovering a job with net/gross (one of the two would need to be used) income inferior to 110% of the total benefits he received as an "actively unemployed" worker, as defined in (insert Section and Clause), shall receive an allowance for the difference between his new employment's net/gross (Choose the same one you choose above) income and 110% of total benefits last received as an "actively unemployed" worker.

Fine then, accepted as friendly. And I'd say net.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

That wasn't an amendment. Merely the early stages of one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now thats an amendment.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I checked it in order to verify if you furtively added some evil clause, but apparently you didn't.

So, accepted as friendly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What is with the constant use of the word "perceive" in place of words like contribute, pay, etc etc?

[Antonio the Sixth]

What is with the constant use of the word "perceive" in place of words like contribute, pay, etc etc?

Dunno, I had to find some word and I came with this one. Doesn't it fit ?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, Ironically, perceive means to "understand" something.

Webster New World Dictionary definition:
Perceive - 1. To understand. 2. to become aware of through the senses.

[Antonio the Sixth]

lol, Ironically, perceive means to "understand" something.

Webster New World Dictionary definition:
Perceive - 1. To understand. 2. to become aware of through the senses.

Oh sh*t. In French, "percevoir" means both "understand" and "take money from".


Could it be replaced by "receive" or "collect" ?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

lol, Ironically, perceive means to "understand" something.

Webster New World Dictionary definition:
Perceive - 1. To understand. 2. to become aware of through the senses.

Oh sh*t. In French, "percevoir" means both "understand" and "take money from".

Just please don't tell us you used google translator for that.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Also, what would you think about adding training in the proposals ?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It would have to be done in a more substantial way to integrate it in effectively. This could take a while to get done right, and certainly longer, if we remain an effective Senate of two on this.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, Ironically, perceive means to "understand" something.

Webster New World Dictionary definition:
Perceive - 1. To understand. 2. to become aware of through the senses.

Oh sh*t. In French, "percevoir" means both "understand" and "take money from".

Just please don't tell us you used google translator for that.

Just fixing what got lost in translation shall be a task and a half.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I knew we had passed something previously dealing with job training and atleast as far finding congruency in terminology and etc we should atleast look at them. I found Afleitch's Welfare Reform Act from Sept 2009. It basically gave everyone four years then listed exceptions to that four year maximum, one of which was vocational education.

In hindsight there were several "under developed" areas in that bill that should have been strengthened. Where the hell was I when that got passed? oh yea......yea............

Well anyway, one of those under developed areas was Section 3 on vocational education.

I will keep looking for other bills that passed that had vocational education in them or job training that have passed recently and look for a way to incorporate it into this beast of a bill.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would have to be done in a more substantial way to integrate it in effectively. This could take a while to get done right, and certainly longer, if we remain an effective Senate of two on this.

Indeed, contribution from other fellow Senators would be much welcomed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here is my thought on it.


We should a line to section 5 clause three and give it whatever the next letter is (can't remember how many there currently are) and like the last one, say at the end of it as defined in clause blank (numbered with the next available number 10 if the last one is 9, 15 if the last one is 14 etc etc.).

[Antonio the Sixth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, the clause is this one, but what do you want to amend exactly ?