Yates Cancer Research Bill [Failed]

[Ebowed]

Yates Cancer Research Bill

Section 1:
1.) All people who donate 5% of their income or more to cancer research will receive a 10% tax cut.
2.) All people who donate 10% of their income or more to cancer reserach will receive a 20% tax cut.
3.) This law will apply to donations made to research all types of cancer.

Section 2:
1.) The government will provide $10 million more to cancer research per year starting in 2009.


Sponsor: Sen. DownWithDaLeft

[True Democrat]

Although I continue to pray for former Vice President Yates and agree more cancer research needs to be done, this bill would cripple the government.  10% and 20% tax cuts?  That is huge.  It could cause the government's revenue to drop so much that we would have to raise taxes just so we don't go bankrupt.  I believe there are better ways to fund cancer research.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Although I continue to pray for former Vice President Yates and agree more cancer research needs to be done, this bill would cripple the government.  10% and 20% tax cuts?  That is huge.  It could cause the government's revenue to drop so much that we would have to raise taxes just so we don't go bankrupt.  I believe there are better ways to fund cancer research.

Agree, while I have full respect for Yates and the horrible things that have occured recently, not only would this crash the Atlasian government, it would also make the research foundations for other diseases very unhappy.

[Colin]

How did I know that this was written by Senator DWDL before I even saw his name attached to it. I have to completely agree with the former President and the esteemed Senator.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Amendment to Strike Sec. 1, this is ridiculous my bills aren't even given a fair chance anymore, if this was someone elses bill it would have been passed.

[Colin]

Amendment to Strike Sec. 1, this is ridiculous my bills aren't even given a fair chance anymore, if this was someone elses bill it would have been passed.

I'd give them a fair chance if they were decent. This, honestly, is complete rubbish like alot of the other things that you have brough before this Senate.

To your second point, there would be no God damn way in hell, if you'll mind my brusque language, that I would vote for this bill no matter whose name was attached to it.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Your reaction to our rejection of this bill proves what I have been saying this week, its really getting past the point of you reforming, you really need to resign and return to Atlasia when you grow up.

[Ebowed]

Just to outline a few of the problems of the bill, DWDL.  What type of taxes does the bill refer to?  All taxes?  Their income tax?  A special card they can take with them when they go shopping to get a 10% deduction on their sales tax?

What type of "cancer research"?  Would you give a 10% tax cut for PETA for donating a large sum of money to rat cancer research?  How do you protect against pseudoscience being funded, too, such as research into "alternative" and unsound medicine?

[minionofmidas]

Yeah, this bill is way too vague.

[PBrunsel]

I view charity as its own reward, so out of that principle I will vote against the bill. Also, I don't approve of attaching the name of Yates to this piece of legislation, for I deem that as innapropriate and an attempt at using the name of a suffering forumite to "guilt" the bill through the Senate on an appeal to emotions.

[Ebowed]

Also, I don't approve of attaching the name of Yates to this piece of legislation, for I deem that as innapropriate and an attempt at using the name of a suffering forumite to "guilt" the bill through the Senate on an appeal to emotions.

I must strongly agree with this point as well.

[Ebowed]

We are voting on DWDL's amendment to strike Section 1.


Nay; I oppose the bill regardless.

[Јas]

Aye

Section 1 is unacceptable for reasons already stated.
I would have no problem approving increased funding for cancer research.

[Brandon H]

Aye

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Nay

[PBrunsel]

Aye on the amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Aye on the amendment

[Colin]

Aye as it does make it more reasonable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since it looks like section 1 will be struck, leaving just section 2, I offer the following amendment to both remove the needless sectioning and make more specific how the money will be spent.

The text of the bill shall be struck and replaced by the following:

1. There shall be established in the National Cancer Institute a David Yates Brain Cancer Research Fund (hereinafter known as the Fund).

2. The Fund may accept donations of monies and other assets.

3. The sum of $10,000,000 is authorized to be appropriated to the Fund each fiscal year and $10,000,000 is appropriated to the Fund for fiscal year 2008.

4. The Fund shall be used to pay for one or more David Yates Brain Cancer Fellowships.  Such fellowships shall be for one year and shall be renewable.  They shall be awarded and renewed at the discretion of the Director of the Institute for research into the detection, prevention, and treatment of brain cancer. David Yates Brain Cancer Fellows shall receive pay and allowances from the fund equivalent to that which would be disbursed to specially qualified scientific personnel hired under section 3104 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, but shall not otherwise be considered a government employee.  In addition, the cost of the research undertaken by the Fellow shall be paid from the Fund as authorized by the Director of the Institute.

[Ebowed]

I would prefer, noting PBrunsel's sound objection, that references to David Yates are not included.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not generally in favor of these sort names either but for now it is the "Yates" Cancer Research Bill, if someone wants to introduce an amendment to completely de-Yates-ify the bill I wouldn't object, but until it is, might as well give it the full treatment of similar real world bills.

[SPC]

I fully deassociate myself from this bill, given that it has been significantly changed from the first draft I originally recommended.

[Ebowed]

I motion to add the following amendment in the form of a new section, and to renumber sections appropriately.

"An additional $50 million will go towards embryonic stem cell research effective FY 2008."

In combatting the ill that is cancer, we should also extend our committments to fighting diseases which cripple millions of people without a cure by adding to our funds to stem cell research.

[SPC]

I motion to add the following amendment in the form of a new section, and to renumber sections appropriately.

"An additional $50 million will go towards embryonic stem cell research effective FY 2008."

In combatting the ill that is cancer, we should also extend our committments to fighting diseases which cripple millions of people without a cure by adding to our funds to stem cell research.

You're giving more money to stem cell research than you are to cancer!

[Ebowed]

I motion to add the following amendment in the form of a new section, and to renumber sections appropriately.

"An additional $50 million will go towards embryonic stem cell research effective FY 2008."

In combatting the ill that is cancer, we should also extend our committments to fighting diseases which cripple millions of people without a cure by adding to our funds to stem cell research.

You're giving more money to stem cell research than you are to cancer!

So?  $50 million has already been allocated to stem cell research, I'm just doubling the funds.