Educational Funding Clarification Bill [Passed]

[SPC]

No, I am not talking about that.  I am talking about an amendment that sought to end all funding to science and sex education cirriculums regardless of what they taught.  All of the conservatives voted for it.

I can't find this amendment, around what page did it occur?

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=56333.msg1203693#msg1203693

Ah, I knew you were spinning something.  That was a vote against funding schools, not against funding students.

That seems like an awfully convenient distinction to make.  If you're funding vouchers, why would you support removing all federal funds towards chemistry courses?  Way to make kids go to ill-equipped schools.  Look, I'm just curious, you can't actually support targeting types of education one-by-one, can you?  Defunding science but not math, for example?  Those amendments were ridiculous and everyone knew it.

I have to agree with Ebowed on this. I, personally, don't think the federal government should be funding education at all, so I believe that the Senate should have voted against both funding public education and funding vouchers.

[Colin]

Which reminds me, what are your thoughts on this bill, Mr. President?

Mixed. While I'm a firm believer in seperation of church and state and I also believe that Atlasian tax dollars should not be used to fund religious enterprises, whether they are charities or schools, I have also always been a firm believer in school choice and voucher programs. The only question that I have that would change my view one way or another, I doubt that my opinion will be needed anyway since this is most likely going to fail, is how much of the budget of current voucher programs comes from federal coffers?

If it's only around 10% or something akin to that I would believe that a good compromise would be for regions to fund any religious voucher programs while federal subsidies would be used for secular voucher options. If the federal government provides most of the budget I would consider that an aggrevous error for regional governments to allow the funding of schools to be turned over to federal entities. The Southeast is the one region with a voucher program, it is also the Southeast that is most against federal intervention. I don't see what's to stop a region from using regional money in whatever way it chooses to use it, including to fund voucher programs that include religious schools as options.

[King]

Since the government isn't forcing the choice of a religious school, I don't see how it's a violation of church and state separation.  I believe forcing the choice of a non-religious school is a violation, however.  It also needs to be realized that the main supporters of this bill are also against school vouchers so motives can be in question.

Personally, being a "socialist on education" I think time would be better spent trying to pass legislation fixing our public school system.

[Sam Spade]

Since the government isn't forcing the choice of a religious school, I don't see how it's a violation of church and state separation.  I believe forcing the choice of a non-religious school is a violation, however.

In other words, you like the reasoning of Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

[King]

Since the government isn't forcing the choice of a religious school, I don't see how it's a violation of church and state separation.  I believe forcing the choice of a non-religious school is a violation, however.

In other words, you like the reasoning of Everson v. Board of Education (1947).

I think it's sound because it is a two-way street kind of rule.

[Sam Spade]

It is really tempting to bring this bill up to a vote.

[DownWithTheLeft]

It is really tempting to bring this bill up to a vote.

Well I motion for cloture either way

[Sam Spade]

Ok, we are now voting on a "motion for cloture".

Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.


Aye.

[Keystone Phil]

Aye

[PBrunsel]

Aye

[Ebowed]

Nay

[Brandon H]

Aye

[Rob]

Nay.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Aye

[Јas]

Current Tally on DWTL's Cloture Motion
Aye: 4(Sam; Phil; Brandon; DWTL)
Nay: 2 (Ebowed; Rob)
Absent: 2 (Al; Earl)
Yet to Vote: 2 (Lewis; PBrunsel)

[Sam Spade]

bumping so Lewis can vote Nay. 

[minionofmidas]

bumping so Lewis can vote Nay. 

Is there a difference between voting nay and just not voting at all?

[Јas]

bumping so Lewis can vote Nay. 

Is there a difference between voting nay and just not voting at all?

Yep. A non-vote on an amendment = an abstention. (See OSPR: Article 4, Section 4.)

[minionofmidas]

bumping so Lewis can vote Nay. 

Is there a difference between voting nay and just not voting at all?

Yep. A non-vote on an amendment = an abstention. (See OSPR: Article 4, Section 4.)

This is a cloture motion. I think 2/3s of eight is six, and not voting is the same as abstaining except that the vote lasts longer because I still might vote yes.

[Јas]

bumping so Lewis can vote Nay. 

Is there a difference between voting nay and just not voting at all?

Yep. A non-vote on an amendment = an abstention. (See OSPR: Article 4, Section 4.)

This is a cloture motion. I think 2/3s of eight is six, and not voting is the same as abstaining except that the vote lasts longer because I still might vote yes.

Actually double that... because my tally was in error also, PB is on a declared absence as well.

Revised Tally on DWTL's Cloture Motion
Aye: 4 (Sam; Phil; Brandon; DWTL)
Nay: 2 (Ebowed; Rob)
Absent: 3 (Al; Earl; PBrunsel)
Yet to Vote: 1 (Lewis)

The OSPR doesn't say anything on the length of time a cloture motion vote may run for, nor did Sam mention anything about it in his guidelines during the PPT election.

[Sam Spade]

bumping so Lewis can vote Nay. 

Is there a difference between voting nay and just not voting at all?

Yep. A non-vote on an amendment = an abstention. (See OSPR: Article 4, Section 4.)

This is a cloture motion. I think 2/3s of eight is six, and not voting is the same as abstaining except that the vote lasts longer because I still might vote yes.

Actually double that... because my tally was in error also, PB is on a declared absence as well.

Revised Tally on DWTL's Cloture Motion
Aye: 4 (Sam; Phil; Brandon; DWTL)
Nay: 2 (Ebowed; Rob)
Absent: 3 (Al; Earl; PBrunsel)
Yet to Vote: 1 (Lewis)

The OSPR doesn't say anything on the length of time a cloture motion vote may run for, nor did Sam mention anything about it in his guidelines during the PPT election.

There is no time limit on a cloture motion.  I change my vote to Nay.

[Ebowed]

I change my vote to Aye.

[minionofmidas]

bumping so Lewis can vote Nay. 

Is there a difference between voting nay and just not voting at all?

Yep. A non-vote on an amendment = an abstention. (See OSPR: Article 4, Section 4.)

This is a cloture motion. I think 2/3s of eight is six, and not voting is the same as abstaining except that the vote lasts longer because I still might vote yes.

Actually double that... because my tally was in error also, PB is on a declared absence as well.

Revised Tally on DWTL's Cloture Motion
Aye: 4 (Sam; Phil; Brandon; DWTL)
Nay: 2 (Ebowed; Rob)
Absent: 3 (Al; Earl; PBrunsel)
Yet to Vote: 1 (Lewis)

The OSPR doesn't say anything on the length of time a cloture motion vote may run for, nor did Sam mention anything about it in his guidelines during the PPT election.

There is no time limit on a cloture motion.  I change my vote to Nay.

Ugh. I guess that loophole needs to be fixed.

I vote Nay.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I'll change my vote to Nay

[Sam Spade]

With 3 votes in favor, 4 against and 3 seats absent, the motion for cloture has failed and debate shall continue on the legislation.