We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Expenditure Cuts II
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: December 2103
Description[?]:
| The government has no right to spend tax dollars on certain things. http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=15693 LOD shall no longer be taxed from our citizens and handed out to foreign governments The following bill shall be put back into effect: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=9663 |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy towards giving aid to foreign countries.
Old value:: The government gives moderate aid to countries in need.
Current: The government gives high levels of aid to countries in need.
Proposed: The government never offers international aid.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:17:00, August 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | This bill contains a lie. Lodamun has never sent aid to foreign governments. All aid has gone to non-governmental organizations and cooperatives -- or in the case of food relief, to Lodamun farmers to buy their crops and send them abroad. We urge the other parties to reject it as dishonest to the core and harmful to Lodamun's larger foreign policy goals. Aid opens markets to our exports, makes us friends overseas, and helps create the itnernal stability necessary for Lodamun's trade to thrive -- all this quite apart from the humanitarian motives. It is in Lodamun's self-interest to send foreign aid. Aid is, in fact, the fountainhead of an effective foreign policy. |
| Date | 20:06:34, August 30, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | We have no right to steal money from our citizens and distribute it to other nations on the basis of need. |
| Date | 21:50:02, August 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | Fine, that's an ideological statement. Still, the bill contains a lie. Furthermore, it promotes a counter-productive policy, even from a pure utilitarian perspective. |
| Date | 21:54:28, August 30, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | A revision in the debate, to substitute the word "foreigners" in place of "foreign governments," would at least have the virtue of removing a factual inaccuracy. ((OOC: please try to read past bills, so new ones passed can at least contain the right information. I'm making this request out of character, instead of making another bill to censure TIC for lying to the House, because that's been done to death, but the bill description does contain inaccurate information about a carefully-written past law.)) |
| Date | 03:13:06, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | "Proposal to change Government policy towards giving aid to foreign countries." Foreign countries can reasonably be interpreted to mean the foreign governments. As most federal aid in the real world is given from government to government, this is the most logical interpretation. We ((are not lying to the house...)) This bill re-instates a carefully written past law. As a matter of precedent, the law that overturned that one was first hijacked while in debate, (by a law introduced and voted upon with 0 debate, on the eve of an election), in 2082 http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=9935 In 2084, Stop Legalized Theft passed. 15 months later it was overturned by a law with a single sentence as the description. http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=10746 ((If you are concerned about the declining sizes of my bill descriptions, I invite you to look at some of my earlier bills. Once my bills started getting overturned immediately after passage, by bills rushed to a vote without debate or description, I stopped worrying about it so much. So I removed the cooperatives act, which you felt was well thought out. I have learned some things from albert. Go ahead and accuse me of whatever. Either way, I follow Lodamun law(and immediately correct myself when mistakes are made). Calling on Baltusia to attack us was definitely treason. Treason is illegal in every country, however you were aquitted GA. So much for the rule of law in partisan politics.)) |
| Date | 10:53:03, August 31, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=6581 http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=6582 http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=7126 Three of the TiC's first four bills were single/double sentence affairs and there have been a number since. While we'd like to credit TiC with the invention of creating superficial legislation, it was a practice which was already rife. Neither can we, in all honesty, accept the accolade TiC offers to pronounce upon us. However, should you care to study - and try to understand - our legislative history, you would see that in very many cases we have produced thoughtful and detailed bills, which were amended and adapted during debate in order to incorporate the widest possible view. With the arrival of TiC and their cohorts this became an increasingly futile intention, as their strategy was, and still is, the promotion of their own ideological agenda without reference to context. While TiC et al continue in this approach the simplicity of bill proposal and counter proposal will remain. It is a strategy of their choosing. The Greens did not call on Baltusia to attack Lodamun, they called for international support in defeating particular legislation. The allegation of treason was based around the omission of the word "peaceful" from their call to action. Whereas this omission could mean the call was for military intervention, it did not actually commission military intervention. As such, there is not a fair jury in the world which would describe this allegation of treason as being founded, it is impossible to prove such an intention "beyond reasonable doubt". The Moneygod Stalinists of TiC and their brethren may try to rewrite history, may try to obscure the truth, may try to mislead and dissemble wherever possible, but they will not move this parliament beyond tit for tat legislation until they understand and recognise their own need - and the country's need - for compromise and consensus. |
| Date | 18:45:10, August 31, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | My first two bills were created and submitted without debate. I was new at the time and didnt understand how the game worked. If this is the best you can find, I pity you. Reasonable environmental standards 2 is an example of good sportsmanship. It was allowed time to debate, and even though 260 members of the Parliament abstained, I did not re address the issue for many years. I really dont have the time to deal with this Equitista. You taught me long ago to ignore most of what you say, our voting comparisons are the lowest in the nation, and we only occasionally agree on the most trivial issues. You were the reason the procedure acts were passed, you cant deny this. After they were passed, TiC made a mistake, in an attempt at compromise(which you claim the country needs). You instantly noticed this and pointed it out, after which we corrected it before the month was over. You claim that the naiton needs compromise, but you have shown that you will use any occasion, even "compromise and consensus" to achieve your own ends and harm your enemies. |
| Date | 00:00:15, September 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | TiC have repeatedly shown themselves to be untrustworthy and have taken advantage of whatever in-game or out-of-game opportunity has arisen. They have made untrue claims, contrary claims, ambiguous claims and contradictory claims. On the whole TiC's legislation is cursory, mainly because the pursuit of a policy which in its entirety can be described as "keep your hands off our money". Your failure to understand the point of actions designed to show the failings of an oppositional style of parliament immediately after a slender majority had grabbed power is your own problem not ours, but it does demonstrate to us the lack of imagination we have to deal with. Do not attempt to define your threats as offering compromise, they are simply threats. Why wouldn't TiC apologise after breaking the law? The suggestion that we "instantly" noticed and pointed out the transgression of the law you promoted and swore to abide by hints that we rather than TiC was in the wrong. You have discussed any laws not introduced by you or your cohorts with disdain, held your own laws to be sacrosanct - but excused yourself from non-adherence to them. |
| Date | 18:47:41, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | That last post is not worthy of a proper response. If it came from a less hypocritical speaker, we would take time to refute the accusations contained in it. |
| Date | 18:49:31, September 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | You simply don't have a response. |
| Date | 18:55:39, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | The fact is that I have already responded to your accusations and rhetoric elsewhere. I have a life and I dont enjoy spending it arguing about something stupid with an statist weasel online. I prefer to do more exciting things. If I am going to spend time online, I will use it in ways that I find more enjoyable than trading blows with some know it all twelve year old |
| Date | 19:30:44, September 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | So why no apology to parliament? |
| Date | 19:59:24, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | No apology was required. Compliance with the law was required. We do not feel a need to apologize given that the violation happened due to an attempt to compromise, as well as the fact that it was corrected very quickly. An apology would be more appropriate if there had been a deliberate violation, maintained with no regard to the law. If the party that caused the law to be necessary, by willful violations of what the law would later ban, has a problem with actions I commit. I dont care. |
| Date | 21:18:31, September 01, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | How remarkable that you blame compromise and seem to long for recognition for making some kind of magnanimous gesture. Your "compromises" are not worth having because they are merely threats, all they reveal is how far you are prepared to go to preserve your ideology. It's called fanaticism. An apology is entirely in order if the violation was accidental. If it was a deliberate violation then an apology would hardly suffice. Would you accept an apology from all those people you've just put on the chain gangs? We think not. "willful violations of what the law would later ban" is such an absolutely nonsensical notion it could only have come from TiC. |
| Date | 21:27:49, September 01, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | As this law has been passed over 6 months ago, it is pointless for more debate to be added to it. |
| Date | 01:59:50, September 02, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Expenditure Cuts II |
| Message | We don't think so, it's become a debate about why TiC finds it impossible to apologise for breaking the law. None of the alleged reasons put forward so far are the truth. What is the truth? Why wouldn't TiC apologise? Is it a pride thing? Or arrogance? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 156 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 144 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Information about the population of each country can be found on the Population Information thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=8663 |
| Random quote: "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" - Thomas Jefferson |