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: Transporation Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Patriot Party
Status[?]: defeated
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 2550
Description[?]:
| This act allows for those on low income to have their fares subsidized by the state while those who are not of low income families have to pay. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Funding of public transport (where applicable).
Old value:: Public transport is fully subsidised by the government.
Current: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Proposed: Public transport is fully subsidised for people with low-income, with the remainder "user-pays".
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:30:37, March 20, 2008 CET | From | Tuatha Dé Danann | To | Debating the Transporation Reform Act |
| Message | Would the extra revenue made from not paying all the subsidies be profitable in an other way for the ecology of our nation? We are happy with the current law because it encourages to use public transport, less individual transport thus less chance of extra fumes polluting our skies. However, if in some way the fundings made free by the proposed law would be invested in another ecologic part that has a more significant impact on improving our fauna & flora we would support. As we see it at this point we will have to oppose the proposal. |
| Date | 23:22:11, March 20, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Transporation Reform Act |
| Message | This would reduce use of public transport, increasing traffic congestion in our big cities, and causing more damage to the environment. We strongly oppose. |
| Date | 23:56:02, March 20, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Transporation Reform Act |
| Message | Even if we use the money we are saving for those fuel efficent cars? |
| Date | 00:09:22, March 21, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Transporation Reform Act |
| Message | Encouraging public transport is a much better aim than encouraging the use of private cars, especially from a non-environmental point of view: private cars cause traffic. Traffic is bad for an economy. |
| Date | 00:17:35, March 21, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Transporation Reform Act |
| Message | And if we pump more money into environmentally friendly cars, then we can vote for your proposal to allow those cars only. We cannot do that right now because we are funding everyone's transportation costs. |
| Date | 00:20:24, March 21, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the Transporation Reform Act |
| Message | That is patently not true. There is no reason whatsoever that we cannot do both. The Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport recently got a boost in funding, they can more than afford to maintain current operations while encouraging environmentally friendly cars. |
| Date | 00:43:56, March 21, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Transporation Reform Act |
| Message | We are not made of money JUP! We have to make hard decisions. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 69 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 256 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 145 |
| Random fact: Party organizations are eligible for deletion if they are over 50 in-game years old, do not have at least 1 active member or are historically significant and possess historically significant information. |
| Random quote: "Usually the nonsense liberals spout is kind of cute, but in wartime their instinctive idiocy is life-threatening." - Ann Coulter |