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: Farm Subsidies Act 2110
Details
Submitted by[?]: Party of Evil
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: January 2114
Description[?]:
| A proposal to let the local government to craft subsidy policy for agriculture. NS, you've convinced me. :) |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Current: The government subsidises agriculture based on market demand for the crop being grown.
Proposed: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:15:42, September 14, 2005 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Farm Subsidies Act 2110 |
| Message | we have reserves about this. Sometimes crops that are in market demand are to boom and bust. In the early 90s, there, all the sudden, was a market for Mint, so most farmers in Montana basically stopped growing what they were growing, and started growing mint. The boom didn't last long, and the market for mint bottomed out pretty hard. Now, all those farmers were left with worthless mint crop, and then other agriculture took a hit to because not as much of it was being produced because Mint was the in thing. Farmers went out of business (mostly small farmers), and it took a few years for the aggie business to recover. The way we see it, we should subsidise all crops and all farmers, or none at all. (This isn't to say we won't vote in favor of this, it's on the right track, we're just saying we should go further.) |
| Date | 20:24:10, September 14, 2005 CET | From | Party of Evil | To | Debating the Farm Subsidies Act 2110 |
| Message | Agreed, but subsidizing all crops and farmers may create a large class of small farmers who are dependant on subsidies all the time, like in France for instance. While we're very much in favour of supporting small farmers, we don't want them to end up like that! |
| Date | 21:14:02, September 14, 2005 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Farm Subsidies Act 2110 |
| Message | We're more in favor of local governments control farm policy, which was what is was before we took subsidy away altogether, because, I think how people described it at the time was, subsidy rich fat famers live on meat mountains or somthing. |
| Date | 21:24:43, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Party of Evil | To | Debating the Farm Subsidies Act 2110 |
| Message | Hmmm....... good point. |
| Date | 21:33:32, September 16, 2005 CET | From | Party of Evil | To | Debating the Farm Subsidies Act 2110 |
| Message | Okay, changed it to that. |
| Date | 18:23:47, September 17, 2005 CET | From | Unio enim si quis Motus Populi | To | Debating the Farm Subsidies Act 2110 |
| Message | alright, we'll support it. |
| Date | 21:09:42, September 19, 2005 CET | From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Farm Subsidies Act 2110 |
| Message | We will vote for this as it’s consistent with our newly reformed party position. However (as always) we reserve the right to propose an alteration in the future. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 166 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 108 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 31 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "I am thankful for the taxes I pay because it means that I'm employed." - Nancie J. Carmody |