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: Social Reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democrats
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: April 2128
Description[?]:
| More subsidies in fundamental research and helping the poor. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The research and development of pharmaceutical drugs.
Old value:: The government neither subsidizes research and development of drugs nor regulates their prices.
Current: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs and regulates their prices.
Proposed: The government subsidizes research and development of prescription drugs but does not regulate their prices.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by private companies which are not subject to any special regulations.
Current: Energy is provided by nationalised companies.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private, unregulated companies but subsidies are given to those on a low income.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Current: Agricultural crops which are considered beneficial to the enviroment or to the continued ecological safety of the state are subsidized.
Proposed: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The nation's policy on minimum wage regulation.
Old value:: There is no provision for a minimum wage.
Current: There shall be a minimum wage at a level considered a "living wage," well above the poverty line for a full time worker.
Proposed: There shall be a minimum wage at a level that a single full time worker on it can adequately subsist.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:05:12, October 17, 2005 CET | From |  Deadly Buzz Party | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | Yeah, I'll go for a yes. A bit of a problem with a few of them but nothing big enough to demand a split. |
| Date | 22:06:14, October 17, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | Thank you DB :) |
| Date | 00:23:56, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | I removed the proposal that needs a constitutional amendment. Ow well, going to vote at 8 AM my time :) |
| Date | 00:24:40, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | Also, if you want to vote for, for like half of them, just say so and then I will split :) |
| Date | 01:22:36, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Alliance for Natural Law | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | 5 and 9-12 yes. 4 maybe. 1,6&7 would definitely force us on a no, 2, 3, & 8 we don't like would almost certainly force a no, but it's possible that I may make a political judgement, vote for, and propose to reverse if it looks like the bill will pass. What was the amendment? OOC: Depends a bit maybe whether I feel magnamious(very rare) on the day you put it to vote. 4,5,&9-12 I would definitely vote for, may change my mind on 4 afterwards. |
| Date | 01:27:15, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | It was an amendment to the regions and elections. It would give a small electoral advantage to bigger regions :) |
| Date | 01:27:42, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | PS. I will probably split tomorrow :) |
| Date | 03:39:07, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Alliance for Natural Law | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | I'd vote for that amendment. |
| Date | 13:04:11, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Restoration Party | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | my goodness i don't know where to begin? I'll vote yes for all if you vote yes in Resto! ;) |
| Date | 19:26:16, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | Lol, nice, but the LD doesn't stand for Resto. I'll split up according to AoVs wishes :) |
| Date | 19:38:37, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | I split the bill and removed the gated communities as well as the ID card policy. |
| Date | 21:07:20, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Alliance for Natural Law | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | Thanks LD. |
| Date | 21:58:14, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Party of Valruzia | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | No to all of course. We don't support subsidies (ie, corporate welfare), social welfare, or the minimum wage. |
| Date | 23:41:24, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democrats | To | Debating the Social Reform |
| Message | Yeah, sorry LPV, but I just moved my stances a bit more to regulation, I hope that I can get more of the moderate regulation voters in my camp. Those zippies are way too dangerous at this moment. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 62 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 52 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 86 |
| Random fact: The majority of nations in Particracy are "Culturally Protected" with an established cultural background. Only the "Culturally Open" nations are not bound by the rules surrounding culture. The Cultural Protocols Index should be consulted for more information about the cultural situation of each nation. |
| Random quote: "Stupid people are ruining America." - Herman Cain |