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: Child Benefit Act of 2951
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hutorian Conservative Party
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: July 2952
Description[?]:
| ............ |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state guarantees child benefit to families classified as low-income or poor.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:37:16, June 09, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, how would the NSC define a large family? Madam Speaker, we oppose this proposal on the grounds that parents are perfectly able to decide how many children they should have. They are not compelled to have large numbers of children. Madam Speaker, is it fair for other taxpayers to shoulder the burden of other parents' irresponsibility? We would argue, Madam Speaker, that it is not. |
| Date | 16:36:24, June 09, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, why do the NSC consistently ignore questions that we pose to them, especially when those questions relate directly to policy? Let me repeat, Madam Speaker, "how would the NSC define a large family"? Is it when parents have 2 children, 3 children, 4, 5 or 6? Does the 'largeness' of a family vary depending on how many parents there are in a household? Does it apply to families who have adopted or fostered children? Madam Speaker, why do the NSC constantly decline the opportunity to explain their policies in more detail? |
| Date | 20:13:22, June 09, 2010 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, we would accept this. |
| Date | 09:45:56, June 10, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, yet another set of questions to the NSC go unanswered. Cannot say we are surprised by this clearly inept party which has no respect for the Parliamentary system. The CLP want the NSC to answer the questions put to him in our previous statements. |
| Date | 11:48:11, June 10, 2010 CET | From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | We don't feel that it's necessary to spend the state's money for the poor and the young. There are other things we need to concentrate on. |
| Date | 18:35:08, June 10, 2010 CET | From | United Forces of Decay | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | Given the circumstances - we just formed a coalition with the Hutori National-Socialist Congress - we will support this. After all it's something we can live with, although we don't really see the necessity of this Act. |
| Date | 10:09:01, June 11, 2010 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, will the NSC not answer the questions we have posed, or are we "irrelevant" once again? We thought the NSC now believed in parliamentary democracy and the vital role that opposition has to play in the process. Given their rhetoric against the Labour Party's refusal to answer questions, we thought they would live up to their words. |
| Date | 19:27:14, June 11, 2010 CET | From | Hutorian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Child Benefit Act of 2951 |
| Message | Madam Speaker, we would classify a 'large family' as having four or more children. Madam Speaker, yes it would apply to any family who has adopted children. Oh and Madam Speaker, i doubt the people of this nation would see it as irresponsible to have large number of children as the CLP see it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 297 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 94 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Any RP law granting extraordinary "emergency powers" or dictator-like powers to a government must be passed by at least a 2/3rds majority, but (like all RP laws) may always be overturned by a simple majority vote of the legislature. |
| Random quote: "Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." - Niccolo Machiavelli |