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: Subsidy of Farming Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Party for Equality
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: May 2047
Description[?]:
A bill to subsidise poorer farmers to encourage the farming profession and ensure no food shortages arise, while not wasting government money funding farmers of high-income produce. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Current: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Proposed: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 01:55:40, May 02, 2005 CET | From | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | We find this preferable to the current legislation. We would prefer to see no state subsidies for private businesses, but this is a reasonable middle ground. |
Date | 02:09:13, May 02, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | This seems like a less-than-sound approach to government fiscal policy. It's a no-interest, tax-free loan with an unlimited horizon - it's a handout! Neither big nor small farms should be subsidized. |
Date | 07:23:59, May 02, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | yes subsidise Our nations strength takes presidence over any Foriegn trade and if Tarrifs against other nations exports (imports for us) it would sweeten the deal. |
Date | 09:39:54, May 02, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | No subsidies....we could use it for the military insstead. Besides subsidies still hurt poor third world farmers... |
Date | 22:52:14, May 02, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | Forget the military, that money would be better spent in our educational system. |
Date | 23:16:08, May 02, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | Whatever, just don't stop free trade... |
Date | 11:39:41, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | ok, time to put this to the vote |
Date | 00:10:17, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | I can't gain majority, and I'd rather be on the winning side of this bill. |
Date | 02:03:53, May 05, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | I think there is a by=uilt in punishment for changing your views ....so being populist on what isn't a big swing issue...probably won't help.. |
Date | 02:11:28, May 05, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | excuse me- it should have been "built in" By the way, can anyone break down what they planning to cut from some other program ..to pay for this? |
Date | 03:36:39, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | PP: Your argument there is sound, but I don't think it'll help. It should work, but no one else is going to listen to that... By the way - changing your views doesn't penalize you unless you've previously voted against something and now vote for it. Besides, and more importantly, it's in character for my party to be populist, for good or for ill. |
Date | 03:44:20, May 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | Ah, forget character. This is costly and will bring little gain for the costs that go into it. We can't support it. |
Date | 07:45:54, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | PP i dont care about the '3rd World' only Likaton we are here to represent Likaton's best interests! Built in Punishment for swing voting Why?Where did you learn this? |
Date | 07:51:53, May 05, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | I was adressing that to Labor .. And if you cared about Likaton you'd vote against this bill. All it means is that we'll be subsidizing inefficient producers creating extra capacity, and impoverishing those who are actually competitive. . |
Date | 07:53:22, May 05, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | The result is we as a society pay higher prices (because of more taxes) , prolong inefficiency, and reduce the quality of agricultural output. |
Date | 07:54:59, May 05, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Subsidy of Farming Bill |
Message | The "swing voting" penalty was in one of the little blurbs that show up at the bottom of the screen... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 72 | |||
no |
Total Seats: 96 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Large scale RP planning (such as wars, regional/continental conflicts, economic collapse, etc.) should be planned (as best as it can be) and should have consent of a majority of players involved. |
Random quote: "The one bonus of not lifting the ban on gays in the military is that the next time the government mandates a draft we can all declare homosexuality instead of running off to Canada." - Lorne Bloch |