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: Reforming the Agricultural Subsidy Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative People's 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: April 3693
Description[?]:
| Below |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government agricultural and farming subsidies policy.
Old value:: The government subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Current: The government allows local governments to craft agricultural subsidy policy.
Proposed: Agricultural crops which are considered beneficial to the enviroment or to the continued ecological safety of the state are subsidized.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning farm size.
Old value:: Farm size is not regulated.
Current: Farm size regulations are determined by local governments.
Proposed: Farms that grow too large are broken up and the land redistributed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:56:47, July 01, 2014 CET | From | National Hutori Workers Party | To | Debating the Reforming the Agricultural Subsidy Act |
| Message | I like our current position because it gives a choice. |
| Date | 01:47:59, July 02, 2014 CET | From | Conservative People's Party | To | Debating the Reforming the Agricultural Subsidy Act |
| Message | I believe this change is better as we can still promote the military and recruitment without discriminating against certain people. If adults MUST serve either in the military or in Civil Service, then I would be fine with that. But when those who cannot join the military for religious, social or political reasons are still forced into some sort of service, I believe they should be equally paid for their work. Are they not serving their country? Are their efforts not less than that of a military member? Are they not as patriotic because they will not kill for their country, even though an individual could dedicate their lives to Civil Service? I say NO. They are not less patriotic! They are serving their country just as a soldier would, and they should be paid the same wage. They should NEVER be forced to make the choice between abandoning their values and losing money. To conclude, I DO NOT support our current value, and any party who values a person's right to believe as they choose should not support it either. -Simeon Ferland Shed Party |
| Date | 02:29:12, July 03, 2014 CET | From | Socialist Army Party | To | Debating the Reforming the Agricultural Subsidy Act |
| Message | Low income people have limited power in political and in economic situation, Current law give low income farmer same opportunity with middle or high income farmer. We subsidize the low income farmer to stimulate agricultural commodity growth and makes a new job offer in this sector. This way adopted by many country in real world. So our decision to this bill is NO. |
| Date | 04:38:38, July 03, 2014 CET | From | Conservative People's Party | To | Debating the Reforming the Agricultural Subsidy Act |
| Message | If the low income farmer chooses to grow crops that are actually valuable, they will not need to worry about income for too long. However, the main concern of the Socialist Army Party seems to be that the low income farmer will be shut out by large monopolies that will wield vast political and economic power. If you are willing, I would add a provision to limit farm size and prevent monopolies in the industry as a compromise. However, I do believe that my proposal is better with our current laws, since there is no way to limit the income of farmers OR encourage poor farmers to better themselves. Instead of subsidizing low income farmers, which will certainly result in wasted money and a cycle of poverty; we should limit farm size to prevent monopolies and reward farmers who grow useful crops with a subsidy. For example. in Hutori, tobacco products cannot be sold. However, there is no law against the growing of tobacco. If a farmer chooses to grow tobacco and as a result becomes 'low-income', I do not believe that a failing farmer should receive government money if their crop is not essential to our nation. |
| Date | 09:31:38, July 07, 2014 CET | From | Socialist Army Party | To | Debating the Reforming the Agricultural Subsidy Act |
| Message | Remove your article 1 and change with limit the farm size. |
| Date | 19:41:46, July 07, 2014 CET | From | Socialist Army Party | To | Debating the Reforming the Agricultural Subsidy Act |
| Message | Unfortunately we vote no because there still article 1 on it. Current article about subsidize low income still relevant to our goal but need support with farm size. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes | Total Seats: 312 | ||
| no | Total Seats: 437 | ||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Head to the "Language assistance" thread to receive and offer help with translations: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=6368 |
| Random quote: "No government has the right to tell its citizens when or whom to love. The only queer people are those who don't love anybody." - Rita Mae Brown |