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: Government Benefits Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative Liberal 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 2170
Description[?]:
| RECOGNISING the government owes the people certain benefits RECOGNISING that these benefits should be distributed to those who need them PROPOSING the following changes to the Welfare System in Likatonia |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy regarding child benefit.
Old value:: The state guarantees child benefit to all families.
Current: The state guarantees child benefit to all families.
Proposed: The state guarantees child benefit to both low-income families and large families.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government policy regarding housing.
Old value:: All housing is privately-owned.
Current: The state provides public housing to low-income families.
Proposed: The state contracts with private companies to provide public housing.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:19:19, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | The AAS is tempted to support... |
| Date | 16:37:27, January 09, 2006 CET | From | JLP Liberation Militia | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | The JLP isn't. |
| Date | 17:39:40, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | As a matter of curiousity... why does the JLP oppose? Article one would reduce spending, and limit it to those who are the more needy... and article two would still leave all housing in the hands of private operators, but allow direct governmental sponsorship for some of it.... Where is the 'bad'? |
| Date | 17:42:50, January 09, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | RLP is somwhat afraid of the second proposal; it seems to be the camel's nose into the tent. Next step would be having the government providing housing directly, etc. The first proposal is tempting to support, so we are split at this point and will not decide until we hear further arguements on both sides. |
| Date | 18:06:06, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | While the AAS would happily vote for governmental housing, we do not believe that this is necessarily a 'rung on that ladder'. One can vote 'towards' a political ideology, without voting for the WHOLE political ideology. Example: If there were a Bill suggested that would refit Likatonian submarines (for example), the AAS might vote in favour. That would could be INTERPRETED as suggesting a slight trend towards Militarism... but the suggestion would be misleading... because the AAS would remain a pacifist party. Similarly - if the RLP believed it was in the best interest of the CITIZENS to provide SOME government structured housing through private contractors, it certainly does not mean that they would support a full 'government housing ONLY' policy... or imply any REAL intentions in that direction. |
| Date | 02:17:00, January 10, 2006 CET | From | JLP Liberation Militia | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | AAS - the JLP doesn't believe government should be in the housing business. |
| Date | 14:48:50, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Liberal Party | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | It won't be, it is subcontracting with private firms, to provide cheap rented homes for the poor, the government will not be looking for a profit, and should be able to break even if it opens the field to private companies to bid for the housing contracts. |
| Date | 15:24:02, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | Indeed - the AAS sees no big difference between 'government sponsored' housing, as presented here, and some of the housing projects we already have, conducted by 'not-for-profit' groups. Except that, a government sponsored proposal would likely be more closely regulated... |
| Date | 21:34:47, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | PSS, after much deliberation has decided to support this on the following grounds: Article 1.: It puts the money where it's needed. Rather than supporting everybody with a 'one size fits all' payment, it is going to low income and large families. The PSS also beleive that this will have an 'incentive' for people to have larger families, something the PSS is in favour of. Article 2.: There is a need here that can be satisfied cheaply. Nothing annoys poeple more about politicians when they are debating how best to put a roof over everyone's head while they are standing out in the rain. While the PSS may take a capitalist approach to many problems, this is something that will benefit the vast majority of our citizens, and it does not rely on an abstract, political theory of increasing wealth via this or that strategy. It simply, and cheaply, houses people. It is a tangable outcome for people needing a basic standard of living. |
| Date | 23:18:47, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | The PSS commentary on the Second Article is both astute and VERY compelling. |
| Date | 12:31:58, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Government Benefits Bill |
| Message | I don't even understand it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 364 | ||||||
| no | Total Seats: 136 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson |