Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5461
Next month in: 02:18:32
Server time: 21:41:27, March 28, 2024 CET
Currently online (1): hexaus18 | Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: Economic Security Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: Luthorian Workers 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: June 4142

Description[?]:

Mr. Speaker,

I rise today to propose the following piece of legislation. We, on behalf of the working class in this country, insist upon the following proposals to protect those of low income and who are members of the working class. We urge the members of this body to pass this bill.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date16:14:46, December 27, 2016 CET
FromUnited Luthori
ToDebating the Economic Security Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

There is absolutely nothing on which these proposed policies are grounded upon. Foreign investment should be something that is encouraged, not restricted. As for our corporate tax, it is the reason behind a significant fraction of our economic growth. Mr. Turner of the Worker's Party may think 21% is low, but if this bill passes, it'll become 30%, 40%, and eventually 50% like the near-communist Rildanorians tax their poor companies. No, Mr. Speaker, we cannot let this pass. The HDU is against this measure. The Luthori Chamber of Commerce has signaled they are against this measure. Sensible Luthorians around the country who realize the devastating effects are against this measure.

I yield.

Kenneth Buckley
Leader of the HDU
MD for Orange

Date16:35:43, December 27, 2016 CET
FromLuthorian Workers Party
ToDebating the Economic Security Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

Surely Mr. Buckley realizes that if what he says is true, and it is not, that the opposite must then also be true. If today the tax rate is 15% then tomorrow it is 10% and then 5% and then eventually nothing and we'll have no revenue with which to fund our government, our military, our national police force, or our national fire department. We'll become a third world country, and anarchists' utopia. The faux opposition to this bill is unfounded. It is senseless.

Secondly, how exactly is it that Mr. Buckley equates obtaining approval from our government for foreigners to invest into our national companies is "restricting" it? We mandate that foreign governments obtain government approval before setting up an embassy here in our country. Is that restricting diplomatic and global cooperation in the opinion of MR. Buckley?

I yield.

Edison Turner
Leader of the LWP

Date23:14:26, December 27, 2016 CET
FromUnited Luthori
ToDebating the Economic Security Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

I commend Mr. Turner for his skills in rhetoric. He does have a way with words, but let's set the facts straight so Luthorians don't get duped by his facade. The tax rate has been at 15% for as long as I, or anyone else in this chamber, can remember. No member of this body has been calling for a reduction in the near future. The HDU has only stated that we are interested in tax and budget reform, certainly not a direct call for reducing the rate any further. On the other hand, if we raise the corporate tax by 6 points to a rate over 20%, then it sets the stage for further encroachments on business as the Worker's Party begins to feel emboldened by its so-called "progress".

As for foreign investment, the market works best when the government gets its disgustingly large hand out of it. Let the invisible hand provide the best deals for all parties involved. If foreign investment helps spur domestic growth, who is the Worker's Party, or anyone else in government for that matter, to stop or hinder it? This is simply an excuse to restrict investment by foreigners and would inadvertently hurt our economy. I'd also like to remind Mr. Turner that foreign direct investment is not the same as the ability for a foreign government to open up an embassy. One clearly has economic benefits to our people. The other is political in nature and relies on diplomacy. We already have a system in place, rather liberal in my view, to allow for the opening of embassies. Foreign investment is another matter that should be viewed through a different lens. Let's not compare apples to bazookas here, Mr. Speaker.

I yield.

Kenneth Buckley
Leader of the HDU
MD for Orange

Date23:29:11, December 27, 2016 CET
FromLuthorian Workers Party
ToDebating the Economic Security Act
MessageMr. Speaker,

I want to first and foremost thank the kind gentleman from Orange for his generous compliments and kind words regarding my rhetorical skill as well as to commend him on his own mastery of talking in circles. In one breath he promises tax reform and in the other promises that he and his party aren't the least bit interested in changing the tax rate. You can't have it both ways Mr. Buckley. Either you are reforming the tax code, or your not. Which is it?

Secondly, the gentleman from Orange is once again wanting to have his cake and eat it too in regards to foreign investments into national companies. Mr. Buckley thinks that an embassy should require government oversight and approval before being opened, but a foreign investor into one of nation's industries requires no oversight at all. We shouldn't know who or what is investing into our industries and businesses? We shouldn't vet them at all? We should allow, then according to Mr. Buckley, an unknown foreign entity to potentially acquire a controlling share of national companies? This is both reckless and dangerous! We should, all of us, be opposed to such a notion!

I yield.

Edison Turner
Leader of the LWP

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
 

Total Seats: 0

no
     

Total Seats: 561

abstain
 

Total Seats: 0


Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar).

Random quote: "If a female president can come here and be treated equally, why can't any other woman?" - Jewell C. Stillman, former Lourennais politician (on equal rights in Badara)

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 62