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: Anti-Subsidy Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX
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: August 2182
Description[?]:
| A bill to remove pointless subsidies. |
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 subsidises the operations of low-income farming families.
Proposed: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Current: The government requires most energy to be generated by nuclear power.
Proposed: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:52:03, February 07, 2006 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Anti-Subsidy Act |
| Message | ARTICLE 1 Fact: Subsidies to farmers allow them to artificially deflate prices, thus forcing competition from poorer undeveloped nations, unable to afford subsidy deflation, out of the marketplace, unable to compete against unfair pricing. Fact: Subsidies encourage poor quality goods and a lax attitude toward work, as they have a government welfare net waiting for them. Nationalisation is available to farmers who are hard done by by the weather. If the whole industry is in trouble, it too can be nationalised. ARTICLE 2 Fact: Subsidies for nuclear power go to established energy giants like Liam & Co Electric and Nuclear Power Baltusia, who do not need subsidies and are established in the energy industry. Fact: The nuclear sector of the energy industry was well established before subsidisation. Fact: As the cheaper and cleaner alternative to fossil fuels, it is not going to be hard to sell nuclear power to the general public without wasting their tax dollars on it. Question: If nationalisation be the end result of subsidisation of nuclear power stations, then wouldn't be smarter to have them in a crappy condition until they are nationalised, which will vastly improve them and show the benefits of the nationalisation process? This does not reflect our opinions but we're looking at things from the socialist perspective. |
| Date | 15:46:51, February 07, 2006 CET | From | Revolutionary Socialist Alliance | To | Debating the Anti-Subsidy Act |
| Message | Let's send this Bill to its grave. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 93 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 268 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "If there's anything a public servant hates to do it's something for the public." - Kin Hubbard |