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 Spending Response
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Centrist 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: December 2062
Description[?]:
| http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=742&mforum=particracy /\ For thread on this see that link /\ The amount of money the government spends is disgraceful! Nothing has stable funding, everything is spotty, and we are going to fall apart! This bill aims to reduce unnecessary spending to restore government power and national stability. As it stands, we have no money for our military, no money for education, no money for our police, no money to pay our public lawyers, no money for healthcare, no money for mass transit, no money for construction, no money to pay our 200 politicians, and no money for research. We have spent our government into oblivion. It is time to fix things, or Likaton will have no future. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on subsidising contraception.
Old value:: The government offers free contraceptives in pharmacies and public toilets.
Current: The government does not supply free or discounted contraceptives.
Proposed: The government subsidises a considerable discount for contraceptives.
Article 2
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: The government denies subsidy assistance to farmers.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change Government provision of legal aid to the accused.
Old value:: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state.
Current: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state.
Proposed: Legal representation for defendants in criminal trials is paid for by the state for defendants with low incomes.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Government policy regarding a national park system.
Old value:: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Current: The government funds and maintains a network of national parks and/or marine protected areas.
Proposed: The government designates ecological preservation zones but does not fund their oversight.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:26:54, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | This is an emergency bill. The LFP implores the other parties of Likaton to fall behind it, and quickly. Our government has no power right now. Military bases are vanishing, public hospitals are declaring bankruptcy, inner city bus and subway systems are operating on minimal budgets that leave no room for repairs at all. We are sitting ducks to anyone who wishes to invade, and our quality of life is detiorating! |
| Date | 02:30:05, June 04, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | This should provoke exactly the kind of debate that is necessary - funding legal expenses will cripple our budget almost entirely for anything else.. |
| Date | 04:21:55, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Right Wing Liberals Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | How about we raise Taxes they are so low! |
| Date | 12:54:09, June 04, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | Okay, since this looks like it's going to get some decent kind of backing, I'm going to explain my reasoning here in explaining the possibly overly strong reaction of the LFP. I did a bit of research on the cost of condoms. What I found was frankly shocking. The operating profit, with advertising expenses removed, of a particularly cheap kind of condom was 16%. The price was $5 for a pack of 12. Unless I'm mistaken, that makes the cost of manufacturing and distribution to be $4.17. If 1/10th of our population used 12 condoms each, that is 58,110,897 condoms for a total cost of $20,193,536.50. That is half of our budget right there. I was aiming real low on the number of people who would use condoms - with them being free, I'm positive that usage would be higher than that. |
| Date | 20:57:29, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | well I dont understand how we could have blown the budget on those things. RL governments spend on far far more things, so I think the maths has gone wrong somewhere. I can back most of these proposals, for the sake of the economy, but not all of them. Therefore i am forced to vote against. |
| Date | 03:04:10, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | Our total revenue is only about 40 million. That's the result of an extremely progressive tax system that ONLY taxes the upper classes. |
| Date | 03:22:10, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | Damn. I miscalculated. Here's what we call a set of misplaced zeros. Our tax revenue was decided at 40 -billion-. Condoms required only a few hundredths of our budget. The point about legal aid to the accused still stands, though, which was calculated by the People's Party at about 20 billion. |
| Date | 03:24:06, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | Err, excuse my language. I should've said that better. Here, I'm going to do some more research and calculate actual expenditures. Some of these programs we might be able to reinstate. Not the justice for all one, but the others don't look like they were as deadly. |
| Date | 03:41:03, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | Alright, another example of an expense - on the matter of national parks. For every 4 hectares - 400 acres - of parkland we're operating, as much as a billion dollars could be going down the drain. If we had only 10 hectares of parkland, that's 2.5 billion dollars. Even small nations have far more land than that - and Likatonia isn't exactly small. Our national park system is likely a huge drain on our budget. We must privatise it - or soon, we just won't have it at all. OOC: Reference Taipei's Kuandu Nature Reserve, which is 57 hectares and 15 billion. |
| Date | 04:09:04, June 05, 2005 CET | From | National Centrist Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | One last thing, and this one is a concession. Subsidies to poor food farmers are minimal, because most agriculture in an advanced nation like our own is mechanized. I should have done more research beforehand - unfortunately, my knee-jerk reaction was too strong. My reform proposal is decisive and necessary in two areas, but overdone and unnecessary in the other two. |
| Date | 04:13:09, June 05, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Government Spending Response |
| Message | The thing is the 28 billion figure was only when we wer targeting the 12% of the poor. Now that the whole population is paart of the scheme, you can easily multiply that expenditure 5-6 times. At that level, it leaves somewhere like 50 billion in the red. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 98 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 13 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 26 |
| 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: "I start with the premise that the function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers." - Ralph Nader |