Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: February 5475
Next month in: 03:11:36
Server time: 20:48:23, April 25, 2024 CET
Currently online (5): Autokrator30 | dnobb | ImperialLodamun | Razvedka | SocDemDundorfian | 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: Economics

Details

Submitted by[?]: Liberal Conservative 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: February 2197

Description[?]:

.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date00:36:01, March 07, 2006 CET
FromWampeters, Foma and Granfalloons Party
ToDebating the Economics
MessageI agree with 3,4 and 5 but I can not accept 1 and 2. If they could be eliminated I would vote yes on this bill.

Date03:50:35, March 07, 2006 CET
FromLiberal Conservative Party
ToDebating the Economics
Messageso are you saying that you don't support children working at all? to me, this means that teenagers can get jobs, but there are regulations on how many hours a week they can work. i'm not talking about having 5 or 6 year old children with jobs, but rather teenagers who want to make money. i want to allow them that option, but i don't want companies to force them into too much work. and could you please define what your problem is with #1, are you against any government regulation of the consumption of alcohol or does it need to be stricter.

Date23:01:36, March 07, 2006 CET
FromWampeters, Foma and Granfalloons Party
ToDebating the Economics
MessageI take back my earlier statement about article 1 as I must have misread your proposal. For some reason I was under the impression that there were restrictions and you were taking them off, but that is clearly not the case. In regards to article 2, when I think children I think pre-teen and I do not believe that pre-teens should even be allowed to work, their only obligation is to go to school. However, if I am incorrect, and children include teenagers then I would have to agree with you. (I guess the real question is what does the game mean by children, but I suppose that if it does not include an option for teenagers then it includes them in the children option). So then, if 2 is what you say it is then I can and will support this bill.

Date00:07:24, March 08, 2006 CET
FromLiberal Conservative Party
ToDebating the Economics
Messageyea, its unclear, honestly, i think that the regulation side of it means that you have to be a certain age to work, and then only so many hours a week. thats just make take on it.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 158

no

    Total Seats: 0

    abstain
       

    Total Seats: 42


    Random fact: Use a valid e-mail address for your Particracy account. If the e-mail address you entered does not exist, your account may be suspected of multi-accounting and inactivated.

    Random quote: "If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows." - Louis Mountbatten

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 70