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: Repel of the Public Ownership Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Republican Party-Liberals
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: May 4495
Description[?]:
. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Energy regulation.
Old value:: Energy is provided by nationalised companies.
Current: Energy is provided by nationalised companies.
Proposed: Energy is provided by private companies but the prices they can charge are regulated.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on industry and subsidies to industrial operations.
Old value:: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Current: Certain industries are owned by the state, all others are under private ownership.
Proposed: The government acts as an investor of last resort, by nationalizing failing industries that provide vital goods or services.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning phone services.
Old value:: The state subsidizes the phone service of low income families, and regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Current: Telephone lines are provided free of charge to all citizens.
Proposed: The state regulates the rates providers can charge for phone service.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 01:12:40, December 04, 2018 CET | From | United Democratic Party - Syndicalists | To | Debating the Repel of the Public Ownership Act |
Message | Mr Speaker Clearly the Republicans to do not recognise "Democracy", the Public Control Act was passed by Congress yet they wish to repeal it immediately after, they are not respecting the decision that was made. The act has only just been implemented, to great success and popular by the way, repealing it would lead to huge economic instability and cause a loss of faith in Congress. Daniel Tejan Senator for Attano |
Date | 17:55:57, December 04, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Repel of the Public Ownership Act |
Message | Mr. President I wasnt aware that less then half of Congress voting on a bill was considered popular. If it were so popular why is that a majority of Congress is voting to repeal it? Jessica Laurels Senate Majority Leader Senator for Ralston |
Date | 18:18:56, December 04, 2018 CET | From | United Democratic Party - Syndicalists | To | Debating the Repel of the Public Ownership Act |
Message | Mr Speaker The Nationalist caucus of the Republican Party voted in favour previously, clearly they were bullied into voting with the government In this ridiculous repeal Daniel Tejan Senator for Attano |
Date | 22:25:51, December 04, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party-Liberals | To | Debating the Repel of the Public Ownership Act |
Message | Mr Speaker This is a bipartisan piece of legislation. Senator William Osborne (R-NE) |
Date | 23:13:19, December 04, 2018 CET | From | Republican Party | To | Debating the Repel of the Public Ownership Act |
Message | Mr. Speaker The Senator from Attano's statement rings rather hallow when members of their own party are voting in line with the government on this Bill, for which we thank the Social Liberal Caucus for their support on this important economic bill. The Baltusian economy has done fine without the government interfering with it; there was no reason for the government to suddenly stick it's nose where it doesn't belong. Senator Jessica Laurels (R-RA) Senate Majority Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||||
yes |
Total Seats: 340 | |||||
no |
Total Seats: 148 | |||||
abstain | Total Seats: 47 |
Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
Random quote: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson |