NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal: Social Assistance Accord

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Repeal: Social Assistance Accord

Postby Knootoss » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:41 pm

Proposal:

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGES that individuals in need may be deserving of assistance;

HOWEVER, REGRETS that the 'Social Assistance Accord' overreaches on the number of policies it tries to regulate, and that the lack of detail may lead to situations that are clearly unfair:

1. The 'Social Assistance Accord' does not permit Member States to make temporary welfare benefits conditional on reasonable obligations, such as having to actively look for a job. This is unfair to welfare recipients who have been actively seeking opportunities to work, and undermines the general intent behind welfare limitations: to reject 'free-riders';

2. The 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;

3. The 'Social Assistance Accord' does not specify whether parental leave must be granted to the father, the mother or both, nor does it grant the power to decide on that issue to Member States;

REALISES that World Assembly resolutions are legally binding and not merely aspirational, and that some of the mandates of the 'Social Assistance Accord' may not be affordable:

1. Poor and developing nations, regardless of their good intentions, may be unable to provide benefits that cover water, nourishment, housing, and utilities to all idle individuals within their borders and their dependants;

2. A right to "immediate access" to all information regarding benefits is equally impractical in remote or isolated areas;

REPEALS the 'Social Assistance Accord'.

Co-author: [nation=short]Unibot II[/nation]


Original resolution: Social Assistance Accord
Last edited by Goobergunchia on Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:28 pm, edited 13 times in total.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Dizyntk
Minister
 
Posts: 2699
Founded: Aug 05, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Dizyntk » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:45 pm

"The Dizyntk were opposed to the Social Assistance Accord when it was at vote. We fully are in support of its repeal."
Dizyntk WA Ambassador Princess Feyalisa Zerleen Profile
What is a Dizyntk you ask? Dizyntk Info
Cyanka is the Dizyntk year and is equal to 18 earth months. Do your own math.

User avatar
Moral Libertarians WA Mission
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Oct 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Moral Libertarians WA Mission » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:48 pm

"We always stood against the principles inherent in the SSA; with that in mind, we echo the Dizyntk delegation in fully endorsing the repeal of this resolution."
Yours faithfully,
Douglas MacBride, Chief Representative, Moral Libertarians WA Mission

.::Representing Moral Libertarians at the World Assembly::.

User avatar
Syvorji
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7996
Founded: Oct 10, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Syvorji » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:51 pm

We support it, no replacement.

Signed,
Joesphine Katrina

User avatar
Democratic Republic of Papon
Secretary
 
Posts: 31
Founded: Oct 29, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Democratic Republic of Papon » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:00 pm

The Democratic Republic of Papon approves of this proposal.

The Democratic Republic of Papon has only very recently joined the community of nations after throwing off the yoke of the oppressive imperialist, consequently the country's finances are in a parlous state after so many years of colonial mismanagement. In view of this, the madness of paying citizens to be inactive and unproductive is madder still. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:03 pm

I am grateful for the support thus far. Thank you.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Burton Industries WA Office
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 14
Founded: Jun 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Burton Industries WA Office » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:10 pm

You have our support as well. Good luck.
Scott Marcellus, WA Ambassador
Delegate of The South

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:31 pm

I don't think the poor and developing nations problem will ever be solved in respect of SAA, unless the WA finds another pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to throw out money as subsidies. Provisonal support.

User avatar
Desperia Heim
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 19
Founded: Aug 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Desperia Heim » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:39 pm

"most certainly agree that the uncertainties within -SAA- are more than enough ground for a repeal with no replacement, hereby give this proposal our support."
Mr. Alexander Durian. Doctor in Philosophy, Dean of the Social Studies Dept. of the Templary University of Desperia Heim.
Representative in the World Assembly for The Federation of Desperia Heim

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:42 pm

Any spelling/grammar suggestions?

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Charlotte Ryberg
The Muse of the Westcountry
 
Posts: 15007
Founded: Mar 14, 2007
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Charlotte Ryberg » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:45 pm

Knootoss wrote:Any spelling/grammar suggestions?

In:
ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals who are without a sufficient income are deserving of assistance;

I think it should be read as:
ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals or families who are without an adequate income to meet their needs should be entitled to financial assistance;


The repealing clause forgot a full stop, also.
Last edited by Charlotte Ryberg on Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sat Oct 29, 2011 4:47 pm

I wanted to make it shorter. Added a stop to the repealing clause.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Ponyist Dashiopolis
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Oct 23, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Ponyist Dashiopolis » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:17 pm

The Free Lands of Ponyist Dashiopolis supports this repeal.
Economic Left/Right: 4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.59

Dashiopolis Lumber Co.
Embassy Program
FACTBOOK

User avatar
The Republic of Lanos
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17727
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby The Republic of Lanos » Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:59 pm

We supported the original but I guess we can has our own Social Security programs back.

Meh, why not.

User avatar
Libraria and Ausitoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7099
Founded: May 30, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Libraria and Ausitoria » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:35 pm

Knootoss wrote:HOWEVER, LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' does not permit Member States to make temporary welfare benefits conditional on reasonable obligations, such as having to actively look for a job;


No it doesn't. If it did, we'd never have voted for it. I quote:
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:(6) Member states may reduce benefits for individuals who are capable of work, but remain unemployed after a minimum of nine [9] months - provided that commitment is made to ensure access and/or incentives to further education and/or skills training.


We call that an incentive, because after 9 months if they haven't been looking for work you can stop supporting them.

FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;


Good point. Although it could be argued that having time off to get to know the adopted child, whatever the age, might be a good thing.

REGRETTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' does not specify whether parental leave must be granted to the father, the mother or both;


Do you want it to? We don't mind that absence. Particularly because it'd be horrible to work out how to arrange things if there's genderqueers, or only one parent, or three, or two of the same sex, etc.?

FURTHER REGRETTING that employers may be forced to pay for the salary of an absent worker indefinitely, should the dependent of an employee happen to fall ill;

We call it health insurance. It's a good thing.

CONCERNED that the governments of poor and developing nations, regardless of their good intentions, may be unable to provide for all idle individuals within their borders, and their dependents, with benefits that cover water, nourishment, housing, and utilities;

Really? If they use clause 6?

FURTHER CONCERNED that a right to "immediate access" to all information regarding benefits is equally impractical in remote or isolated areas;

Isn't it fairly obvious that you don't have to cover every square millimeter of your country in information regarding benefits?

Really the only semi-good reason for a repeal might be the adopted child problem, which is a bit of a problem.
Last edited by Libraria and Ausitoria on Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Aestorian Commonwealth - Pax Prosperitas - Gloria in Maere - (Factbook)

Disclaimer: Notwithstanding any mention of their nations, Ausitoria and its canon does not exist nor impact the canon of many IFC & SACTO & closed-region nations; and it is harassment to presume it does. However in accordance with my open-door policy the converse does not apply: they still impact Ausitoria's canon.
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○
(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:35 am

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:We call that an incentive, because after 9 months if they haven't been looking for work you can stop supporting them.


That still means 9 months of free welfare for which the recipient has to do absolutely nothing in return. Modern welfare systems are built on programmes that guide the jobseeker back to work. All those efforts have been gutted by this resolution, because the idle person is no longer compelled to make any effort whatsoever. Losing your benefits 9 months from now is hardly an incentive to do something NOW. In fact, individuals might deliberately arrange to get a job 9 months from now and taking a nice, long vacation.

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:
FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;


Good point. Although it could be argued that having time off to get to know the adopted child, whatever the age, might be a good thing.


Hardly WA business. But we don't seem to disagree here.

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:
REGRETTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' does not specify whether parental leave must be granted to the father, the mother or both;


Do you want it to? We don't mind that absence. Particularly because it'd be horrible to work out how to arrange things if there's genderqueers, or only one parent, or three, or two of the same sex, etc.?


And the resolution neatly sidesteps the entire issue by not stating who gets parental leave at all. Its the usual solution of omnibus bills like these. A resolution dealing specifically with parental leave could have addressed these issues. Now it is just left for member states to guess, and individuals to litigate, to whom this deal applies.

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:
FURTHER REGRETTING that employers may be forced to pay for the salary of an absent worker indefinitely, should the dependent of an employee happen to fall ill;

We call it health insurance. It's a good thing.


Nice how you completely ignore the small businesses going broke because of these things. Well, actually, not nice at all.

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:
CONCERNED that the governments of poor and developing nations, regardless of their good intentions, may be unable to provide for all idle individuals within their borders, and their dependents, with benefits that cover water, nourishment, housing, and utilities;

Really? If they use clause 6?


Yes. In NS, as in RL, there are nations who cannot afford to provide clean water, housing, nourishment, electricity and utilities even if their population was PAYING for all of these services. Imagine the governments now having to provide the money to all individuals so they might afford them for free. Good intentions still ignore that crushing poverty exists. Governments cannot give away what they do not have.

Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:
FURTHER CONCERNED that a right to "immediate access" to all information regarding benefits is equally impractical in remote or isolated areas;

Isn't it fairly obvious that you don't have to cover every square millimeter of your country in information regarding benefits?


It is fairly obvious, yes, but this resolution mandates that governments provide "immediate access" anyway. That is why it has to be repealed.
Last edited by Knootoss on Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 19235
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:12 am

"My government supports this repeal, but I do feel it necessary to point out one apparent inaccuracy within its arguments... specifically within the clause"
FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;


"As the relevant clause in the resolution concerned actually says "dependent" rather than "child" this would seem to leave nations with a reasonable right of discretion with regards to the age factor after all."


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.
Last edited by Bears Armed on Sun Oct 30, 2011 8:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Kaxland
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 3
Founded: Oct 26, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Kaxland » Sun Oct 30, 2011 9:14 am

We'll support this resolution as well. It looks great and I hope to see it passed.

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9026
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sun Oct 30, 2011 10:19 am

The notion that people relying on temporary unemployment insurance to survive are really just unproductive, lazy parasites attached to the government teat is ridiculous. These are working people who have been laid off. They didn't quit their jobs because 9 months of unemployment insurance is some great windfall. These kinds of comments clearly show that Ambassador Koopman is distanced from the reality of economic downturns.

- Dr. B. Castro

User avatar
B777LR
Envoy
 
Posts: 246
Founded: May 10, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby B777LR » Sun Oct 30, 2011 11:43 am

We are in full support of this.
A Proud Citizen of the 10000 Islands!
Thin people are beautiful, but fat people are ADORABLE! -Jackie Gleason
A people free to choose will always choose peace. -Ronald Reagan
Every flower is a soul blossoming in nature. -Gerard De Nerval
DEFCON 5 - Peace
DEFCON 4 - Increased Tensions
DEFCON 3 - War Imminent
DEFCON 2 - War
DEFCON 1 - Nuclear Holocaust
Economic Left/Right: 3.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.15
98% of all Internet users would cry if Facebook broke down. If you are part of that 2% who simply would sit back and laugh, copy and paste this into your signature.

User avatar
Moronist Decisions
Minister
 
Posts: 2131
Founded: Jul 05, 2008
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Moronist Decisions » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:30 pm

Glen-Rhodes wrote:The notion that people relying on temporary unemployment insurance to survive are really just unproductive, lazy parasites attached to the government teat is ridiculous. These are working people who have been laid off. They didn't quit their jobs because 9 months of unemployment insurance is some great windfall. These kinds of comments clearly show that Ambassador Koopman is distanced from the reality of economic downturns.

- Dr. B. Castro


On one hand, we agree with Dr. Castro about this. On the other hand, we do understand that different nations may have alternate ways of handling this problem. We are unlikely to have a strong opinion either way about this.
Note: Unless specifically specified, my comments shall be taken as those purely of Moronist Decisions and do not represent the views of the Republic/Region of Europeia.

Member of Europeia
Ideological Bulwark #255
IntSane: International Sanity for All

Author of GAR#194, GAR#198 and GAR#203.

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:41 pm

I'd like to thank those who have joined this debate to voice their support for doing so, once again.

Bears Armed wrote:"My government supports this repeal, but I do feel it necessary to point out one apparent inaccuracy within its arguments... specifically within the clause"
FURTHER LAMENTING that the 'Social Assistance Accord' mandates that individuals be granted 10 weeks paid paternal leave whenever they adopt a child, regardless of parenthood or the child's age;


"As the relevant clause in the resolution concerned actually says "dependent" rather than "child" this would seem to leave nations with a reasonable right of discretion with regards to the age factor after all."


OOC: I'm glad for your support, but I don't really understand how this is a salient point. Just looking at what the resolution says here...

Glen-Rhodes wrote:The notion that people relying on temporary unemployment insurance to survive are really just unproductive, lazy parasites attached to the government teat is ridiculous. These are working people who have been laid off. They didn't quit their jobs because 9 months of unemployment insurance is some great windfall. These kinds of comments clearly show that Ambassador Koopman is distanced from the reality of economic downturns.

- Dr. B. Castro


The repeal explicitly says that people are worthy of assistance. Nobody is called an "unproductive, lazy parasite". On the other hand, I believe a majority of the General Assembly will believe it reasonable that those who are jobless may be compelled to look for a job, in exchange for receiving benefits.

Image
Ambassador Aram Koopman
World Assembly representative for the Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss
Last edited by Knootoss on Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Glen-Rhodes
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9026
Founded: Jun 25, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Glen-Rhodes » Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:40 pm

Knootoss wrote:The repeal explicitly says that people are worthy of assistance. Nobody is called an "unproductive, lazy parasite". On the other hand, I believe a majority of the General Assembly will believe it reasonable that those who are jobless may be compelled to look for a job, in exchange for receiving benefits.

What the text says and what the comments imply are very different. The suggestion that the Social Assistance Accord should be repealed because states ought to be able to compel beneficiaries to look for employment implies something very specific and pretty obvious. It implies that beneficiaries won't otherwise look for employment, because they'd rather get paid by the government to sit around doing nothing.

There is nothing stopping member states from providing job placement programs or encouraging people to actively seek employment. Unless you believe that these people are unproductive, lazy parasites, you shouldn't have to believe that coercion is the only way to get unemployed persons to look for employment. Right-wing politics has hidden its ideological distaste for the poor in recent decades, given the leftward shift society has about welfare. But it is always a very clear part of the subtext, as it is here.

- Dr. B. Castro

User avatar
Knootoss
Senator
 
Posts: 4106
Founded: Antiquity
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Knootoss » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:31 pm

Sorry, but I'm not interested in a debate where you try to paint my very real concerns about the crippling flaws in this resolution as a secret hatred that I have supposedly conceived for the poor. If anyone has spelling, grammar or legality concerns about this repeal, I'm quite open to them.

Ideological Bulwark #7

User avatar
Connopolis
Minister
 
Posts: 2371
Founded: May 01, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Connopolis » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:43 pm

Knootoss wrote:Sorry, but I'm not interested in a debate where you try to paint my very real concerns about the crippling flaws in this resolution as a secret hatred that I have supposedly conceived for the poor. If anyone has spelling, grammar or legality concerns about this repeal, I'm quite open to them.


Very nice, Mr. Koopman, very nice. 'You have a valid point, but because of our past disagreements, I'll use that as a feint in order to get out of making a rebuttal.' I'll with no doubt make a response to this when I get the chance, but obviously, the obvious partisanship in this proposal is simply horrid.

Yours in light snickering,
From the office of,
Mrs. Pamela Howell
GA Ambassador of the Connopolian Ministry of Foreign Affairs


Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads