[Dead] Reduction Of Welfare

[Conquerus]

I've just drafted a proposal to reduce welfare in the WA. I would like to know your opinions on it and how to improve it before I submit it. Thanks.

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING the World Assembly's commitment to human rights,

ACKNOWLEDGING families need of support for issues such as unemployment, child raising and disabilities,

KNOWING that welfare and government benefits can be abused,

NOTING that impoverishment can be combatted in many other ways without the need for welfare such as by hard work and climbing "the corporate ladder" or even by dumb luck,

FURTHER NOTING that for the left leaning economies, there is a classless system further adding to the pointlessness of welfare,

OBSERVING that many top earners earn their money without the assistance of welfare while also sustaining their riches,

CONCERNED by the wasting of taxpayer's money on welfare programs replaceable by other means,

1. DEFINES "welfare" as financial support granted by the government to those in need; for the purpose of this resolution, welfare shall not include;

a. Benefits granted by non government organisations

b. Non financial benefits e.g maternity leave, wheelchairs or hearing aids

2. DEFINES "abuse" as the usage of benefit or power improperly,

3. ASSURES that welfare for disabilities, pensions, veterans funds, healthcare and family benefits will not be affected by this proposal,

4. MANDATES that all WA nations reduce:
a. welfare benefits towards unemployment
b. minimum wages
c. welfare benefits towards mortgages
d. welfare benefits towards the homeless

[The Sheika]

OOC: I would start by changing the status of your proposal from "At Vote" to "Submitted". A proposal is not at vote until it receives the required amount of approvals by regional delegates. Going a step further, it might be a good idea to withdraw your proposal and post a draft here to be discussed by other members of the Assembly. Yes, it takes a little longer but it gives you a chance to work out any issues that may exist and the odds of success are much higher than that of a direct submission. Good luck.

[Conquerus]

Thanks

[Kenmoria]

"No regular ambassador at the General Assembly will vote for a proposal that hasn't been drafted in one of these forsaken halls. It also has been marked as illegal for a category violation, the proposal is not 'Human Rights'."

[The New California Republic]

NOTING that impoverishment can be combatted by hard work and climbing "the corporate ladder"

OOC: Nope. Many nations in the World Assembly do not have corporations at all. Such nations range from Primitivist states, all the way to fully-realized Communist "states".

[Attempted Socialism]

NOTING that impoverishment can be combatted by hard work and climbing "the corporate ladder"

OOC: Nope. Many nations in the World Assembly do not have corporations at all. Such nations range from Primitivist states, all the way to fully-realized Communist "states".

OOC: It's also unlikely that hard work has anything to do with climbing any corporate ladders anywhere. If impoverishment is combatted by hard work, day labourers would be rich, while board members would be impoverished.

Furthermore, clause 2 defines abuse, but 4 is a blanket mandate to reduce welfare, regardless of abuse. It's not just wrong, it's simply incoherent.

[Conquerus]

OOC: Nope. Many nations in the World Assembly do not have corporations at all. Such nations range from Primitivist states, all the way to fully-realized Communist "states".

OOC: It's also unlikely that hard work has anything to do with climbing any corporate ladders anywhere. If impoverishment is combatted by hard work, day labourers would be rich, while board members would be impoverished.

Furthermore, clause 2 defines abuse, but 4 is a blanket mandate to reduce welfare, regardless of abuse. It's not just wrong, it's simply incoherent.

What I'm trying to say, is that welfare is useless as the abuse of welfare in unemployment benefits is prevalent as in capitalism, the hard working and lucky are sent to the top of the corporate ladder while the lazy and unlucky are sent to the bottom.
In socialism/communism, everybody is rich/poor depending on how you look at it, so welfare is useless.
Overall, the message I want to get out is that welfare is useless no matter which economical system.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: It's also unlikely that hard work has anything to do with climbing any corporate ladders anywhere. If impoverishment is combatted by hard work, day labourers would be rich, while board members would be impoverished.

Furthermore, clause 2 defines abuse, but 4 is a blanket mandate to reduce welfare, regardless of abuse. It's not just wrong, it's simply incoherent.

What I'm trying to say, is that welfare is useless as the abuse of welfare in unemployment benefits is prevalent as in capitalism, the hard working and lucky are sent to the top of the corporate ladder while the lazy and unlucky are sent to the bottom.
In socialism/communism, everybody is rich/poor depending on how you look at it, so welfare is useless.
Overall, the message I want to get out is that welfare is useless no matter which economical system.

OOC: That...really doesn't address our concerns, you are just spouting meaningless platitudes...

[Rvssyav]

OOC:

The World Assembly,

REAFFIRMING the World Assembly's commitment to human rights,

ACKNOWLEDGING families need of government welfare for issues such as unemployment, child raising and disabilities,

KNOWING that welfare and government benefits can be abused,

Good so far.... except Welfare has little to do with human rights in my opinion.

NOTING that impoverishment can be combatted by hard work and climbing "the corporate ladder",

FURTHER NOTING that for the left leaning economies, there is a classless system further adding to the pointlessness of welfare,

CONCERNED by the wasting of taxpayer's money,

1. Impoverishment can be combated in many ways, hard work being one of them, but if you take into account that “left leaning economies” make it almost impossible for there to even be a “corporate ladder”, we would have to start by forcing WA members to ease regulations on private business and to decentralize their governments.

2. Wasting of taxpayers money is not excluded to this issue, but it does make for rather a weak argument of the whole situation... it’s still an argument tho.

1. DEFINES "welfare" as financial support granted by the government to those in need; for the purpose of this resolution, welfare shall not include;

a. Benefits granted by non government organisations

b. Non financial benefits e.g maternity leave, wheelchairs or hearing aids

2. DEFINES "abuse" as the usage of benefit or power improperly,

3. ASSURES that welfare for disabilities, pensions, veterans funds, healthcare and family benefits will not be affected by this proposal,

4. MANDATES that all WA nations reduce:
a. welfare benefits towards unemployment
b. minimum wages
c. welfare benefits towards mortgages
d. welfare benefits towards the homeless

So you started by acknowledging that families need govt welfare for issues such as unemployment, then you go ahead and still ask for a reduction of help towards the unemployed. Quite cruel and contradicting, either strike out the reductions towards unemployment, or don’t acknowledge govt aide towards the unemployed as a such an issue.

reducing minimum wage without a guarantee of a reduction of such things like the cost of living is dangerous economical territory, let us also leave that issue to individual states, or you will see a repeal of this resolution faster than you saw it passed.

Attacking homelessness, yet saying that veterans won’t be affected, is also quite contradictory. Homelessness affects, amongst many groups, veterans the most.

[Araraukar]

Homelessness affects, amongst many groups, veterans the most.

OOC: WTF? Where do you live? Russia?

And to the author, are you aware of the Minimum Standards of Living Act? Without repealing that, you'll be in trouble with this.

[Aclion]

Homelessness affects, amongst many groups, veterans the most.

OOC: WTF? Where do you live? Russia?

And to the author, are you aware of the Minimum Standards of Living Act? Without repealing that, you'll be in trouble with this.

Yup, Aclion cannot reduce welfare without violating the Minimum Standards of Living Act among others, as that is how we determine the payment for basic income.

[Rvssyav]

Homelessness affects, amongst many groups, veterans the most.

OOC: WTF? Where do you live? Russia?

And to the author, are you aware of the Minimum Standards of Living Act? Without repealing that, you'll be in trouble with this.

OOC: where do YOU live...

[Tinfect]

Homelessness affects, amongst many groups, veterans the most.

OOC: WTF? Where do you live? Russia?

OOC:
Veteran Homelessness is quite common in the 'States, for the record.

[Merconitonitopia]

NOTING that impoverishment can be combatted by hard work and climbing "the corporate ladder",

I have to stop you there, comrade.

[Alpha Cassiopeiae]

"Absolutely not. Lower it in your own state, Ambassador, but The Alliance will not abandon its citizens."

[The ethereal lord]

"what do you propose we do with the homeless ambassador, let them starve in the slums?"

[Slavonia and Srijem]

Big NO. You are free to scrap all of Welfare programs if you want, but you won't be doing it in whole WA.

[The New California Republic]

Big NO. You are free to scrap all of Welfare programs if you want, but you won't be doing it in whole WA.

OOC: This will never pass anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Slavonia and Srijem]

Big NO. You are free to scrap all of Welfare programs if you want, but you won't be doing it in whole WA.

OOC: This will never pass anyway, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

OOC: i know XD i was being dramatic as usual.

[Araraukar]

OOC: where do YOU live...

OOC: Finland. You?

OOC: WTF? Where do you live? Russia?

OOC: Veteran Homelessness is quite common in the 'States, for the record.

OOC: Just one more reason why USA is hardly better than the former USSR...

...and why RL USA would be in violation of the Minimum Standards of Living Act.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: where do YOU live...

OOC: Finland. You?

OOC: Veteran Homelessness is quite common in the 'States, for the record.

OOC: Just one more reason why USA is hardly better than the former USSR...

...and why RL USA would be in violation of the Minimum Standards of Living Act.

The RL USA is in violation of a whole shitload of WA resolutions, from Landmine Safety Protocol to Chemical Weapons Accord to Banning Extrajudicial Transfer to Essential Medication Act to - yes, indeed! - Promotion of Bee-keeping (probably ). This is why despite the insanely unregulated WA free trade policy the entire body is regularly smeared as a pack of busybody communist do-gooders by the kids who regularly find their way into this forum.

[Araraukar]

The RL USA is in violation of a whole shitload of WA resolutions

OOC: Oh I know, it was kinda my point of why it was a bad idea to use the justifications from RL USA in the proposal.

the entire body is regularly smeared as a pack of busybody communist do-gooders by the kids who regularly find their way into this forum.

Which all in its own is fucking bullshit, considering said kids regularly have no fucking idea of what communism really means, they've just learned to use it as a political swearword thanks to twisted national memories of the Second Red Scare (EDIT: which in itself is a great re-enactment of the Salem Witch Trials effect) era...

Still OOC: But RL aside, the proposal here would still run afoul of an existing resolution, and probably more than one, at that.