Issue Advice - All Requests for Help on Decisions Here!

[ColdWizard]

i picked the second option, but then i'm a psychotic dictator whose people have few civil rights

[Dis]

maybe I'll just ignore that one. I don't like any of those options.

[aahz_capone]

This is freaky:

The Issue: Commentators have warned that Imperial Republics's social inequalities threaten to make it an international pariah.

The Debate
"Look, I don't like it either," said Chamber of Commerce spokesperson Freddy Fellow. "Just on the way here, I had to step over three homeless people, and one of my shoes got caught on a beggar. But inequality is the price we pay for economic strength. If anything, we need fewer taxes, so those of us who are well-off can afford to be more generous. If we want to, that is."
[Accept]


"I think we've forgotten what economic strength is all about," says social worker Charles King. "The economy is meant to be a means to a high standard of living, not an end in itself. It's become an excuse for the rich to prosper while the poor fall through the cracks. Not everyone is poor because they don't feel like working. We must provide more welfare."
[Accept]

"Who says we're an international pariah?" demands military honcho Chastity Mistletoe. "What are their names? If that's the way the international community feels, we obviously need to prepare for war."
[Accept]


I chose #2, but I am really tempted to choose three. Has anybody done this? What exactly happens? I want to know!!!

[aahz_capone]

Dissident, ban the bikes, who ever heard of a bike on a high way? it will increase your econ and wont damadge your civrights too much

[Drogue]

Do not ban the bikes! Would we wrkect our fragile environment for the sake of a small economy boost? Keep your beautiful nations, allow bikes. However, do not ban cars, it is a violation of rights, the right to get up late and still get to work on time

The Libertarian answer would be dismiss it. I can't see a Libertarian government bothering themselves about such an issue to be honest.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ok, now I've finally come up against an issue that I don't have an answer for.

The Issue

The Department of Defense has put its case for a substantial increase in funding for the coming financial year.

The Debate

1)"There are turbulent times we live in," says Defense Chief Clint Trax. "Turbulent and dangerous. And the only sensible response to that, of course, is to build a lot more weapons. Unless we get the funding we need, I can't promise that we'll be able to defend Centralis's sovereign borders from rogue nations and foreign powers. Or those leaky boatloads of refugees, for that matter."
[Accept]


2) "NO MORE BOMBS," chant the protestors outside Parliament House, in a repetitious and increasingly annoying appeal. Spokesperson Zeke O'Bannon, speaking through a feedback-afflicted microphone, says, "Centralis needs fewer weapons, not more! Make the world a safer place! Disarm now!"
[Accept]

I'm leaning towards just dismissing the issue, as I don't see any need for more military spending but at the same time I don't see any reason for less, either.

[aahz_capone]

GeneralTacticus, the pacifists are of the opinion that with fewer weapons there would be fewer wars and the world would be safer. This logic is flawed. If all nations disarmed now, there would still be conflict. War happens as an extention of politics. It would just be less hightech if you disarmed (probably causing unneeded casualties).

And considering the tensions between Apolyton and CFC I wouldn't let my gaurd down. I think it would be best to keep your military spending where it is and not increase, but you don't get that option :sad:. Well, better safe than sorry. If you have armsmanufacturing as an industry maybe your econ will grow.

[GeneralTacticus]

Well, after numerous failures on the part of the NS site to function, I've finally got it to register that I'm increasing military spending. The legislation on this issue is currently pending.

[GeneralTacticus]

Ok, now I have ANOTHER issue which I can't seem to decide on.

The Issue

A recent poll has revealed high levels of dissatisfaction among the populace about tax rates.

The Debate

1) "Do you know how much of my year's work goes to the government?" demanded angry worker Billy Christmas. "Too much! Government spending has gotten way out of control. It needs big cuts in welfare, health, and education. But leave those subsidies to business alone. We need them to create jobs."
[Accept]


2) "It's not the AMOUNT of tax, it's where the burden falls," says student activist Sue-Ann Summers. "And at the moment, far too much of the burden is falling on the poor. People on high incomes still have more money than people on low incomes. I don't think I need to say anything more than that."
[Accept]


3) "I don't object to the amount of tax, I object to where it's being spent," says social reformer Billy du Pont. "I'd like to see everyone have a choice as to where their tax dollars go every time they fill out a return. Everyone would feel a lot better about opening their wallets if they had a say as to where the money went. I think you'd see a lot more public money going to education and a lot less to business."
[Accept]

EDIT: In order to reverse Centralis' slide to the right, and just on general principles, I intend to pick either 2 or 3, but I can't seem to decide which one.

[Drogue]

Well, do you value personal choice and freedom (#3) more than equality (#2)? I would go with number 2, simply because it's proposed by a women names Ann Summers (Do you all have that in you countries?)

[Giovanni Wine]

I had that before, I picked the 3rd option with my economy dropping from Strong to Good, and My Civil Rights going up from Good to Very Good

I was also tempted with number 2, but than I thought that if I was a taxpayer, I would really like to choose which government branch get my money.

Saluti

[GeneralTacticus]

I ended up picking #3. It seems to have dropped my economy back down to reasonable again.

EDIT: that should have #3

[Dis]

I picked #3, and yes it will do a hit on your economy.

[General Ludd]

It is time for Ubinia to apoint a new religous advisor, the candidates are:

"Catholic Archbishop" Violet Trax: boasts an excellent track record, having rapidly increased church attendances in his constituencies through the "Reaching God Through Guilt" program. Seen as a solid choice.

"New Age thinker" Max Utopia: a left-field candidate with some radical ideas. "For me, it's not about the name of your religion. It's about discovering your spirituality in whatever guise that takes. Some people call that a cult: I call it taking spirituality to the people."

Zeke King. "If I am awarded the appointment, I will immediately resign," the ex-schoolteacher has declared. "Because, frankly, God is a big load of hokey. I'll be doing everyone a favor by just shutting up about it."


I, of course, will be giving the position to Max Utopia.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Okay, got a problem here. Foreign cars are becoming popular, which is hurting my native auto industry (what little exists). My options are to save it by increasing tarrifs, save it by abolishing minimum-wage laws, or just let it die.

I'm in favor of minimum-wage laws, so #2 is right out. Normally, I'm in favor of free trade, but I need another real industry. So should I let practicality override my beliefs?