Molotov

A Plano de investimento rural Debate
(The Country Side Investment Debate)



A Partido Libertador Debate


For too long has the people on the coast and cities enjoyed the luxuries of modern Services while the people who
work the fields of this great nation, who live in small villages,are ill-fated enough to be poor, and who make up the
Majority of the people in this nation suffer threw a life with out decent health care, access to well
attained roads and sewer systems or education, so that they may better themselves, all things that SHOULD be
basic human rights.

Let all know that today, the leaders of the Partido Libertador will fight for these basic human rights to
extend to ALL people, not just those in the cities



Objectives

- Increase State Funded Services by at lest 20C per turn in the Countryside where none exist until it reaches an acceptable level
- Increase the Quality of any existing Services until they reach a reasonably comparable level to the cities
- Set up a government office to over see the expansion and upgrading of said services.

- Set up a government office that will report back on where and how much investments into the country side should be
and would over see any investments that do happen
- Will also report the economic gains these investments have caused



This we pledge our support to this bill becoming law

All of the Leaders of the

Partido Libertador

The PCB is entirely in support of this. The landless peasants and the rural proletariat deserve better lives, and there are worse ways to spend state finances.

While we appreciate the sentiment behind this proposed plan, we find ourselves disturbed in several areas. We believe that this plan is too generalized to be effective. There is no description of what would constitute an 'acceptable' level of development, nor is there any real consideration as to what this initiative would actually cost, and how much 20c would meet the needs involved. It could be that we will be saddled with a running cost in our budget for little benefit, or spend too much on something ultimately unnecessary. There is also no description of what the responsibilities of this new government office would be and who it would be accountable to. This and other problems included make us reluctant to accept it

We are of course willing to have a debate, but as presented we believe this bill to be insufficient in what it aims to do.

This is why we posted it up for debate, we would love to hear all voices on this matter

In our view this government office would over see the spending of funds to where they see fit to increase the level of services to the most people. We would be willing to omit the cost for now if we would also add to this office the responsible of coming up with estimates on the amount of capital needed to meet the goals it has set.

The goal of this is to increase the levels of public services to as close as reasonably possible as cities currently have [of corse there wont be a brain surgeon in every town but we could start by expanding the electrical grid a lot]

We would also like to point out that these increases to public services will increase production in these areas, allowing more goods to be shipped, more machinery to be used and more people to live in these areas. this increase in production if done correctly will pay it self back plus dividends in time

We would also agree to limit the expansion of these services to at the moment only the places where it would have the most economical impact for the least cost

Flamelord wrote: ↑00:57:50 Thursday, 05 October, 2017 While we appreciate the sentiment behind this proposed plan, we find ourselves disturbed in several areas. We believe that this plan is too generalized to be effective. There is no description of what would constitute an 'acceptable' level of development, nor is there any real consideration as to what this initiative would actually cost, and how much 20c would meet the needs involved. It could be that we will be saddled with a running cost in our budget for little benefit, or spend too much on something ultimately unnecessary. There is also no description of what the responsibilities of this new government office would be and who it would be accountable to. This and other problems included make us reluctant to accept it

We are of course willing to have a debate, but as presented we believe this bill to be insufficient in what it aims to do.

We echo these concerns. Brazil is a very large nation, and the "countryside" makes up a significant portion of that. Any proposal like this requires a thorough study to be completed to ensure this body has relevant information to make an informed decision. Moreover, this proposal is vague - but that has been outlined above.

While we certainly see the extension of vital social services to the countryside and other rural locations as necessary to progress, we would like to see an assessment of what spending this quantity of state funds would do for the rural farmers in the countryside; once we see the report we can decide on whether this ammount is appropriate, whether it is too much, or even if it needs to be increased.

The Intergralist movement agrees wholeheartedly with this motion and offers support in the form of volunteers to build such infrastructure.

So if we understand this correctly everyone would agree to the following

- Set up a government office called the "Escritório de Investimento Rural" with the sole goal currently to provide a government report outlying where best money can be spent to increase utilities like power, water, sewage and the like

- Will file a report every 3 months on how any improvements are going

- Set goals to be meant by this plan

- Set a base line on where an "acceptable" level of services lies

- Over see the spending and building of all government approved improvements with in the country side

Would this be acceptable to all?

LordMoose wrote: ↑23:55:16 Wednesday, 04 October, 2017 Objectives

- Increase State Funded Services by at lest 20C per turn in the Countryside where none exist until it reaches an acceptable level
- Increase the Quality of any existing Services until they reach a reasonably comparable level to the cities
- Set up a government office to over see the expansion and upgrading of said services.

Although the objectives stated are admirable, we have certain issues with them. Primarily, the first objective. Our current annual surplus is 10 credits yet you suggest that we spend at least 20 credits per quarter, which would put us at a deficit of 70 credits if this endeavour were to last a year and even more should it take any longer and we are not even starting to calculate the recurring costs we would face to maintain such services for a prolonged period of time. We suggest that a much more reasonable amount be considered for this proposal to ever be placed on the floor, for the sake of Brazil but also for the sake of the many ideas that this chamber will bring for the greater good.

well the cost is now out the window, the new bill would only include a government office that would offer up a price

While we do think that this bill has good intentions, it simply cannot be approved in its current stance mainly for two reasons. Firstly, a reason that has been brought up several times by other members of this house but that we feel is important to once again remind, the project is just too vague at parts. Such a massive project as it is being proposed here would require extensive and well-thought planning, something this bill lacks. Secondly, is in regards to its price. we are sincerely amused that no other member of this house has mentioned this, but the price of 20 c per turn would simply upset our economy greatly, leaving us with a deficit of 10 credits! While we do think that this bill has good intentions, the Democratic party will not, under any circumstance, support this proposal in its current state.

As stated before the new idea is to make a government office with the goal of reporting when and where the investments should go and how much they should be, it no longer includes any cost. we now see the level of investment we wanted was too high and will work to get a more reasonable level once the report is out

LordMoose wrote: ↑23:48:56 Thursday, 05 October, 2017 As stated before the new idea is to make a government office with the goal of reporting when and where the investments should go and how much they should be, it no longer includes any cost

We frankly do not see the need to establish such an office. The Ministry of Agriculture and its several already established departments and offices should suffice in the matter, it all depends exactly in how we are to coordinate and organise such an investigation. We feel that to create a new office like this one would only serve to waste valuable resources that could be very well used elsewhere.

Then I would like to make a formal request of these department to report on where best to invest capital into the country side [starting with the southern states] in order to reap the most gains both economical and health wise.

The main focus on these matters should be the expansion of the power gird, road networks, water and sewage systems as well as healthcare into places where they are not currently as we think these expansions will have the best returns on investment for our people

Surely these would all come under the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture? The departments within would have the ability and should hopefully have the intention to investigate the need for investment in the rural regions of Brazil, and to bring about a complete report with a suggested course of action. Creating a new office to handle such matters which are already under the scope of another ministry would also be excessive and would serve to add to the risk of increased corruption, something that plagues the Brazil and ought to bring us shame in front of our citizens.