Northeast Assembly Thread

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Here are the changes I'd like to see made:

Northeast Economic Recovery Stimulus Act

The 7 billion dollars received by the Northeast Region from the Federal Government of Atlasia in accordance to Section 4 a) of the 2009 Atlasian Relief and Recovery Act, and the Regional and Local Fiscal Relief Act shall be employed as follows:

Section 1 : Regional Fund for Economic Recovery

1. The Regional Fund for Economic Recovery (RFER) is hereby established.
2. The RFER shall receive $1.5 billion dollars for its functioning.
3. The RFER shall have the authority to provide loans to any qualified small business expressly asking for which is in a situation close to bankruptcy. Said loans shall be considered as a monetary help coming from the Northeast Region.
4. The RFER shall be free to negotiate interest rates with businesses.
5. The RFER shall be established February 1st, 2010, and shall be dismissed at December 31st, 2014, unless the Northeast Legislative Assembly provides otherwise by a majority vote.

Section 2 : Investment in Green Jobs

1. The Northeast Region shall invest $500 million worth of no-interest loans in businesses in the renewable energy sector.
2. Businesses which are actively hiring new employees, or which seek to hire new employees through use of the no-interest loan, shall be given priority in the loan process.

Section 3 : Lower-class Economic Assistance

1. $1.5 billion shall serve to establish the Economic Recovery Allocation (ERA). The ERA shall be granted to any household in the lowest two income brackets in federal tax year 2009, as defined by the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
2. The amount each eligible household will receive shall be determined by dividing the number of eligible households into $1.5 billion.
3. The ERA is a one-time payment provided by the government of the Northeast for economic stimulus.

Section 4 : Budget severity

The remaining $3 billion shall be integrated into the operating budget of the Northeast Region. These funds shall be prioritized to (1) provide local aid, (2) avoid cuts of service or tax increases, and (3) cover tax revenue shortfalls experienced on a regional level as a result of the current economic recession. These funds shall not be used for the establishment of new services or entitlements.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It seems all very good.
Just one thing : what about subventions to enterprises employing long-time unemployed ? I think it's an important part of the bill.

Also, with the draft you have made, we have 3.5 bilion left for budget severity instead of 3.

Oh. I actually took out $500 million because it looked like it was an inadvertent duplicate. I'll revise my version of the bill a little later.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Sorry, folks.  Today has been an incredibly busy day for me.

Aye to the amendment.

I would otherwise prefer to keep businesses from getting a mass payout for doing absolutely nothing.  Hopefully, there will still be time to fix the addition error—I think it could do the most good wrapped up into Section 1.  (And FTR, I limited Section 1 to small businesses because small amounts of money could do huge amounts of good there.  A $1.5 billion loan to a company like GE would be a drop in a bucket.)

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Aye.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Let's move this one towards a swift death.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

How do you define a testing?

Honestly, animal testing is an unfortunate necessity and limiting its practice in such a prohibitive way will set back scientific discovery.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Nay.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Nay.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I don't feel I have enough information to cast a thoughtful vote, so I respectfully abstain.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Specifically, what is meant in fair and equal treatment? Does this merely express that a person cannot be hired or fired on the basis of their weight? Or will it require special accommodations be made for people of unusual girth?

I'm not quite sure I'm comfortable associating obesity with disability, though I do agree with some basic precepts of the bill. (Section 4, for example.)

I'd rather not start a heated battle about "lifestyle choices" here, but as someone who's experienced life as a size 44 waist and as a size 30 waist, I lean towards disapproving the bill.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

It is entirely reasonable for someone who pays for two seats to get two seats. I actually question whether what happened to you is legal under current law to begin with.

In any case, I just want to make sure that there is an established line between what is inappropriate discrimination (i.e., what happened on the airline flight; firing an employee based on weight alone) and what is appropriate (i.e., obese people can face higher health insurance costs).

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

(i.e., obese people can face higher health insurance costs).

Huh, why ?

Because people who are significantly overweight face far more health complications (diabetes, heart disease) than people who do not?

While few people want to be obese, it is still a lifestyle that some people choose through inaction. It is not something that is fated—people CAN lose weight if they want to. That's not to say it's easy—indeed, for most overweight people, they face issues with metabolism that likely make it harder than most to maintain healthy weights. But there are plenty of options for obese people to get their condition under control, from lifestyle changes to surgery.

In my mind, obesity is somewhat on par with smoking. Neither is cause for discrimination, but both inflict significant related health care costs on the nation as a whole.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

you were talking about how it is unhealthy and how everyone has to bend backwards for them. That is all. I was just pointing out that someone people actually are healthier being fat. sorry if you thought it was pointless.

The idea that "some people are healthier being fat" kinda flies in the face of, you know, medical fact.

• More than 80% of cases of type 2 diabetes can be attributed to being overweight or obese.
• Overweight people are twice as likely to have high blood pressure, a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke, than people who are not overweight.
• Someone who is 40% overweight is twice as likely to die prematurely as is an average-weight person.

Happy does not mean healthy.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.

Happiness does not unclog your plaque-hardened arteries or cure labored breathing.

I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is ridiculous.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

being happy actualy does affect your health.
see check this out. and listen carefullly.

Happiness does not unclog your plaque-hardened arteries or cure labored breathing.

I fully understand what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying is ridiculous.

No it is not. You just think that it is not possible.

You are an idiot. The worst kind of idiot: a dangerous idiot. All medical evidence out there points to you being dead wrong.

Obesity is MEDICALLY DANGEROUS regardless of whether someone is "happy" or not. Further, your idea is based on the premise that people wouldn't be "happy" being closer to their ideal body weight, which is preposterous. The negative consequences of obesity outweigh medical benefits of "happiness." Period.

Some of the health-related claims of fat acceptance groups are on par with those of AIDS denial groups. I really hope you educate yourself before continuing to spread dangerous information to others.

Being overweight is unhealthy. Being very overweight is very unhealthy. The links between obesity and disease are undeniable.

Before people jump on me here, I'm not railing against people who are a little thick around the middle, or even moderately overweight. Clearly, these people are not in optimal health, but I can see an argument that there is a acceptable trade off.

The problem comes when people are hundreds of pounds overweight. It is a severe health problem, and one that is growing in this country. It is something that this government should be taking active steps to fight.

I do not want to say it is okay to discriminate against people who are obese, because it's not. The scenario outlined—where someone has to pay for two plane seats but only gets one—is clearly wrong and should be illegal. But I'm incredibly leery of the government stepping in and giving the obese "victim" status, or anything that may give the appearance that it is okay to personally accept a negative health condition as something inevitable.

I know I may be stepping on a lot of toes here, because I'm sure a lot of you are currently in the situation I was in back when I was younger. I understand the challenges and trials of being significantly overweight because I've been there. I'm just not comfortable with obesity being written into law as a protected class.

Actually, I don't have high cholesterol. I do have high blood pressure, but it's a genetic trait in my family.

As for labored breathing, since I can't drive, I walk pretty much everywhere. I may not be the fastest guy in the world, but I can walk a pretty good distance without breathing heavy. Not everyone is the same, but I've seen plenty of heavy people get around just fine without labored breathing.

I hope you do not think my arguments or criticism was directed at you in any way. I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else would be guaranteed certain specific problems.

I merely intended to point out the link between obesity and serious health issues.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Nay.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I have a further concern that were this Bill to be passed, a gym that sets two different workout programmes - one aimed at muscle tone for a healthy person and another aimed at weightloss for an obese person - could then be charged under this act for discriminating against the obese person due to the workout programme being different.

I'm not sure that's the case, unless the gym was forbidding the obese person to have the workout plan of their choosing.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm not really a fan of either provisions of this bill.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

On the Northeast Gun Safety Act -  under current law, I can only see one situation where the automatic restoration at age 35 matters - where a federal judge has decreed someone who has committed a federal felony lose their federal gun rights for life.  I don't see why we should be second-guessing a court's determination - or creating a wedge between Atlasian federal and Northeast law.

As to the increased penalties, what's so special about a gun that shouldn't apply to someone who commits a crime using a knife or some other violent weapon.  Plus, how can this possibly apply to misdemeanors?  It would make them felonies.

I understand the frustration with "liberal" judges, I really do.  But minimum sentencing is even more frustrating.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I would certainly suggest stashing away a portion of that surplus in a "rainy day" fund.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Wow.  Just... wow.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Can I kill someone I catch stealing my paperclips here at work?

Or better, can my employer kill me if I try to sneak a few of those paperclips into my pocket tonight on the way home?