Northeast Assembly Thread

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.

All right, that is good to hear. I still think we shouldn't get rid of sales taxes, so I will be voting for my amendment.

Sales taxes are useless, it's paying another few dollars and cents when money's already tight.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Could you clarify something for me, Jake? When you say no other taxes will be established other than the income tax, do you mean by the region or are you going to force the municipalities to do the same? Where do you suppose municipalities will get their money? How will the schools be paid for?

Just for the region, the municipalities will conduct their own ways of taxation.

As for schools, I personally support school choice but I would never propose or support legislation to defund public schools.

All right, that is good to hear. I still think we shouldn't get rid of sales taxes, so I will be voting for my amendment.

Sales taxes are useless, it's paying another few dollars and cents when money's already tight.

The same can be said for any form of taxation. Our job is still find the most effective way to balance revenue with expenditures without placing more of a burden than necessary on citizens. I will support sbane's amendment.

We as a region need income, I don't deny that. But when you come down to it, increasing taxes or keeping taxes the same does not put more money in the pockets of the people. The people are the main source of money for the Government, yes, but when the people have no money to spend, the economy goes under, businesses go bankrupt and then we'll be back here in a few months passing legislation to bailout said failing companies. So, yes, we will get the money, but we'll be too preoccupied spending it on non-Government projects.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Bill: Aye

Amendment: Nay

I'd like to propose an amendment to my own bill.

I'd like to strike out the language about health hazard taxation.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Okay, since you've proposed your amendment in the middle of voting, we'll have to finish voting on the bill, then vote on your amendment if the bill passes.  If the bill does not pass, we will then vote on the amended bill.

Okay.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Aye.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Unfriendly amendment (of those voting on the bill):

2 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstaining

This amendment fails, having not received majority support from those voting on the bill.

Could someone please explain how an abstention affects the outcome of a vote? I wasn't aware that this was standard for any real legislature.

If there are, say, ten members of a legislature and 2 of them vote "aye", 2 vote "nay" and 6 abstain, there is not a majority either way.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I'm going to make a quick statement about the bill currently at debate.

Friends,

I don't believe the passage of this amendment does any good for us as a region. With our population growing by the month, having 5 members might be too little an amount of representation. I suggest we all vote Nay on the amendment and continue to use the current C/6 Quotient.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Dallas has made a great point. I haven't been here nearly as long as he has, so I'd like to propose an amendment.

From:
"vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region."

To:
"vii) The Northeast Assembly shall be composed of five members, each of whom shall be registered voters residing in the Northeast Region. However, if the population grows beyond or below a specific threshold, the Northeast Assembly shall possess the ability to amend this amendment to either increase or decrease the amount of Representatives in the Northeast Assembly."

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Jumps into the debate...

The best part of this game are the elections. That being said, the elections for the Northeast Assembly are extremely predictable.

Jake, I know you think 5 is a small number, but in the last election, there were only  5 or so candidates. When's the last time the Northeast has had more candidates actually running than there were seats for? I don't think there ever has been.

At this point, the only arguement I could see for having such a large Assembly is so that as many people as possible can be involved. If that's what the majority of you want, then why don't you just give everyone in the Northeast the power to vote in the Assembly and do away with the elections?

Alright, 5 seems fair enough. I amended my amendment

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Mr. Speaker, should we begin voting on my amendment or will we not be doing so?

We need to wait for The Economist to say whether he will accept it as friendly or not.

He hasn't been online to even participate in the debate.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I won't accept the amendment as friendly, just because what was added on is completely useless.

Yeah, now that I look back on it, the amendment is redundant. I withdraw my amendment.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Abstain.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Friends,

For far too long we have seen businesses, large and small, take advantage and victimize consumers by falsely advertising their products. I have seen advertisements for hand towels that can supposedly hold twice their weight in liquid, yet when I bought the product, it failed to do so. I found out later that you need to apply a specific amount of pressure for it to work. That is one of the many examples of a corporation falsely advertising their product. This bill simply lays out rules that need to be followed in the advertisement industry and lay out repercussions if any of the rules are broken. I ask for your "aye" vote in an attempt to improve the consumer-business relationship and bring honesty back into advertising.

Thank you.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Well, I may not have made it explicitally clear that "false advertisement" shall apply to when a product does not work, like making a claim that "I didn't lose any weight on this treadmill!" Is not going to be heard in a court, but if the person bought the treadmill and it short circuited and electrocuted them, that will be heard. Even if a company offers a money back guarantee, that applies to if one is disatisfied with the product, but if one is disatisfied and also feels that the product caused them legitimate harm (injury of sorts) or if does not fulfill it's proper usage as advertised, they may file a complaint with the Government. Yes, there will be court costs, but it makes for a safer product and more truth in advertisement.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Is this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

really suitable for "legislation"?

On another note, the penalties established are very minimal and I'd assume that they'd be meaningless to any kind of large company wealthy enough to advertise it's products on airwaves or such.

Wormyguy also makes a compelling argument, I support the notion of consumer protection but laws like this only complicate things, lead to more class action lawsuits, and make it really difficult for people to advertise. What would happen to Super Bowl commercials?

To your first point, possibly. I was attempting to emphasize my point. Also, I do understand that the penalties are minimal, but I intend to add an amendment, I just need to figure out what they should be. Do you have any ideas? As for your point about superbowl commercials, I understand that the intent is to be enternaining and an advertisement can be such until the product is lied about or overexaggerated.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention?

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

     If a non-Northeasterner may interject, section 3 seems to me to be possibly mandating double jeopardy. The way it reads, it sounds like it's saying that if a corporation is found guilty of false advertising a third time, they will immediately be put on trial again. Make of that what you will.

The intention of section three was to say that, if a company is found guilty a third time of false advertisement, a trial shall be conducted in which they will be banned from advertising for 15 months if found guilty, as well as be fined $15,000. So to recap, if found guilty of false advertisement by the Northeast Government twice, a company will have fines levied against them, but if found guilty a third time, there will be a trial in which in the event of a company being found guilty by said court, they will not be allowed to release a TV, Radio, etc. advertisement as well as be fined $15,000.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention?

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.

Let me clarify. Do you have any examples of a product being advertised falsely that hasn't been rectified by the market?

I will be voting no on this bill in any form unless it is modified substantially.

I have seen very poor reviews of the Shamwow. In every video I watched, review I read and demonstration I did, it dripped after "absorbing the liquid (sometimes not even absorbing all the liquid.) it would drip (which it was not supposed to do.) I have seen countless products be falsely advertised without rectification. But as for the actual intent of the bill, there have been cribs recalled for having lead in them (which means inspection was not done right.) as well as electronics short circuiting and many, many other examples. The purpose of this bill is to make sure inspection is done right and products are rightfully advertised so there is no need for a refund. One shouldn't just demand a refund if their child dies in an unsafe crib. They should hold the crib's manufacturer responsible.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Why not tighten the inspection process in that case? That seems to be where your problem lies, not the advertising.

Seeing videos of ShamWows not working apparently was enough to make sure you didn't spend your money on one, if the information is that free and available I can't feel sorry for someone who buys ShamWows and gets disappointed, nor is it my business to determine whether a product is quality or not. It's not like there aren't other towels available.

Most of the examples you are citing have little to do with advertising, and even if they did, the penalties you propose aren't enough to make an impact. This bill should be withdrawn.

*sigh* At this point, I'm fighting a battle I know I'll lose.


I withdraw the Corporate Accountability Act of 2011

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.

IIRC this was very early on in the history of the NE region.  Ask Dallas about it.

I'm going to check the wiki again.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Ah yes.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fellow Northeasterners,

I believe it is high time we stop using torture and killing as a means of promoting so-called "justice". Here is an excerpt from the new Northeast Constitution, ratified in February of 2006:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe this passage applies to the lives of criminals just as much as it would apply to the life of a non-criminal. A criminal is still a person, with inalienable rights. We as a region must take a leap forward an abolish this archaic practice once and for all. Thank you.