UESP Forums

What's an economy? Wait, that's another name for fear tactics, right?

why doesn't that surprise a little?

Take everything with a grain of salt. I'm sure that vid had some amount of truth to it, but how influential, exactly, is ALEC?

Is Jon Stewart summing up what you said, or are you summing up what Jon Stewart said?




I love how the video tries to imply that basing legislation on the interest of corporate lobby groups is a "new way" to get bills passed. This is particularly amusing in light of the fact that the biggest difference between ALEC sponsored legislation and your everyday progressive "SchoolHouse Rock" bill is that ALEC sponsored legislation seeks to limit government influence and get it off the backs of certain companies (so those companies can pursue their own ambitions), while SHR legislation tries to give greater power to the government (so that the business interests who control the state can leverage the state's force monopoly and reap the rewards of their own personally-controlled centralized power).

In other words, the subtextual message here is that businesses who want the system to control less = bad (because then rich people can go back to being successful?), businesses who want to run the system themselves and allow the system to control more = good (because that's "the progressive American way"). Remember, kids: rich people are bad. Unless the rich people are very, VERY rich, and willing to use public funds for their own ends. BRILLIANT!

But yes, ALEC is bad. We know this because the ALEC-anthro is green, like money.

Most of the "rich" got their wealth from the backs of laborers, or by under-taxed/untaxed inheritances that were also garnered from the backs of under-paid laborers...so yes.

Some "rich" actually give back to the country which helped them attain their wealth, and they are usually people who started out in lower social-economic spheres themselves (Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg, and a few others of note) and understand the struggles.

So yes, when the "corporations" try to rig the system to exploit the labor force even further, while also weaseling their way out of their share of taxes and screwing the general population into paying for more while earning less...they are the "bad" guys.

I never understood why inheritances should be taxed if the money was already taxed when earned by the deceased?

Because it takes work and effort by certain people to get that money to the inheritors which they don't want to do out of the goodness of their hearts.

More accurately, the government has realized that they can make a goldmine by taxing large inheritances. Of course...there are ways around that, if you know what you're doing or have a decent accountant.

In a lot of cases, the money hasn't been taxed yet (IRA's, 401k's, etc).


In other news, nahh...certain SCOTUS justices aren't political or inconsistent or anything...
Scalia says that the 2nd Amendment "potentially" covers ridiculous things like rocket launchers and fully-automatic assault rifles and machine guns.
Scalia then says that the 4th Amendment only covers what it says, and therefore doesn't cover the privacy between women and their doctor(s).

Those seem like two completely different issues to me, not judgments you could compare side by side.

The issue is simple: either you believe the Constitution and its Amendments to be literal and nothing more, or you believe in expanded-meaning of each. Scalia believes in its expanded meaning when it comes to firearms, but its strict literal meaning when it pertains to women's rights. In other words, it depends on his own personal politics, rather than actual consistent interpretation of the Constitution.

Ah. Sorry, functioning on four hours of sleep and espresso. I see your point now.

You missed out "and if you're a complete crook who thinks he's above the rest of society".

Who's that nutjob and why the hell is he a judge?
Prohibit contraception?! Oh wait, that was 1965.
Good thing no sane person would try that today..

Not really. If, say, your relative decides to spend what would have been your inheritance on expensive cars, the government can tax his purchase, but it can't tax the cars once he passes them onto you. Perfectly legal, and saves you approximately 20% of your inheritance once you resell them.

For starters, why do you deserve full right to that money you did fornicate all to earn while the state that helped your relative earn that money gets nothing out of it? Even if in some fantasy world you believed you did, why do you think you need to have all that money to yourself? Why not let the minscule amount the government taxes go to helping people who will never see that kind of money in their entire lives?

Well, first of all, the US government is NOT using the forty percent of your inheritance they tax in anything even remotely resembling altruism.

That's because the American public won't let them, because the very notion of any kind of social security is shot down because hurr durr socialism is evil maaaaaaaaan.

Had to clean that up, a bit. I still have high hopes that someday we'll turn around and recognize each other as citizens of a nation, and not individuals out to screw each other over.

hard when you got groups like the tea party

Hard when you have a corporate/ratings/profit driven media, too.

Hey now! Watch it!

sorry musicman, please don't use your banhammer