foo.c
Board Supporter
- Awards
- 0
Hey, I know what we should do. We should all of us, the people, get together and pass an ammendment to the Constitution that protects the rights of property owners ...
Oh ... wait ...
Oh ... wait ...
Multi-millionaire industry tycoons have much more influence on politicians than the average joe. You're right though, if something like this got too out of hand someone in the government would have the sense to shut it down.Well, private industry can't do it. It still requires an action by a government body, and those are people in elected positions who can't abuse this power too much or they will be out of a job come next election.
It's the fact that a law like this is actually on the books that is frightening to me. What if that was your house? Or my house? I dont think either of us would be looking at it objectively.Some people end up getting screwed in the process, but that is never completely avoidable
Oh Geez... :drunk: :blink: :run:Charley Daniels said it best when he song "all this world needs is a few more rednecks"
The next presidential election in 2008 I'm going to vote for Larry the Cable Guy
GET 'R DONE!!!!
I'm glad you could appreicate my post reply BigVrungaOh Geez... :drunk: :blink: :run:
This is a pretty naive stance. Private industry controls the government in this country. Who do you think pays to put these people in office? Do you really think the 'common man' could run a grass roots campaign against the corporate establishment, with their multimillion dollar campaigns, and win? Try it, I bet a few friends might vote for you, unless the recognized your opponents name from a TV ad saying what a great person he is or because his father was a politician before him.Well, private industry can't do it. It still requires an action by a government body, and those are people in elected positions who can't abuse this power too much or they will be out of a job come next election. /karp
Where do you think that the money comes from that pays for services like education, health care, police, snow removal, etc? From taxes. So yeah the government is in the business of making money so that they can provide services for the people.Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.
BTW Bush never got arrested for cocaine.Or when Dubya himself gets busted for cocaine ends up president of the United States.
Once again the condemnation comes from the local government, not a "corporate guy." It still has to comport with requirements of procedural due process, meaning a notice and an opportunity to be heard.In TN and Texas I believe it is legal to use deadly force in order to remove a trespasser from your property. Back at my parents house which is way off the road. All we'd have to do is let the dogs on them and if they came back and messed with the dogs well then they'd be messing with the "persuader" and he doesn't listen to much bull ****.
In all honestly if some smart ass corporate guy came out and after I tell him no your not getting my house and then the show up with a bull dozer. Some body will die plain and simple and then I will use my life savings to declare my inocence to the jury, which I am sure they could relate. Just my .02cc's not as an educated answer to the problem but it sure as hell would make a much louder outcry to the twisted government, politicians, courts, and corporations.
Yeah that statement was in error...BTW Bush never got arrested for cocaine.
He got a DWI.
No good. I'm always half cocked.This ruling is far less significant than many people are making it out to be. There is not suddenly going to be a rush of people losing their homes. And use of eminent domain still requires a court to rule on the taking of land.
My posts above were to try to get people to calm down instead of going off half cocked.
/karp
Do a google search on 'George Bush Cocaine" and a bunch of stuff comes up. Most if it is all heresay and speculation though.AFAIK that never even happened. I never read anything about even an alleged cocaine bust, but I could be wrong. Where have you read that?
/karp
And of course no one thinks of the issue from this angle: why is it such a good thing for the state to get more money? They do nothing but waste most of the money they have, they'll do no different with any more money that comes in. What, generate more tax revenue for them so they can have another year or two of of hearings on whether or not we should be able to buy creatine? Plus such 'plans' always end up backfiring and costing taxpayers more than planned because the new malls/stadiums/whatevers always get a healthy government subsidy and always end up going way over budget and never seem to bring as much business in as they predict. Which is actually common sense, because if these plans really were going to bring in that much business private industry would have been able to fund it on their own. They wouldn't need the city to do a land grab for them. The basic premise is that a bunch of political whores know better what will be good for the economy than the people who actually make up the economy. It's central planning at its most idiotic."The new shopping/housing will generate ten times more tax revenue for the city than before." Is the government in the business of making money also? Or, are they there to represent the people.
Yeah, I've seen all that, I was just wondering if you had seen something more concrete.Do a google search on 'George Bush Cocaine" and a bunch of stuff comes up. Most if it is all heresay and speculation though.
You know that your roads, schools, police, snow removal, airports, plus free clinics, public transportation, and dozens of other things are paid for by tax revenue, right?And of course no one thinks of the issue from this angle: why is it such a good thing for the state to get more money? They do nothing but waste most of the money they have, they'll do no different with any more money that comes in. What, generate more tax revenue for them so they can have another year or two of of hearings on whether or not we should be able to buy creatine? Plus such 'plans' always end up backfiring and costing taxpayers more than planned because the new malls/stadiums/whatevers always get a healthy government subsidy and always end up going way over budget and never seem to bring as much business in as they predict.
Um, the private industry does fund it on their own. They pay the "just compensation." The problem is that they need the land, which is where the government comes in.Which is actually common sense, because if these plans really were going to bring in that much business private industry would have been able to fund it on their own. They wouldn't need the city to do a land grab for them. The basic premise is that a bunch of political whores know better what will be good for the economy than the people who actually make up the economy. It's central planning at its most idiotic.
corporate guy, politician, police officer, fireman, army, old lady, little children. If they are trying to take my home just so a mall, store, or facility can go there I am going to use whatever means to protect my property and my family. I could care less if you are wearing a uniform or not.Once again the condemnation comes from the local government, not a "corporate guy." It still has to comport with requirements of procedural due process, meaning a notice and an opportunity to be heard.
If there was going to be a problem it would be police, not corporate types, who were removing you from your property. And shooting police officers most certainly does not go over well in Tennesee or Texas.
/karp
Yeah right....Bush and co. keep saying that they've increased jobs and all this crap, well these are the wrong KIND of jobs. All these takenover homes are taken over so that mini malls and shooping centers can be built, nothing more. How the fvck are you supposed to support yourself, nonetheless raise a family when all of these jobs pay minimum wage? So waht it boils down to is they're kicking out these families, taking away their homes, and replacing htem with minimum wage jobs....yeah, that's a GREAT way to up the economy.new jobs and increased tax revenue
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that eminent domain meant the government could take land for 'public use', such as a school, highways, public works, etc., and not for private development. The part of this ruling that sticks out in my mind is that the government can now take land for use by private developers. That is what is fueling the outrage.I don't entirely disagree with you.
But everyone acts like this is something new.
Eminent domain condemnations have been going on since this country was founded and long before that. The constitution specifically authorizes it./karp
Read the case from the link that I posted above.Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that eminent domain meant the government could take land for 'public use', such as a school, highways, public works, etc., and not for private development. The part of this ruling that sticks out in my mind is that the government can now take land for use by private developers. That is what is fueling the outrage.
BTW, the government used the priciple of eminent domain to take Native American land at will and eventually they took the entire southwestern US from Mexico. That wasn't exactly the moral thing to do either, but it could be said that that was natural expansion of the US for the good of the citizens. This new ruling is natural expansion of the private for the corporate benefit - at the expense of the public. I guess since the government can't take our land by force anymore they have resorted to using the law.
The really funny thing is that so many people are bitching about Bush with all this, when the liberals on the court were the ones who voted for the decision, and the biggest conservatives on the court (that is, the ones closest to Bush's political views) are the ones that voted against this ruling. This decision is very much un-republican and un-conservative.Yeah right....Bush and co. keep saying that they've increased jobs and all this crap, well these are the wrong KIND of jobs. All these takenover homes are taken over so that mini malls and shooping centers can be built, nothing more. How the fvck are you supposed to support yourself, nonetheless raise a family when all of these jobs pay minimum wage? So waht it boils down to is they're kicking out these families, taking away their homes, and replacing htem with minimum wage jobs....yeah, that's a GREAT way to up the economy.
All this is, is a front to try and lower the deficit....nothing more...and they threw in "increasing jobs" in order to sugar coat it.....bullshit man, this country keeps shooting itself in the foot. And I mean cmon, is it really that shocking when you got arnold fvcking schwartzenegger as gov? OR how about all these other idiots that just happen to be "popular" and run for office and the the ignorant people of this country elect them...my god...political corectness, the deficit, the war in iraq, are all examples of how this country is turning to **** and they all could have been avoided or lessened to a considerable degree with a little more thinking and a lot less greediness.
I never said it was Bush's doing. I said that bush and co. keep telling hte AMerican people that they've increased jobs, and they are the wrong kind of jobs. I don't know where you got that I said it's bush's doings.The really funny thing is that so many people are bitching about Bush with all this, when the liberals on the court were the ones who voted for the decision, and the biggest conservatives on the court (that is, the ones closest to Bush's political views) are the ones that voted against this ruling. This decision is very much un-republican and un-conservative.
Which is why it is weird to me that I don't completely disagree with the ruling, since I am usually a pretty hard core Republican.
And once again, it's not like there is an epidemic of this happening. This kind of thing happens vary rarely on this kind of scale. Usually, the taking is a portion of someone's land for a highway or something like that.
/karp
THERE is an epidemic of these things happening. I had to stop listening to boortz for a while becuase this was all he was complaining about during every show. Walmarts in Alabama taking peoples farms, developers in Texas taking homes away for develpers to make a new private community of million dollar homes, same thing in FL, VA.......And once again, it's not like there is an epidemic of this happening. This kind of thing happens vary rarely on this kind of scale. Usually, the taking is a portion of someone's land for a highway or something like that.
indeedWhat justifies this treatment of Kelo and the other owners, who simply want to be free to live on their own property? The seizures and transfers, the government says, are in "the public interest"--because they will lead to more jobs for New London residents and more tax dollars for the government. This type of justification was given more than 10,000 times between 1998 and 2002, and across 41 states, to use eminent domain (or its threat) to seize private property. The attitude behind these seizures was epitomized by a Lancaster, CA, city attorney explaining why a 99¢ Only store should be condemned to make way for a Costco: "99 Cents produces less than $40,000 [a year] in sales taxes, and Costco was producing more than $400,000. You tell me which was more important?"
To such government officials, the fact that an individual earns a piece of property and wants to use and enjoy it, is of no importance--all that matters is "the public." But as philosopher Ayn Rand observed, "there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals . . . .the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others." In the context of the Kelo case, the idea that "the public interest" trumps private property rights simply means that the desires of some individuals for property they did not earn and cannot get from others voluntarily trump the rights of those who did earn it and do not want to sell it. Why are their rights trumped? Because some gang with political pull doesn't happen to like how these individuals are using their property.
This is unjust and un-American.
Indeed I do. I also know it's more than possible to have them delivered by private companies and would prefer it that way.You know that your roads, schools, police, snow removal, airports, plus free clinics, public transportation, and dozens of other things are paid for by tax revenue, right?
If they need it that bad they can buy the land on the market. In other words the project can't generate the investment needed to get the land they want on the market. So the government has to do a grab and force the owners to sell the land at a discount. Articles abound about the unintended economic consequences of these land grabs, the errosion of property rights, and the boondoggles that end up raping the tax payers and the private market afterward.Um, the private industry does fund it on their own. They pay the "just compensation." The problem is that they need the land, which is where the government comes in.
/karp
I don't entirely disagree with you there, although I think that some services, like police, should be government functions.Indeed I do. I also know it's more than possible to have them delivered by private companies and would prefer it that way.
Most of the laws that authorize this kind of thing would require that the developer demonstrate a need for that particular land. It's not quire as simple as the developer saying "Hey, I want these blocks, take them for me." Remember that due process still applies so the seizure is not automatic. In general, if used properly (meaning rarely) and under the right circumstances, and if people are justly compensated, I don't always think that this is a bad thing. If abused, this can be catastrophic.If they need it that bad they can buy the land on the market. In other words the project can't generate the investment needed to get the land they want on the market. So the government has to do a grab and force the owners to sell the land at a discount. Articles abound about the unintended economic consequences of these land grabs, the errosion of property rights, and the boondoggles that end up raping the tax payers and the private market afterward.
Several socialist countries have tried to run economies with just this type of government made or government enabled central planning. The results aren't good. If there were a market for the business to develop as they want it to, it would be a ble to attract the necessary investment. The problem is governments run their cities into the ground with taxes and then need to artificially stimulate the economy to generate more revenues to cover their over extension. I'd recommend the book Abuse of Power: How the government misuses Eminent Domain, by Steven Greenhut. Covers the subject nicely, with an ideological perspective of course.The construction of those buildings employs people. While they are employed, they go to local businesses for food, coffee, cigarettes, etc, so the local businesses profit and prosper. Local building suppliers make money providing materials for the construction. Once they are built, the hotels and stores employ people. The sales from the hotels and shops provide sales tax revenue. Parking meters near the site provide revenue for the city. People in the area for the hotel and shops go to other businesses in the area, whose sales are increased and the business owners make more money, and may hire more people.
So you are telling me if Wal-Mart buys off a bunch of politicians in a town and decides to bulldoze my neighborhood that I am going to get the same price as if I sold it on my own? It never happens.Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla
Nope
Yes they do.
Read the 5th Amendment.
/karp
I could agree. Now just name one power the government has that they don't abuse, and I will agree.In general, if used properly (meaning rarely) and under the right circumstances, and if people are justly compensated, I don't always think that this is a bad thing. If abused, this can be catastrophic.
/karp
That's easy! What about the power to .... ummm ... let me get back to you on that one...I could agree. Now just name one power the government has that they don't abuse, and I will agree.
So, it would take a combination of Walmart, Lowe's and maybe Target. Nice to see the government is concerned about multiple entities getting rich by stealing our property!I never said that.
What I said was that there is compensation.
You get fair market value, as determined by a court.
And the politicians can't decide to take your house just for Wal-Mart. The case specifically says that property cannot be taken to benefit one specific private entity.
/karp
Hmm... Depends on your definition of abuse... But under any definition... Umm... Lemme think about that.I could agree. Now just name one power the government has that they don't abuse, and I will agree.
Good catch, but you're just pointing out a different kind of screw up: lack of enforcement. I'll rephrase: show me one thing the government hasn't messed up, either through abuse or lack of action.Oh wait! They don't abuse their power to deport illegal aliens or keep our borders safe! In fact, illegal aliens are welcome to stay here, get free medical care, and send their children to our schools! Even better, our borders are wide open!
I wouldn't argue that. But isn't that kind of like passing a field full of cattle and bragging to your friends that the night before you fucked the prettiest cow there? It's like being valedictorian in summer school. It's true, but not really an accomplishment worth bragging about when viewed in context.The thing is, no matter how bad our system is, overall, it's still better than any other system out there.
/karp
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
RIP Coolio | General Chat | 16 | ||
What Is CoolSculpting and How Often Can You Do It? | IronMag Labs | 1 | ||
Doctors that are cool with PEDs | Anabolics | 0 | ||
What is good store for cool bodybuilding tank tops? | General Chat | 9 | ||
Cool Videos | General Chat | 6 |