Another form of ‘socialism’

To all the letter writers who whine about “socialism,” I must remind you about a little something called eminent domain. Remember that? The government can take your property as long as they can give it to somebody richer than you.

Isn’t that a form of socialism? The government redistributing wealth arbitrarily? And haven’t Republicans done pretty much squat about it? The best President Bush could do is sign a statement that limited it kinda, sorta, maybe. Pretty pathetic.

Get your conservative politicians to do something real about it, or forever hold your hypocritical tongues.

Aerik Knapp-Loomis
Shawnee

Comments

[Engineer]

Pub 17
Now I am sure you are putting me on. i was performing a service for the public for which I received very limited pay. If you really think that is the same thing as the government levying taxes for the express purpose of giving the money to others just because they are there, then we never will reach an understanding.

[Engineer]

Pub 17
Now I am sure you are putting me on. I was performing a service for the public for which I received very limited pay. If you really think that is the same thing as the government levying taxes for the express purpose of giving the money to others just because they are there, then we never will reach an understanding.

[Pub 17]

"For the government to take money from one person and give it to another is theft/socialism/fascism/Marxism". Whatever it is it's not capitalism or is it any thing the Framers even remotely envisioned. But let's call it by a completely descriptive name "Thiefism".

REALLY? So when the government took money from noncombatants and gave it to you in the form of pay and benefits, that was socialism? Thiefism? What?

[Engineer]

Pub 17
I think the designation perfectly fits taxation for the express purpose of sending the funds to others. Thiefism, just exactly what it is. As to me personally; three years in the army in WWII, 10 years in the reserve, a very large sum paid in federal and state income taxes and still paying. I think I have carried my share of the load and possibly a good deal more.

[Pub 17]

Unless you're prepared to aver that you do not now receive nor have you ever received any benefits financial or in kind from city, state, or federal government operations, and that those the government foists on you are immediately returned, please take your "Thiefism" behind the barn and shoot it.

[solomon]

name-calling ....here???

I resemble that remark

signed solomon Ike Turner Farakhan Lemon Dung Beetle Race Card(the mysogenist)

[Engineer]

Pub 17
""For the government to take money from one person and give it to another is theft/socialism/fascism/Marxism". Whatever it is it's not capitalism or is it any thing the Framers even remotely envisioned. But let's call it by a completely descriptive name "Thiefism".

[Pub 17]

The complaint, Kee, is when people start saying childish things like, "If everybody would simply hold hands and sing, we wouldn't have any wars," and, "If everybody would do right, we wouldn't have to spend money on locks and police." Or, "For the government to take money from one person and give it to another is theft/socialism/fascism/Marxism." If you have real points to make or interesting insights to offer, you'll find most of the range of posters here will accord you at least a little courtesy-even Rogue can carry a coherent tune if you're talking about hunting or national service. You're free to post anything you want within the Star's terms of engagement, but you start talking silliness don't expect a free pass from those of us who have large bald spots and an excess of ear hair.

[Engineer]

Perhaps what we are seeing is not a trend toward socialism. It could be that we are seeing the birth of a new form, Thieftism.

[Kate]

“Is it common on this board to call others names if you disagree with them?”

Sometimes people are told to just STFU. The all time low, in my opinion, was when one perpetually-overwrought person speculated about my son returning to me in a flag-draped coffin. I think she had some serious issues.

[Marctnts]

"Is it common on this board to call others names if you disagree with them? Not exactly a friendly place is it?"

Only for Rogue and Pub and a few other of our more frustrated friends. Maybe a bad home life?

[Kee]

Well in the matter of the Supreme Court decision regading the City of New London it certainly was not the same as "building a highway in Northeastern Maine".

In this case the homeowner's property was condemned to benefit a developer putting in a new mall and condos. This action did not benefit the general public at large as a highway would. It only benefitted the develper and the city by creating a property that would generate a higher tax base to them.

Is it common on this board to call others names if you disagree with them? Not exactly a friendly place is it?

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

That is why our forefathers included the 2nd Amendment. Government or not, they are not above being shot for violating our Constitutional rights.

[Pub 17]

No, it's not, you blithering idiot, any more than taking your income tax to build a highway in northeastern Maine.

[Kee]

The government "owning" everything from power companies to real estate is socialism. To take someone's property to transfer it to someone else for the government's benefit is one good first step toward that end.

[Pub 17]

No, Aerik. "The government redistributing wealth arbitrarily" isn't socialism. Try knowing what you're talking about before you post.

[pmcw]

Aerik, I share your anger towards what I view as an unconstitutional land grab by the rich and influential via imminent domain. However, you are TOTALLY wrong as to who is on your side and who sided with wealthy developers.

In a 5 to 4 decision, ALL LIBERAL Supreme Court justices sided with the wealthy developers and ALL four conservative judges sided with private property home owners who had lived in the New London neighborhood, some for generations, that was the basis for the case.

To be specific, judges Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer voted for the wealthy developers and judges O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas sided with the homeowners. The Kansas City Star showed little sympathy for the homeowners just as it failed to support small businesses displaced by the Power and Light District.

Here's a link to the story on the Supreme Court decision that is at the heart of the matter. In my view, this was the wrong and unconstitutional. Of course, this is the sort of "living Constitution" interpretation we've come to expect from liberal judges that legislate from their lofty perches.

http://tinyurl.com/dks8f

The first rule of war is to know your enemy - the liberals would like you to think they are on the side of the little guy - they aren't. What they do is buy off the little guy while all the conservatives do is try to provide opportunity for success while respecting all of our rights for private property.

The next liberal land-grab attempt will be our retirement accounts. Yep, the liberal want to nationalize our retirement accounts (take our money from our 401K, 403B, IRA, etc. accounts). Don't believe me, run a Google search for Guaranteed Retirement Accounts.

[solomon]

If it is really fair market value it should be based on what the next owner will price it after improvements. To take something from me and do what you want with it should come with a cost to you.

[Engineer]

Aerik Knapp-Loomis adds proof to the theory I posted yesterday. Yes, the Government can take your property by eminent domain but they are to pay you market valve for it. And until the very ill advised Kelo decision by the Supreme Court property could be taken only for public use as defined by something with a public function. To change Kelo we would need at least one more "original intent" "strict constructionist" Justice on the Supreme Court so it's up to Obama and the Senate.