A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From the LA Times, via DeLong:

• President Bush believes Americans are so eager to join the 'ownership society' that, given a chance, two-thirds of those eligible would divert funds from Social Security into the personal investment accounts he proposes. But when public employees in seven states were offered the opportunity for similar accounts during the last decade, nowhere near two-thirds signed up for them. In many instances, the figure was closer to 5%.... Nebraska's state and county workers were given do-it-yourself accounts... made so many investment errors that they ended up making less than colleagues with fixed-benefit pensions — and less than what analysts have said is needed for old age. Their poor performance led the Nebraska Legislature two years ago to junk the accounts for new employees.
  
  While Americans are just beginning to grapple with the president's proposal for private accounts, employees and retirement officials in Michigan, Montana, Washington, West Virginia and other states have discovered that the accounts can fall far short of their promise. Their experiences sound a cautionary note for Bush as well as for California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.... The poor performance of many of the accounts leaves experts to wonder whether most people, even among those who want to make their own retirement investments, have the time or knowledge to do so successfully. 'If people have private accounts in Social Security and they're left to make the decisions themselves, the results likely will not be positive,' said Anna Sullivan, executive director of the Nebraska Public Employees Retirement Systems, which replaced its private account system with a centrally managed plan in 2003.
  
  Joseph Jankowski, executive director of the West Virginia Consolidated Public Retirement Board, said: 'The vast majority of people don't have the inclination or comfort level to be responsible for their own retirements.' West Virginia board officials are debating whether to drop the state's private account plan as Nebraska did.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the Constitution respected your view, the government wouldn't be able to build things like roads and schools and railroads and airports and so on. Needless to say, I feel the same way about my house.

It's a question of balancing interests. The "my land is unique" point of view is why the eminent domain power should be limited and involve true public use. And I don't really buy GM needing a new plant as a true public use. Yes, one state may want to use eminent domain to get GM a good deal and keep their jobs, but is that really a good thing?

I'm also not a big fan of zoning. We haven't talked zoning in a while.

Oh, and Fringie, screw off, fuck you, etc., etc.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
It's a question of balancing interests. The "my land is unique" point of view is why the eminent domain power should be limited and involve true public use. And I don't really buy GM needing a new plant as a true public use. Yes, one state may want to use eminent domain to get GM a good deal and keep their jobs, but is that really a good thing?

If you live in Middleboro, and GM wants to expand its plant there, but the only suitable site has a property owner in it who won't sell, and so GM decides to build a new plant instead in Murphysville, you would buy the public-use angle. Or consider the role of railroads in American history. There was a clear public interest in new rail lines, but the railroads were private companies.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you live in Middleboro, and GM wants to expand its plant there, but the only suitable site has a property owner in it who won't sell, and so GM decides to build a new plant instead in Murphysville, you would buy the public-use angle. Or consider the role of railroads in American history. There was a clear public interest in new rail lines, but the railroads were private companies.

Ah, but I'm in Murphysville.

Railroads are an example of why eminent domain exists; they are open to and used by the public, and that is why we're willing to use the state power to clear a right of way.

Balancing Act, though. If you want to build a spur for the railroad to serve the Westville Condom Factory, I'm not so happy about using eminent domain.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, but I'm in Murphysville.

Railroads are an example of why eminent domain exists; they are open to and used by the public, and that is why we're willing to use the state power to clear a right of way.

Balancing Act, though. If you want to build a spur for the railroad to serve the Westville Condom Factory, I'm not so happy about using eminent domain.

They're only used by the public if the public buys a ticket. By that standard, a city should be able to condemn land to build private development so long as the developer builds a movie theater or just offers paid tours every once in a while.

[megaloman]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If the Constitution respected your view, the government wouldn't be able to build things like roads and schools and railroads and airports and so on. Needless to say, I feel the same way about my house.

The simple question that Scalia should have asked the slimeball developer's attorney was,

"Do you agree with this statement: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.'" As soon as he answered 'yes', case closed.

I just hope the homeowners of this godforesaken shithole of a nearly blighted town realize that in the event the socialists (aka Breyer & Co.) win out, that there is always the Court of last appeal. The one where the exercise of one's Second Amendment rights decides the day.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Anntila the Hun]

Originally posted by megaloman
I just hope the homeowners of this godforesaken shithole of a nearly blighted town realize that in the event the socialists (aka Breyer & Co.) win out, that there is always the Court of last appeal. The one where the exercise of one's Second Amendment rights decides the day.

Did I mention I like guns? Here's a picture of me shooting at the neighbor's dog. Seeing eye dog my ass - tell the damn thing to stop barking at me.

I just think "Ted Kennedy's butt", and bango!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Laura Bush, seen here today before the Supreme Court declined to hear a constitutional challenge to Alabama's ban on the sale of marital aids.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They're only used by the public if the public buys a ticket. By that standard, a city should be able to condemn land to build private development so long as the developer builds a movie theater or just offers paid tours every once in a while.

As far as I know, the only "public benefit" in this case is that the taxes from the new development will be higher if the state prevails.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

First Lady Laura Bush is shown her husband's plan for SS -- future retirees will get the Bigtime Screw.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Myron Deaufusz, curator of the National Archives, showing First Lady Laura Bush some of the proposals submitted so far for "W", a proposed exhibit in which artists are asked to interpret how future generations will view the legacy of America's 43rd President."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As far as I know, the only "public benefit" in this case is that the taxes from the new development will be higher if the state prevails.

Don't you think a new development will look better than an older neighborhood? If we're going to consider the non-pecuniary benefits that people derive from their houses, why not the other public benefits besides taxes? Or are you suggesting that economic development is a bad idea?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't you think a new development will look better than an older neighborhood? If we're going to consider the non-pecuniary benefits that people derive from their houses, why not the other public benefits besides taxes? Or are you suggesting that economic development is a bad idea?

I'm suggesting that taking private property from one citizen and giving it to another citizen is not an appropriate use of eminent domain. If the government wanted to take it to build a freeway, a firehouse, or something of that nature, it's a different story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm suggesting that taking private property from one citizen and giving it to another citizen is not an appropriate use of eminent domain. If the government wanted to take it to build a freeway, a firehouse, or something of that nature, it's a different story.

I understand what you're suggesting, but not why.* Do you think it should have been unconstitutional for the federal government to take land by eminent domain to give the railroads? Private business, but the public benefits are clear. OK to build a freeway, but what if it's a toll road owned by an authority with private bondholders?

* eta: I take it back: I'm not sure what you're suggesting. How do you decide what's appropriate?