The Kelo Supreme Court decision leaves the liberal editors of the Boston Globe suddenly quiet
Much of the electorate in my home and very Blue state of Massachusetts regularly and reflexively votes for the Democratic party, siding with what it believes is the party more concerned with the welfare of the poor, the weak, the helpless, and those less powerful in our institutions of government and commerce.…
Article comments
26 - Nancy
Have any of those who enriched themselves paid back the money they stole? All of it? Have all the people who lost their jobs, their retirement, their investments, gotten their money back? No? Then they DID get away with it. Indeed they did.
27 - andy marsh
has anyone considered the fact that the boneheads that argued this case before the supremes might have been inept? At least the one(s) on the side of the little guys in New London?
28 - AW
Nancy sez: "Maybe in your neighborhood, but the people I live among are but a paycheck away from disaster & homelessness, and affordable housing for them is nonexistent"
Sell your computer and buy the homeless some food.
That's a great statement, but hardly worth the pixels showing it. Can't prove it.
Get out and help those folks. And for the sake of your retort... I do it all the time.
29 - The Duke
Nancy,
What really surprizes me, is that no one who has lost their savings, retirement etc.... has stepped up and shot them fuggers in the head.
What would I do? Probably step up and shot at least one of them fuggers in the head.
30 - Eric Olsen
back to the title of Harry's fine post: who the hell is looking out for the little people, be they pygmies or leprechauns?
31 - Victor Plenty
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
32 - Eric Olsen
I don't believe Frank Morgan was very tall either
33 - Dave Nalle
>>Have any of those who enriched themselves paid back the money they stole? All of it? Have all the people who lost their jobs, their retirement, their investments, gotten their money back? No? Then they DID get away with it. Indeed they did.<<
In most of these cases the money lost was not money they 'stole', but money they either lost because of mismanagement or spent on corporate programs which were basically bogus. The amount the unscrupulous CEOs generally pocketed was a fraction of the money the companeis actually lost for investors. And yes, whatever the CEOs got out of the company WAS taken away. In the case of Enron the principles lost everything but their houses which are protected under Texas Homestead law. But even so, that didn't make up for what the companies lost - nothing could. That's why restitution is accompanied by criminal penalties as well in this sort of case.
Dave
34 - Mike Kole
By the way- it's the Libertarian Party that consistently supports the right of property ownership. The libertarian Institute For Justice was the ACLU-style outfit that took Kelo's side on this case and worked on their behalf.
You can count on the two other parties to back property rights only when its convenient, if at all. Officials from both parties are the elected municipal officials that are entertaining this kind of eminent domain abuse across the country, currently affecting more than 10,000 other property owners, all smaller than the developers who want to avoid having to pay the prices the property owners demand, on the basis that their projects will fatten the tax rolls more efficiently than the current owners.
This was correctly described above as *greed*. It is governmental greed, and serves as an excellent object lesson: if you thought laissez faire capitalism was brutal, just get a load of the dog-eat-dog government-assisted crony capitalism. This is the mixed economy most people actually claim to prefer.
35 - Phillip Winn
And yet noted Libertarians (Kinsella, for example) have argued that the decision was the correct one, even if arrived at by faulty reasoning. After all, the chief overriding Libertarian principle is limiting the federal government, and the eminent domain decision was essentially that the federal government chose not to meddle in the state of Connecticut's affaris.
That's how it's supposed to work, right? If you don't want your house taken away to build a mall, don't live in Connecticut.
36 - Nancy
Dave, their families still live in huge mansions, in considerable comfort & style, their financial future secure, their kids still go to private schools, they still belong to the local country club, drive ultra-deluxe cars, wives drip w/jewels, etc. They haven't lost a damned thing, especially not the lifestyle they subsidized with the proceeds of their thefts and manipulations. THEREFORE they have gotten away with it! They're not being punished. Punished is losing the houses, the cars, the furs, the jewels, the country club membership, no future security/retirements, having to live in a tract house, kids in public school, wife having to take a job to support the family while hubby is in jail. THAT is being punished. You consider a slap on the wrist the equivilent of an actual punitive sentence. I really wonder if that wouldn't radically change if you didn't identify with them so strongly, and became yourself the victim of these people. God knows you have absolutely no identification with those who suffered from their machinations, and little or no sympathy, either, at least from your blogs content.
37 - Silas Kain
After doing a lot of research into campaign finance and influence peddling by lobbyists, I have come to the conclusion that neither party is for the little guy. The better question to ask is which lobby is for the little guy? It's not about Democrat or Republican, my friends. It's about dollars and sense. They've got the dollars, and we've lost all common sense.
38 - Nancy
I agree, Silas. You are a breath of fresh air & logic. Thanks.
39 - Silas Kain
Thank you, Nancy, you are too kind. I'd really love to see this sinister cabal of bloggers have a major impact on the campaign reform movement. We've got plenty of articulate, intelligent bloggers here who would be doing this country a great service by speaking out and challenging the status quo. We may not always agree on specific issues, but it seems clear to me that there is hardly anyone here who is against campaign finance and influence peddling reform.
What say you, fellow bloggers and lurkers? Are you up for the challenge?
40 - Nancy
How? Does anyone on The Hill actually pay attention to these things? They certainly don't pay attention to the public in general, unless the major media start raising a stink they can't ignore. It would be nice to channel my enthusiasm - & temper :) - into something more constructive than just railing at it.
41 - PseudoErsatz
We do really well channelling our enthusiam and temper when we are at our computer blowing off work, but when we get home, our brains are distracted by Entertainment Tonight, and "Who wants to be a Hilton". Ahh! Feel your brain atrophy...
42 - Nancy
[in a smug, self-satisfied tone of voice] I don't watch TV....
43 - Nancy
That was a joke. Truth be told, I'm too cheap to pay the outrageous costs of cable for channels I don't watch, and more importantly, I found that when I DID have cable, & watched TV, I got absolutely nothing done. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. So I pulled the plug. No virtue here, actually.
44 - Eric Olsen
who will look up to the vertically challenged?
45 - Dave Nalle
>>And yet noted Libertarians (Kinsella, for example) have argued that the decision was the correct one, even if arrived at by faulty reasoning.<<
You have to remember that there's a whole element of left-libertarians, who share libertarian views on civil rights and some other issues, but basically feel that property ownership is a bad thing and that property should be held in common or be incapable of being owned. They're still an element in the Libertarian Party, though most of them have gravitated to the Democrats leftist wing.
Dave
46 - andy marsh
libertarian liberals??? that's scary!
47 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, their families still live in huge mansions, in considerable comfort & style, their financial future secure, their kids still go to private schools, they still belong to the local country club, drive ultra-deluxe cars, wives drip w/jewels, etc. They haven't lost a damned thing, especially not the lifestyle they subsidized with the proceeds of their thefts and manipulations. THEREFORE they have gotten away with it! They're not being punished. Punished is losing the houses, the cars, the furs, the jewels, the country club membership, no future security/retirements, having to live in a tract house, kids in public school, wife having to take a job to support the family while hubby is in jail. <<
One gets the feeling that you resent anyone who lives that lifestyle even if they aren't guilty of anything, or that in your opinion just living like that MAKES them guilty. Remember, if you take all of that away from them, it doesn't make you any richer, it just makes them poorer.
>>THAT is being punished. You consider a slap on the wrist the equivilent of an actual punitive sentence. <<
No, I consider actual punishment the equivalent of actual punishment. Ken Lay lost everything except for his house and steps are being taken to find a way to take that as well - and that's just as a result of bankruptcy proceedings. Now he faces charges which could lead to as much as 175 years in prison, plus financial penalties and restitution. He's going to get hammered hard, which ought to make you happy.
>> I really wonder if that wouldn't radically change if you didn't identify with them so strongly, <<
They're not the group I identify with. I identify with the family business owners and entrepreneurs who get lumped in with them and suffer because of anti-wealth policies which mean nothing to criminals and the super rich, but which crush small businesses and entrepreneurs who get thrown in with them.
>>and became yourself the victim of these people.<<
In fact I am a victim of these people. A good portion of my daughter's college fund was invested in Global Crossing - over $20,000. After the lawsuit settlement we expect to be paid $18 in the class-action suit. That's victimization.
>> God knows you have absolutely no identification with those who suffered from their machinations, and little or no sympathy, either, at least from your blogs content.<<
I have plenty of sympathy for the victims and no sympathy at all for the Ken Lay's of the world. With great wealth comes great responsibility, and if you don't accept the responsibility which comes with wealth then your downfall should be inevitable and painful. What I object to is the lumping of anyone who works hard and makes more than $50,000 a year in with Ken Lay and other wealthy criminals. The criminals are in the minority, and most of the people who are hurt by extreme taxation and punitive anti-business measures aren't scam artists or the super-rich, they're people who own family businesses, farms and work hard for a living. Trying to bring them down just because you haven't achieved their level of success is vindictive and bad for the country.
Dave
48 - Dave Nalle
>>After doing a lot of research into campaign finance and influence peddling by lobbyists, I have come to the conclusion that neither party is for the little guy. The better question to ask is which lobby is for the little guy? It's not about Democrat or Republican, my friends. It's about dollars and sense. They've got the dollars, and we've lost all common sense.<<
Generally true, Silas. But what's really going on here is that the wrong question is being asked.
The question isn't 'who's looking out for the little guy', it's 'who's pursuing programs that benefit everyone', and of course who isn't. Governemnt policies which benefit everyone also benefit the little guy. Policies which are designed only to help special groups usually don't help the little guy at all, or at best offer false support at a very high cost.
Dave
49 - Nancy
Dave, don't look now, but you just clinched my arguments against most of Smirk's policies for me. Thanks!
50 - Phillip Winn
Dave, read more Kinsella. He's no liberal.
51 - The Duke
Wow... Nancy, after reading your posts, I'm developing an extreme fondness for your mind.
52 - Joe
Darby O'Gill in 2008!
53 - Victor Plenty
"Republicans, Democrats, they're all the same to me," a prominent representative of the little people said recently, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"They're always after me lucky charms," he went on to say.
54 - Eric Olsen
Joe and Victor - classic!
55 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, don't look now, but you just clinched my arguments against most of Smirk's policies for me. Thanks!<<
Then you sure didn't read them closely enough.
Dave