The Most Frightening Aspect of the GOP Debate

[RobsPics]

Does it benefit everyone ?

It benefits those formally without HC. I don't think "everyone" is the appropriate standard though, since many eminent domain issues don't directly benefit everyone.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Does it benefit everyone ?

Many people would argue that it does. There are many people that would not benefit from a new school or another road.

 

[1972 Grad]

Many people would argue that it does. There are many people that would not benefit from a new school or another road.

Well then , why not just give a few million people a million dollars each?

 

[volfanhill]

A "necessary evil" that the government will and has abused.

We can't stop all government abuse. They will take a mile when given an inch. However there is certainly proof where eminent domain has been necessary. As someone posted earlier can you imagine this country without federal highways?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Redistribution of privately held assets isn't a good thing. When done by sanders or trump, it should be opposed either way.

Well the obvious question is then: How about income?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

You would buy the land for schools and roads. They built the entire transcontinental railroad without using it.

What if the owner does not want to sell?

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

100% chance you've filled up your tank with gasoline delivered by a private pipeline (colonial pipeline specifically) that used eminent domain.

The fact that eminent domain is being discussed on a national stage and taking time away from such issues like the debt, SS, and HC is laughable. It's such a non issue

Oh I agree about the "non issue" thingy. It's just what the thread is about. But wrt your scenario about the pipeline, I will have to defer to that, but I will also say that there are myriad other ways for an oil company to move their oil to market.

Or maybe the NFL should get eminent domain on the Super Bowl 1 footage for the $30K they have offered. No. They must be FORCED to pay above market value for what they want. If it costs them more for their product in the end, so be it, but corporations will low ball people all day and twice on Sunday.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

I feel like you've missed the issue.

He does that.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

unposted

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

The land isn't seized. They get well compensated.

But would they be fairly compensated when it is a private entity doing the buying? Especially if it is a large entity that has lots of button down lawyers and lots of money that can peddle a lot of influence to those that make those decisions. There must be a neutral arbitrator in these cases, and when "fair" is determined, the price must include something well above that. Some people do not want to leave their home, and must be compensated for their loss. Not at the price determined by someone that has no skin in the game other than their profit.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

BS. The entire transcontinental railroad was built without the use of eminent domain

:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Build the road around Preacher Jones' property, or build the road somewhere else completely.

:lolabove::lolabove::lolabove:

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

BTW who determines what "just compensation" is?

THAT is the biggest problem in all this.

 

[Vol8188]

Well the obvious question is then: How about income?

Cash is an asset. That's why I said "when done by trump or sanders".

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Cash is an asset. That's why I said "when done by trump or sanders".

then should contribution to the general fund be voluntary?

 

[Vol8188]

What if the owner does not want to sell?

Then build elsewhere. But my biggest issue isn't with government use. It's with private use. I believe it should never be used to benefit private business like trump does.

I don't like it for government use, but I'm less opposed.

 

[Vol8188]

then should contribution to the general fund be voluntary?

I think some taxation is necessary (I'd prefer consumption based). But I don't support taxes as a means of wealth redistribution.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Then build elsewhere. But my biggest issue isn't with government use. It's with private use. I believe it should never be used to benefit private business like trump does.

I don't like it for government use, but I'm less opposed.

I agree... I think. Hell is getting cold again.

 

[RobsPics]

Then build elsewhere. But my biggest issue isn't with government use. It's with private use. I believe it should never be used to benefit private business like trump does.

I don't like it for government use, but I'm less opposed.

Other than Amtrak, railways benefit private business.

 

[theFallGuy]

Pro-eminent domain, pro-universal healthcare, pro-Planned Parenthood funding, anti-free trade, literally saying Bush did 9/11... wow, the Democrats have really found their perfect candidate.

Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump | TheHill

 

[hog88]

Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump | TheHill

They're not really defecting, Trump is pretty much a Democrat.

 

[Vol8188]

Other than Amtrak, railways benefit private business.

Benefiting private business isn't a reason to take away property rights

 

[hog88]

Benefiting private business isn't a reason to take away property rights

Airports included?

 

[RobsPics]

Benefiting private business isn't a reason to take away property rights

Just because something benefits private business does not preclude it from benefiting the general public at the same time...like railroads that benefit private business and the general public. Or are you against railroads also?

 

[Vol8188]

Airports included?

Yes. Airports can negotiate with banks or private property owners to purchase land the same as anyone else