Posted on 11/10/2010 10:23:46 AM PST by LibertarianInExile
Like hell. There is all sorts of information out there about how short-changed landholders would have been by the TTC takings. Please feel free to prove to us all that the owners who would have property taken by the TTC would be compensated for their losses. 100% compensated. Then maybe you can explain why Texas Farm Bureau is still pushing for a new eminent domain reform bill because they are so concerned about takings by the state.
You may have a chance at journalism and write stories like, "asteroid COULD hit Earth, WOULD destroy all life".
A new word to describe the Perry Derangement Syndrome....CRAZY!!!!
Look deeper and you will find a wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is a warning. He talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Just informed. Again, please explain how the property owners who would have had their land taken by the TTC via emminent domain would be compensated 100% for their land. There is a reason why Texas farmers still want new legislation to protect them from the kind of garbage Perry has been pushing in the past.
Don't like the word "would"? Too bad. Because Rick Perry would be a contender to run for higher office if he had not done the very liberal things he has done in the past. Especially in 2007. Rick Perry would be a conservative if not for his pushing the TTC and Guardasil. Perry would sell a lot more of his book if not for the fact that many of us know it is a bunch of BS.
Maybe Perry and old Jeb should get together and make themselves a ticket for the big show. That would be a perfect pair. They could call themselves the Baggage Boys.
Wrong, Just Crazy is more accurate.
How else to explain someone who relies heavily on 'what ifs' and hyperbole to support their non-sense arguement.
You see, one has to commit something in the first place to be accused of it, but you insist that he is guilty of "Theft" when none EVER took place. This is crazy and insane.
"Again, please explain how the property owners who would have had their land taken by the TTC via emminent domain would be compensated 100% for their land."
Why should I explain something that never happened? This is very bizzarre.
Those are some impressive accomplishments carry okie! keep fighting the good fight!
The theft never took place because Perry was stopped by people, unlike Perry, who believe in property rights. People who are real conservatives. That does not change the fact that Rick Perry actively wanted to take property away from Texans without due compensation. He also wanted to make girls be forced by executive order to submit their bodies to his mandate. Both the TTC and the Gardasil BS were stopped.
The fact that Rick Perry took these shots at Texans is the issue. There are no "what if's" to his actions. The fact that he would push the TTC is the very important. Anyone that was paying attention at that time knew why Perry was carrying water for Cintra. He was looking for his next job just as he is now as he pretends to be a conservative.
Most people consider what others try to do when evaluating the character of a person. If that is not the case then by your way of thinking if a guy takes a shot at you that is OK as long as he misses.
Crazy is calling Rick Perry a conservative.
These are complete lies and cannot be substantiated. How can you expect someone to take you seriously when you cannot argue in a rational way? Instead you must rely on blatant lies, hyperbole and pure BS.
You would make a great MSNBC host. Rachel Maddow could learn a thing or two from you.
I posted information from Perry's own web site detailing his executive order and what it mandated. People can read the exective order themselves. As far as the TTC and the issues related to takings by ID by the state I provided information from the Texas Farm Bureau who was just in the media saying that their biggest upcoming legislative issue is how the state does ID. Texas farmers and Texas family farms pushed a bill in previous session that would protect them against land grabs via ID like the TTC would have. The TTC that Perry almost single-handedly pushed would have been one of the biggest lang grabs in American history. Property owners would not have been compensated for their actual losses. Using ID the state can pretty much tell the property owner what they will be paid. It is theft and Perry promoted it. In both cases he got his hat handed to him because he was an idiot for pushing such invasive and aggressive things such as the TTC and Guardasil upon Texans. Now, laughably, he writes a book pointing at the federal government or being overbearing. What a joke!
Perry is no conservative. Good luck overcoming that fact as you promote him.
With regard to the problem of living past life expectancy in the distant past:
For most people, they (almost all of them female) were to be taken care of by their adult children. This is reflected in the commandment to honor your father and your mother.
As it became possible to accumulate wealth, by reason of the recognition of property and the establishment of the rule of law, a new option was developed, which was to save. But, because of uncertain lifetimes, the rule was to not dip into capital. That is, live only on interest. Then, from a financial perspective, you could live forever.
With regard to pension, this has only become a possibility in the past 200 years. It required the development of actuarial science. The first, modern day whole life insurance and annuity policies only date from the 1840s. New York Life and Met Life are examples continuing to today of insurance companies that offer such plans.
What is the difference between Social Security and, for that matter, government pensions, and the kind of policies that are offered by private-sector insurance companies and by Chile’s privatized social insurance program?
1.Mandatory versus voluntary - the U.S. and Chile’s social insurance programs are mandatory, private plans are voluntary, either offered as part of the compensation package by employers to attract and retain employees or contracts bought by individuals directly from insurance companies.
2.Funded versus pay-as-you go - Chile’s social insurance program and private-sector insurance company plans are funded. You have to contribute in advance, to build up a fund sufficient to pay for your expected benefits. In Social Security, the money you pay in goes to those who are currently retired. There is only a trivial fund. The first couple generations got a sweet deal, not having paid in much and getting benefits upon their retirements.
3.Fair - Chile’s social insurance program and private-sector insurance programs are fair. The more you pay in, the more you expect to get out. In contrast, the U.S. Social Security system is egalitarian. There is very little relationship between how much you pay in and how much you expect to get out. In Chile, you are required to pay in 10 percent and are allowed to pay in 20 percent of your earnings, and many people put in the maximum. As to those who haven’t put in enough to earn the minimum benefit the government wants everybody to have, the difference for them is paid out of general revenue, not provided by a cross-subsidy.
With regard to federal government workers, the big problem is that it is not funded. State government workers, in many states, have severely under-funded pensions and are, thus, akin to federal government workers.
The real problem with unfunded or underfunded government worker pensions is that the taxpayer doesn’t see the full cost of the benefits they are receiving from the government workers. Therefore, the taxpayer is not able to balance cost and benefit.
This problem of unfunded and underfunded government worker pensions is endemic of the problems of deficit-spending, unfunded mandates, cross-subsidies and so forth of our society, and of the indebtedness of our people and of our private corporations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.