Posted on 07/26/2002 10:18:45 PM PDT by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:55:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
House Republican leaders, heading home to face voters anxious over retirement security, announced yesterday they will introduce legislation to seize the mansions and yachts of corrupt corporate executives.
"We need to do more to strip corrupt corporate kingpins of their ill-gotten gains," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, Texas Republican. "We're taking the mansion. We're draining the accounts. And we're coming after the yacht."
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
And if they didn't break any current laws, how can they be convicted with a law that is passed after-the-fact?
I've been uncomfortable with this whole thing since that Enron executive committed suicide. It just seems that information, increased public awareness, and more responsible accounting will take care of this. They shouldn't start punishing people who played by the rules.
Any siezure laws that don't require a guilty verdict are subject to corruption. This all sounds so good, but it isn't. And if you think these lawyers aren't going to have the backing of the JBT's when they do the seizin', think again.
Hello... where am I? Have I wandered into Salon?
Now that you mention it, I see what you're saying. As if its illegal or even immoral to be rich. Heck, I strive for the day that I might be well off enough to not have to work again.
I think what's going on here is some serious stereotyping; i.e., if somebody has lots of money, they must be corrupt and even if they aren't, they don't deserve it and I want it and yadda-yadda...
but I have a big problem with giving the government authority to seize property "just in case" or because someone "might" be guilty.And you can provide some backing for the assertion that this proposed legislation does this? It isn't in the story, and the legislation hasn't even been written or introduced yet, so exactly how (or more importantly, why) did you jump to this conclusion?
I think folks are gonna relate to taking from the Rich to ... to ...You sound like another person who has bought into the socialist spin on the Robin Hood tale.
Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. That is what a socialist does (or wants the state to do to give him the cover of legitimacy).
Robin Hood took back from the theiving corrupt rich and gave back to those who had been bilked. This is why the real myth or Robin Hood is and should be a hero.
Why the shift?
Do you see anywhere in this piece where it talks about confiscating based on suspicion?
If not, then why did you make that jump?
Explain to me how that logic works.
how can they be convicted with a law that is passed after-the-fact?They can't, and that isn't what is being proposed, so why you are off on that tangent is beyond me.
Precisely! I know it may be generally thought that these guys are guilty of fraud, RICO, obstruction, I'm not sure how this plays out with a specific charge relating to a specific existing law.
I know this takes time but how long ago was it that Lay went to the hill and took the 5th? The answer could be that they don't have a charge that they think they can make stick with existing laws.
Yes, that attitude does seem to be all around these days.
Socialism - it's not just for liberals anymore.
Any siezure laws that don't require a guilty verdict are subject to corruption. This all sounds so good, but it isn't.Please find where it says that there is any siezure law being proposed that doesn't require a guilty verdict. I think if you will review this thread, you won't find it in anything Delay said. You won't find it in the article.
You will find it, however, several replies into this thread when someone either made an unsubstantiated leap or decided to introduce spin.
they seem to like it primarily because it punishes those that they perceive as "the rich".Incorrect. It is because it punishes those who got rich not by their own abilities or skils or even just plain good fortune, but rather by corruption.
See my reply to Askel5 above. I think it applies to you as well.
Long live Robin Hood- as the myth really is, not how it has been perceived over time.
myth or Robin HoodApologies. That should have read "real myth of Robin Hood".
No Jump. As I posted in my previous comment the following line from the end of the article.
Mi>"Mr. Baker said he hopes the legislation will give the SEC seizure powers much like the Drug Enforcement Administration.
I think that is pretty clear. Nevertheless, I understood in the first two sentences of this article where they were headed with this. More reduction of individual rights, it's the nature of our government these days, or hadnt you noticed.
Well said.
Pretty much, I think that it only makes sense that I should not be allowed to steal a million bucks and then use a significant portion of it trying to get off through the ministrations of lawyers.
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.