Record Pork Barrel Spending. (1 Viewer)

[shuamort]

On December 8, 2004, President Bush signed into law HR 4818. According to the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank in D.C., this bill has the largest amount of Pork Barrel spending in the history of Congress.

It's sad that I'd rather have a tax and spend liberal that way I knew that the money was being put back in the system than a spend and spend conservative that we're going to have a huge debt to pay back later.

I've decided to highlight the ones that I thought were so ridiculous. Especially the fact that $9,638,750.00 was spent in Alaska alone. These spending project should be handled by the local government and its citizen (if by any government at all). All of the US Citizens should not be pitching in for therapeutic horse rides, Atlanta buses, and slickspot peppergrass. I was hoping that with the Republicans taking control of the congress and presidency that there would be less spending and that just doesn't seem to be the case at all.

$450,000 Baseball Hall of Fame
$97,000 Franco-American Heritage Center, Lewiston, Maine
$25,000 Develop curriculum to study mariachi music, Clark County School District, Nevada
$350,000 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, Cleveland, Ohio
$150,000 Therapeutic Horseback Riding Program, Lady B Ranch, California
$950,000 Please Touch Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
$250,000 Police Activities League Center, Anaheim California
$2,000,000 Kitchen Relocation, Fairbanks (Alaska) North Star Borough
$250,000 Alaska Statehood Celebration, University of Alaska
$250,000 Country Music Hall of Fame, Nashville, Tennessee
$121,250 Demolition, Broadview Heights, Ohio
$99,000 Train students in the motorsports industry, Patrick Henry Community College
$50,000 Workforce development, Fashion Business, Inc., Los Angeles, California
$100,000 Municipal swimming pool, Ottawa, Kansas
$100,000 Amer-I-Can program for youth, Illinois
$300,000 Relocate the Waynesboro, Mississippi Police Department
$250,000 Camp Police Athletic League of New Jersey
$35,000 Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
$100,000 National Association of Promoting Success
$175,000 Love Social Services, Fairbanks, Alaska
$51,000 Robert E. Lee Community Center, Chase City, Virginia
$150,000 Grammy Foundation
$167,000 Horn Fly Research in Alabama
$72,750 Public swimming pool construction, Prescott, Alaska
$300,000 Revitalize downtown Council Bluffs, Iowa
$500,000 Beyond Missing
$75,000 Greater Syracuse Sports Hall of Fame, New York
$100,000 High Falls Film Festival, Rochester, New York
$291,000 International Museum of Women, San Francisco, California
$300,000 Streetlights and salt dome, Markham, Illinois
$1,500,000 Transport naturally chilled water from Lake Ontario to Lake Onondaga
$250,000 City pool renovation and construction, Banning, California
$250,000 Construct the Great Falls Parking Garage, Auburn, Maine
$6,285,000 Wood utilization research across several states
$200,000 Aviation Hall of Fame
$500,000 Equipment purchases, KENW public radio station, Portales, New Mexico
$100,000 “No Workshops, No Jumpshots," Virginia
$200,000 Audie Murphy/American Cotton Museum, Greenville, Texas
$275,000 National History Museum of the Adirondacks, Tupper Alaska
$150,000 Obscenity Crimes Project
$100,000 Breedlove Dehydrated Foods, Lubbock, Texas
$50,000 Feral hog control in Missouri
$250,000 Traffic calming, Windermere, Florida
$500,000 Jazz at Lincoln Center in New York City
$250,000 North Creek Ski Bowl, North Creek, New York
$1,750,000 Parents Anonymous
$1,500,000 Wood products wastewater repairs Canton, North Carolina
$150,000 Fishing Rationalization Research in Alaska
$1,500,000 Anchorage Museum/Transit intermodal depot, Alaska
$500,000 Center for the Living Arts, Alabama
$500,000 B&O Railroad Museum Restoration, Maryland
$250,000 Surplus federal property study, Walla Walla, Washington
$98,000 Alaska Sea Otter Commission
$200,000 Dennison Railroad Depot Museum, Ohio
$2,500,000 Horse Springs Ranch, New Mexico
$150,000 “Parent Intern” program, Our House, Inc., Decatur, Georgia
$3,000,000 Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, New York
$150,000 Coca-Cola Space Science Center, Columbus, Georgia
$100,000 Punxsutawney (Pennsylvania) Weather Museum
$280,000 Sidewalks, street furniture and façade improvements, Bakersfield, California
$1,000,000 B.B. King Museum Foundation, Indianola, Mississippi
$250,000 A day care center in Sioux Falls, South Dakota
$268,000 Livestock waste research in Iowa
$350,000 Project Peacemaker, Turtle Mountain Community College, North Dakota
$200,000 Wallace State Center for Automotive Manufacturing and Plastics, Hanceville, Alabama
$160,000 Seafood waste in Alaska
$1,108,000 Alternative salmon products in Alaska
$796,000 Ice Age National Scientific Reserve
$42,124 Citrus waste utilization in Florida
$50,000 Wild rice research in Minnesota
$300,000 Wool research
$100,000 Trees Forever Program, Iowa
$1,800,000 Eider and sea otter recovery at Alaska Sea Life Center
$1,000,000 Trailways Station Revitalization and Visitors Center, Georgia
$3,500,000 Bus acquisition in Atlanta
$1,000,000 Clean fuel shuttle buses in Atlanta
$750,000 Broward/Palm Beach County buses, Florida
$2,000,000 Replace buses in Chapel Hill, North Carolina
$200,000 YMCA bus, Alabama
$25,000 Fitness equipment, YMCA of Bradford County, Pennsylvania
$921,000 Hardwood tree improvement and regeneration, Indiana
$350,000 Leafy spurge eradication in North Dakota
$10,000 Slickspot Peppergrass
$500,000 Chugach NF Valdez visitor center, Alaska
$2,300,000 Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green, Kentucky
$515,000 Brown tree snake management in Guam
$3,000,000 Grape Genomics Research Center, Davis, California
$347,000 Grapefruit juice/drug interaction research, Florida
$63,000 Noxious Weed in the Desert Southwest, Las Cruces, New Mexico
$470,000 Swine and other animal waste management research, North Carolina
$150,000 “Check ‘Em Out” program
$750,000 Close Up Foundation
$100,000 Marine turtles program
$430,000 Automotive technology and repair workforce training, Excel Institute, Washington, D.C.
$100,000 Pennsylvania Hunting and Fishing Museum, Warren, Pennsylvania
$1,250,000 Train-to-Mountain, Washington
$150,000 Alaska Botanical Garden
$250,000 Boardwalk in Brookings Harbor, Oregon
$200,000 Brookings Harbor Seafood Processing Plant, Oregon
$800,000 Improve a historic building in Las Vegas, Nevada
$500,000 Kincaid Park Soccer and Nordic Ski Center, Anchorage, Alaska
$100,000 National Railway Museum, Green Bay, Wisconsin
$900,000 Tongass Coast Aquarium, Ketchikan Alaska

 

[Pacridge]

Yeah, I don't get it. For years the GOP ran around screaming "tax and spend liberal, tax and spend liberal!" at the top of their lungs. Now their in control of just about every branch of government (all if you include the SC) and the spending hasn't stopped- it's increased! The only thing they've done is stop paying for the spending (well that and shifted some of the personal welfare to corporate welfare.) Does everyone really believe there's not going to be a negative effect to all this negative spending?

 

[Squawker]

That was one of the things the line item veto was supposed to correct. It's too damn bad that got over turned. We should press to have it put back into the legislative process. These pork barrel spending bills are always slipped in with other more important bills, and they sign the whole thing.

 

[shuamort]

That was one of the things the line item veto was supposed to correct. It's too damn bad that got over turned.

Yeah, and it would take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it. Here's the Supreme Court's opinion that struck the law down in Clinton v. New York.

 

[Squawker]

it would take a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it.

That's what needs to be done then. Neither side can complain about deficits, then allow these legislators to waste money on pork. If a bill is important enough to ask for a vote, it should stand alone. I don't really understand the reasoning behind the Court decision, but you know how I feel about our Judiciary. :doh

 

[Gabo]

There is a simple way for us to fix it.

STOP ELECTING OFFICIALS WHO SUPPORT IT!


Republicans and Democrats see no problem in violating and mutilating the constitution. Stop voting for them!

Start voting for someone who will actually uphold their OATH!

 

[anomaly]

There is a simple way for us to fix it.

STOP ELECTING OFFICIALS WHO SUPPORT IT!


Republicans and Democrats see no problem in violating and mutilating the constitution. Stop voting for them!

Start voting for someone who will actually uphold their OATH!

And a libertarian will? Don't make me laugh, Gabo!

 

[Gabo]

And a libertarian will? Don't make me laugh, Gabo!

Explain to me how a government without taxes and without a monopoly on our currency would be able to include pork in their budget.


By the way, just like to let you know another neat fact. When presidential candidates reach a certain amount in their campaign funds, the government offers to MATCH that amount. Libertarians are THE ONLY PARTY to refuse that offer, because they are THE ONLY PARTY that recognizes the money belongs to THE PEOPLE.

 

[anomaly]

Explain to me how a government without taxes and without a monopoly on our currency would be able to include pork in their budget.


By the way, just like to let you know another neat fact. When presidential candidates reach a certain amount in their campaign funds, the government offers to MATCH that amount. Libertarians are THE ONLY PARTY to refuse that offer, because they are THE ONLY PARTY that recognizes the money belongs to THE PEOPLE.

The libertarians are eerily similar to the GOP on fiscal matters, this translates to the Libertarians wanting to further increase the gap between rich and poor, and let capitalism run wild. Libertarians hardly want to 'give money to the people', quite the contrary. They want to takem oney from the worker and place it into the pockets of businessman, management, and CEOs, where they say it 'belongs'. Wealready see CEOs making 425 times what their average worker makes, do we wish to raise this ratio? If so, by all means, vote Libertarian. But, Gabo, actually the matter I'm trying to address is you saying the GOP and Dems do not respect the constitution, yet you naively thinking the Libertarians will. It seems to me that the 'Libertarian' party is nothing more than a pathetic off shoot of the GOP.

Apart from that, I'm interested, does the Libertarian party you align yourself with support this 'free state' initiative?

 

[Gabo]

The libertarians are eerily similar to the GOP on fiscal matters, this translates to the Libertarians wanting to further increase the gap between rich and poor, and let capitalism run wild.

As I discussed thoroughly in a previous thread, a Libertarian government tolerates whatever people with to do with their lives, including establishing local governments.

Those of you who want to "tame" the "run wild" capitalism are free to do so IN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY. Go ahead.

But in my community, I want capitalism.

GOP would force their "capitalist" ideas (which are much more close to fascism) on the entire population regardless of opinions.

Libertarians hardly want to 'give money to the people', quite the contrary. They want to take money from the worker and place it into the pockets of businessman, management, and CEOs, where they say it 'belongs'.

Actually, they do neither.

The only way for businessmen to get that money under a libertarian society would be for others to voluntarily give it to them (by purchasing their product, for example).

It's not that we're giving money to the people, its that we're not stealing it away like the Democrats and Republicans do. And, if we don't have any money, we obviously can't give it away to corporations.

We already see CEOs making 425 times what their average worker makes, do we wish to raise this ratio? If so, by all means, vote Libertarian.

If I want to give my money to those CEOs to make them rich, you've got no right to stop me.

But, once again, there would be nothing stopping you socialist/communists from establishing your own communities that weed out the "corruption" of capitalism.

But, Gabo, actually the matter I'm trying to address is you saying the GOP and Dems do not respect the constitution, yet you naively thinking the Libertarians will. It seems to me that the 'Libertarian' party is nothing more than a pathetic off shoot of the GOP.

One of the biggest points of the libertarians is to go back to the Constitution!

Besides, libertarians believe all individuals, and the whole world as well, is better of when people do not initiate FORCE. Therefore, if they initiated FORCE via breaking their constitutional oath, they'd be contradicting their own philosophy! In their minds, they'd be making thinks worse for themselves and the whole rest of the country!

Apart from that, I'm interested, does the Libertarian party you align yourself with support this 'free state' initiative?

The party itself cannot support the Free State Project as its unfair to give people's money to the FSP without consent.

However, Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian Presidential Candidate 2004) does support the project.

 

[anomaly]

As I discussed thoroughly in a previous thread, a Libertarian government tolerates whatever people with to do with their lives, including establishing local governments.

Those of you who want to "tame" the "run wild" capitalism are free to do so IN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY. Go ahead.

But in my community, I want capitalism.

GOP would force their "capitalist" ideas (which are much more close to fascism) on the entire population regardless of opinions.

So, if a libertarian were to be elected, we'd see the creation of such 'communitys'? We'd see communes exist in which communism could flourish? I think not. Libertarians are completely opposed to communism, and would not set aside land willingly for us. I think you overestimate the measures to which a Lib president would go...

Actually, they do neither.

The only way for businessmen to get that money under a libertarian society would be for others to voluntarily give it to them (by purchasing their product, for example).

It's not that we're giving money to the people, its that we're not stealing it away like the Democrats and Republicans do. And, if we don't have any money, we obviously can't give it away to corporations.

Redistributive policies aren't 'stealing' your money in any way. They help the economy as a whole by giving money to those who need it most. In the past, the economy has failed when the gap between rich and poor was not controlled. Today, just as in the twenties, this gap widens.

If I want to give my money to those CEOs to make them rich, you've got no right to stop me.

But, once again, there would be nothing stopping you socialist/communists from establishing your own communities that weed out the "corruption" of capitalism.

You again feel that libertarians would freely give away land to communists? So that they could break away from the US? Again, libs do not wish this much freedom for communists. Perhaps you could change my mind by providing an essay of a lib leader who speaks of establishing these communes under the leadership of the Lib party.

One of the biggest points of the libertarians is to go back to the Constitution!

Besides, libertarians believe all individuals, and the whole world as well, is better of when people do not initiate FORCE. Therefore, if they initiated FORCE via breaking their constitutional oath, they'd be contradicting their own philosophy! In their minds, they'd be making thinks worse for themselves and the whole rest of the country!

A question: do you Libs see force as wrong in cases like Vietnam (50's-60's) where the overwelming majority used force to establish their own government? Ho Chi Minh was backed by the vast majority of the country, so do you oppose his revolutionary movement? The same question could be posed of Greece ('47) or Cuba ('59). Also, you would be in support of Allende's Chile, in which he was democratically elected, right? So you agree that the US led coup to overthrow Allende was wrong?
^^^actually a few questions lol^^^

The party itself cannot support the Free State Project as its unfair to give people's money to the FSP without consent.

However, Michael Badnarik (the Libertarian Presidential Candidate 2004) does support the project.

So, if you gain 'total freedom' in NH, you would be open to allowing communists to freely set up a small commune in the state? And, in your opinion, what would Mr. Badnarik think of these communes? Would he support them? It is quite interesting to see that this form of utopian libertarianism you offer sounds quite appealing to those of us on the radical left (bottome left corner, actually, if you want the 4 quadrants approach), as well as you on the bottom right.

 

[Gabo]

So, if a libertarian were to be elected, we'd see the creation of such 'communitys'? We'd see communes exist in which communism could flourish? I think not. Libertarians are completely opposed to communism, and would not set aside land willingly for us. I think you overestimate the measures to which a Lib president would go...

There would be no "setting aside of land" for communes, as there won't be any setting aside of land for ANYONE. You can use the land you already have. Or sell your land and buy some in a common area to establish your commune.

While Libertarians don't think communes can work, they still recognize the fact that you have the right to live your life how you see fit.

Redistributive policies aren't 'stealing' your money in any way. They help the economy as a whole by giving money to those who need it most. In the past, the economy has failed when the gap between rich and poor was not controlled. Today, just as in the twenties, this gap widens.

You CAN NOT SAY taxes aren't stealing! That's just lying!

theft: the act of taking something from someone against their will

How many people in the United States do you know that give up their taxes willingly? I doubt if you could find anyone.

You again feel that libertarians would freely give away land to communists? So that they could break away from the US? Again, libs do not wish this much freedom for communists. Perhaps you could change my mind by providing an essay of a lib leader who speaks of establishing these communes under the leadership of the Lib party.

Once again, there would be no giving away of land. You already have your own.

*On a side note, all land that's held by government currently (40% of the US land mass, mind you) would be sold at auction to relieve the country's debt.

Also, there would be no reason for you to break away. If our government didn't force anything on you, and you still valued your rights, it would be better for you to stay.

Breaking away would achieve nothing for you except eliminate your rights.

A question: do you Libs see force as wrong in cases like Vietnam (50's-60's) where the overwelming majority used force to establish their own government? Ho Chi Minh was backed by the vast majority of the country, so do you oppose his revolutionary movement? The same question could be posed of Greece ('47) or Cuba ('59). Also, you would be in support of Allende's Chile, in which he was democratically elected, right? So you agree that the US led coup to overthrow Allende was wrong?

We believe the government has no right to play world police.

However, if people that are being FORCED into things ask for your help to defend their rights, you can certainly go there yourself to fight for their cause.

So, if you gain 'total freedom' in NH, you would be open to allowing communists to freely set up a small commune in the state? And, in your opinion, what would Mr. Badnarik think of these communes? Would he support them? It is quite interesting to see that this form of utopian libertarianism you offer sounds quite appealing to those of us on the radical left (bottome left corner, actually, if you want the 4 quadrants approach), as well as you on the bottom right.

I know I'd be glad to see some communes established in NH. I could better see if the system would work, and how popular it is.

I'm sure a lot of Libertarians in NH would not like the idea of communes because they think they're a failure, but they couldn't do anything about it.

I doubt Badnarik would support them, but he wouldn't do anything against them.


This form of government should sound appealing to anyone!
After all, under it you are free to live HOWEVER you choose, so long as everything is derived of mutual consent.

 

[Pacridge]

You CAN NOT SAY taxes aren't stealing! That's just lying!

theft: the act of taking something from someone against their will

How many people in the United States do you know that give up their taxes willingly? I doubt if you could find anyone.

I willingly pay my taxes.

 

[Gabo]

I willingly pay my taxes.

Since you seem to like it, could you pay mine as well?

 

[Pacridge]

Since you seem to like it, could you pay mine as well?

No, why would I want to pay your share as well?

You make it sound as if taxes provide you with nothing. How do you think road are paved? Who do you think pays for Fire and Police? Do you think there's no need or no cost involved in the military?

I pay my taxes because taxes should be paying for things that benefit all. Doesn't mean I don't realize there are completely BS things taxes get spent on. I'm all for getting rid of those programs.

 

[Gabo]

No, why would I want to pay your share as well?

I figured you might just feel guilty for supporting the government's theft of my hard earned money.

But I guess that thought would never cross your mind.
You have no problem with telling the government to steal from all of us.

You make it sound as if taxes provide you with nothing. How do you think road are paved? Who do you think pays for Fire and Police? Do you think there's no need or no cost involved in the military?

Yes, they do all of that.

Yet they do it extremely inefficiently.

I would much rather get more for less by having most of those services provided by a private company.

I pay my taxes because taxes should be paying for things that benefit all. Doesn't mean I don't realize there are completely BS things taxes get spent on. I'm all for getting rid of those programs.

-Does EVERYONE use roads?
-Does EVERYONE have fires?
-Does EVERYONE support war?

The answer is no.....
It's fine if you want to pay for all those things and if all the rest of the population wants to pay, but if I think those programs are inefficient (which they are), then I should be able to keep my money and spend it in a more reasonable way.

 

[Pacridge]

I figured you might just feel guilty for supporting the government's theft of my hard earned money.

But I guess that thought would never cross your mind.
You have no problem with telling the government to steal from all of us.




Yes, they do all of that.

Yet they do it extremely inefficiently.

I would much rather get more for less by having most of those services provided by a private company.




-Does EVERYONE use roads?
-Does EVERYONE have fires?
-Does EVERYONE support war?

The answer is no.....
It's fine if you want to pay for all those things and if all the rest of the population wants to pay, but if I think those programs are inefficient (which they are), then I should be able to keep my money and spend it in a more reasonable way.

Yes, I'm against the government stealing from you or anyone else.

Yes, the government is terribly inefficient. But your solution seems just as unreasonable to me. Working to make it more efficient makes more sense to me. High lighting pork spending and voting some of these pork spending politicians out of office seems like a good start.

You don't ever use roads? Ever? Never ride a bus or take a publicly operated train? You must walk a lot- in the wilderness.

And while not everyone has fires or needs the police- they da*n well expect them to show up when needed. Usually it's the people who complain the loudest about paying their taxes are also the first to complain about potholes and slow public services. Throwing money at the government won't fix any problems, but neither will removing funding completely. We'll still have need for public services, somebody has to pay for these services.

While you think it's fine for those who want to pay for things to do so and those who don't shouldn't have to- It doesn't work that way in a democracy. I'm no fan of the Iraq war. I didn't support the administration that started it. Doesn't mean I don't have to help pay for it.

 

[Gabo]

Yes, the government is terribly inefficient. But your solution seems just as unreasonable to me. Working to make it more efficient makes more sense to me. High lighting pork spending and voting some of these pork spending politicians out of office seems like a good start.

These politicians don't even have the right to institute this pork spending in the first place! It's against their constitutional oath!

Simply voting them out won't do!
Others will replace them easily!

What we need is a CONSEQUENCE for their actions. There needs to be a huge penalty for any politician that violates the Constitution. They are violating a SACRED OATH.

You don't ever use roads? Ever? Never ride a bus or take a publicly operated train? You must walk a lot- in the wilderness.

I use government roads because I have to, because government monopolizes the transportation system.

Private roads would be (and are) much better maintained, and are way more efficient. However, I have to pay for government roads even if I DO use all private roads.

And while not everyone has fires or needs the police- they da*n well expect them to show up when needed. Usually it's the people who complain the loudest about paying their taxes are also the first to complain about potholes and slow public services.

I think you are right here.

I'm definitely gonna complain about paying taxes when the service government provides from these taxes is horrible.

While you think it's fine for those who want to pay for things to do so and those who don't shouldn't have to- It doesn't work that way in a democracy. I'm no fan of the Iraq war. I didn't support the administration that started it. Doesn't mean I don't have to help pay for it.

We are not, and should never become, a democracy.

We ARE a Republic, contrary to what the average American believes (thank you corrupt public school curriculum!)


The difference: A republic does use majority rules, similar to a democracy, but a republic has LIMITS. You can't vote to reduce or eliminate our natural rights. In a democracy, anything goes.



Also, you shouldn't have to pay for the Iraq war if you don't support it. You have no duty or obligation. It's your money, and the government works for you. It has no right to steal from you for things you don't want or need.

 

[Squawker]

We could solve this easily if the legislature stuck to the guide lines provided by the Constitution. The Feds should take care of providing for National Security and roads -- I don't have the exact quote, but it wasn't intended to provide things the States should determine individually.

 

[Gabo]

We could solve this easily if the legislature stuck to the guide lines provided by the Constitution. The Feds should take care of providing for National Security and roads -- I don't have the exact quote, but it wasn't intended to provide things the States should determine individually.

(emphasis mine)


The Constitution is NOT GUIDELINES! It consists of STRICT LIMITATIONS on government power, not suggestive guidelines on how to function.

 

[Squawker]

The Constitution is NOT GUIDELINES! It consists of STRICT LIMITATIONS on government power, not suggestive guidelines on how to function.

Think you should tell that to our Supreme Court Justices, they seem to have forgotten it.

 

[Gabo]

Think you should tell that to our Supreme Court Justices, they seem to have forgotten it.

It's not ONLY the Supreme Court's fault!

ALL THREE branches of government must go against the constitution for it to work.
And currently, all three branches see the constitution as a piece of paper that keeps us quiet.


We need an amendment that tremendously penalizes officials if they violate their OATH to the people.

 

[anomaly]

Gabo, what you continue to be oblivious of is that we Americans still have a somewhat democratic system, we can, if we would organize, control our government. But instead, you wish to destroy government. This gov't absence in the realm of the economic would obviously just be a welcome party to the businesses of capitalism, thus further concentrating wealth in this country, perhaps abolishing minimum wage. You are against force, but these corporations may very well use force, the immeasurable force of using the need for capital against the people, in abolishing minimum wage and other gov't enforced acts that is does not see fit. Capitalists have proven throughout history to only care about profits, not mankind, and the idea that giving 'greater freedom' through less gov't is a bit optimistic. CEOs would take this 'freedom' from us certainly, and use us to create more wealth for them. What is stopping the USA from turning into a blossoming laissez-faire society for capitalism, you know, like those deregulated countries of the south like Chile, Brazil, and Argentina, where businesses gain much profit from excessively cheap labor? The government is the only thing standing in capitalism's way. If we destroy this entity (note that we can sufficiently control our gov't, as soon as we abolish this two party system, but we can never control CEOs) there is nothing stopping CEOs from doing to us what they have to every other people in a country with laisez-faire policy. I feel yo are blind to the fact that increased 'freedom' economically is just a fancy word for submitting the public will to a few greedy CEOs.

 

[Gabo]

But instead, you wish to destroy government. This gov't absence in the realm of the economic would obviously just be a welcome party to the businesses of capitalism, thus further concentrating wealth in this country,

Actually, I don't wish to destroy government.

I wish to *GASP* actually make them obey the constitution!

perhaps abolishing minimum wage.

How many extremely obvious examples and blinding articles to I have to feed you before you realize MINIMUM WAGE HURTS WORKERS THE MOST!

You are against force, but these corporations may very well use force, the immeasurable force of using the need for capital against the people, in abolishing minimum wage and other gov't enforced acts that is does not see fit.

Since using force is unlawful, I doubt they'd get away with it.

Capitalists have proven throughout history to only care about profits, not mankind, and the idea that giving 'greater freedom' through less gov't is a bit optimistic.

Please name a SINGLE law (besides the one protecting our freedoms) that increases freedom for the general population.

THERE ISN'T ONE!

Laws can ONLY LIMIT what freedoms we have!

CEOs would take this 'freedom' from us certainly, and use us to create more wealth for them.

Then they'd be arrested.

What is stopping the USA from turning into a blossoming laissez-faire society for capitalism, you know, like those deregulated countries of the south like Chile, Brazil, and Argentina, where businesses gain much profit from excessively cheap labor? The government is the only thing standing in capitalism's way. If we destroy this entity (note that we can sufficiently control our gov't, as soon as we abolish this two party system, but we can never control CEOs) there is nothing stopping CEOs from doing to us what they have to every other people in a country with laisez-faire policy. I feel you are blind to the fact that increased 'freedom' economically is just a fancy word for submitting the public will to a few greedy CEOs.

How many times do I have to tell you...

YOU can make your socialistic communities all you want, but leave ME alone!

I want free market and I'll be damned if you're going to get in my way!

 

[anomaly]

Actually, I don't wish to destroy government.

I wish to *GASP* actually make them obey the constitution!

Will companies, each led by a single, profit hungry individual, really care about the constitution. I believe you should seriously consider the morality and merit of these CEOs you trust so mightily before continuing on this 'libertarian' path.

How many extremely obvious examples and blinding articles to I have to feed you before you realize MINIMUM WAGE HURTS WORKERS THE MOST!

In countries with a minimum wage, we see worker's rights, a decent salary, and a decent standard of living. In countries without minimum wage (you know, those laissez-faire ones that you might like) we see absolutely no worker's rights, and a meager salary accompanies with a poor standard of living. Globally, we see the hgihest standard of living in countries where gov't regulation exists heavily. In the USA, we can thank for our good cozy lives largely the New Deal.

Since using force is unlawful, I doubt they'd get away with it.

And how will you stop them? You wish to give them all the power, and in giving them this much, you cannot expect perfection out of them, especially when the public doesn't vote for them.

Please name a SINGLE law (besides the one protecting our freedoms) that increases freedom for the general population.

THERE ISN'T ONE!

Laws can ONLY LIMIT what freedoms we have!

Limiting freedoms is quite a general and vague phrase. I can name plenty of laws, though, that have improved living standards, improved worker's rights/standards, and helped ensure a more equal distribution of wealth in society. But, here's a law that gave more freedom to people: The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision increased freedom in public schools. In FDR's New Deal, a few laws were passed ensuring workers the freedom to organise unions. So, laws are not all bad, and a great many of them are neccesary in modern society.

Then they'd be arrested.

By who? We'd have no taxes to fund a police force. We'd have no taxes to fund jails either. And the government would be powerless to control CEOs.

How many times do I have to tell you...

YOU can make your socialistic communities all you want, but leave ME alone!

I want free market and I'll be damned if you're going to get in my way!

[/QUOTE]
And when the majority of workers (who have been treated poorly by their bosses) use their freedom to leave your libertarian state...what then?