Senators fly high on taxpayers' dime

[DavidS]

Sens. John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer each spent more than $140,000 in taxpayer money on travel in the first half of the fiscal year — roughly 10 times as much as some of their thriftier colleagues.

Cornyn, a Republican, racked up the highest travel bill in the Senate by spending more than $38,000 on a St. Michaels, Md., retreat for 59 staffers and by taking expensive, multicity charter flights throughout his home state of Texas.

Schumer, a Democrat, ran up the second-highest bill by routinely flying private charters to cities in New York served by commercial airlines.

On Dec. 2, for example, Schumer spent $4,000 to take a private plane from New York City to Albany and back again. Delta and US Airways both fly that 140-mile route several times a day, with fares ranging from around $400 to less than $200 if purchased in advance.

Read more: Senators fly high on taxpayers' dime - Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com
​

 

[Agnapostate]

Just another reason for direct democracy...

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Sens. John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer each spent more than $140,000 in taxpayer money on travel in the first half of the fiscal year — roughly 10 times as much as some of their thriftier colleagues.

Cornyn, a Republican, racked up the highest travel bill in the Senate by spending more than $38,000 on a St. Michaels, Md., retreat for 59 staffers and by taking expensive, multicity charter flights throughout his home state of Texas.

Schumer, a Democrat, ran up the second-highest bill by routinely flying private charters to cities in New York served by commercial airlines.

On Dec. 2, for example, Schumer spent $4,000 to take a private plane from New York City to Albany and back again. Delta and US Airways both fly that 140-mile route several times a day, with fares ranging from around $400 to less than $200 if purchased in advance.

Read more: Senators fly high on taxpayers' dime - Abby Phillip - POLITICO.com
​

Boy I'm sure glad that the election of 2008 brought "change I can believe in" to Washington D.C.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Just another reason for direct democracy...

For sure, that way we could have every special interest street gang in the country voting themselves the authority to rack up $38,000 travel bills using other peoples money.

 

[Agnapostate]

For sure, that way we could have every special interest street gang in the country voting themselves the authority to rack up $38,000 travel bills using other peoples money.

Unlikely. Legitimate direct democracy would entail the abolition of capitalism and thus, the increasing irrelevance of wealth accumulation.

 

[brownlou]

California has the closest thing to a direct democracy in this country and look at all the good it has done them.

 

[Agnapostate]

California has the closest thing to a direct democracy in this country and look at all the good it has done them.

That's far off the mark. Really far off the mark. The only legitimately democratic element that I've seen in recent years was the recall of Gray Davis.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Unlikely. Legitimate direct democracy would entail the abolition of capitalism and thus, the increasing irrelevance of wealth accumulation.

RIIIIGHT... eliminate voluntary cooperation and competition then we can feel good about the least productive exploiting the labor of the most productive not to mention completely redesign human nature while we're at it.... sounds like a utopia to me comrade.

 

[Agnapostate]

RIIIIGHT... eliminate voluntary cooperation and competition then we can feel good about the least productive exploiting the labor of the most productive not to mention completely redesign human nature while we're at it.... sounds like a utopia to me comrade.

You're undoubtedly utopian; your laissez-faire stance necessitates it. However, capitalism neither involves voluntary cooperation, nor does it maximize legitimate competition. For instance, the labor market is characterized by exchange and coercion (consider the role of asset specificity in contracts, for instance), and the nature of market power facilitates concentration that would be avoided in a market socialist economy, for example.

Moreover, the least productive actively do exploit the labor of the most productive in the capitalist economy, since the subordination of the working class under the financial and coordinator classes ensures the unjust extraction of surplus labor during the production process and subsequent utilization during the circulation process to sustain a vicious cycle of capital accumulation, which is thus based on theft.

To top it off, advocates of capitalism have perhaps the worst understanding of human nature that I've ever encountered, since they reduce the labor market to a mere collection of factors of production, whereas most socialists understand the human psychology involved. That's why socialists were able to expertly weave the various facets of human nature into their economic theories long ago (consider Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, for example).

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

You're undoubtedly utopian; your laissez-faire stance necessitates it.

Strawman bullshit like this is why I should have known better than to even bother talking to you. Instead of talking just to hear yourself talk, trying talking TO your intended audience for a change and actually read what they have to say instead of just making up your mind what you want it say and running with it.

So, let me give your first clue... I don't have a "laissez-faire" stance... now start over.

 

[Agnapostate]

Strawman bullshit like this is why I should have known better than to even bother talking to you. Instead of talking just to hear yourself talk, trying talking TO your intended audience for a change and actually read what they have to say instead of just making up your mind what you want it say and running with it.

So, let me give your first clue... I don't have a "laissez-faire" stance... now start over.

Actually, it seems that you're the one grasping for the strawman by ignoring the bulk of my remarks in favor of disputing a label that accurately describes your rightist economic stance. Even if you're not a radical free marketer, you're indisputably in the camp of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Now after witnessing your dismissal of my comments elsewhere, I realize that you're not especially able or inclined to respond to me. But why not do us the courtesy of at least pretending?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Strawman bullshit like this is why I should have known better than to even bother talking to you. Instead of talking just to hear yourself talk, trying talking TO your intended audience for a change and actually read what they have to say instead of just making up your mind what you want it say and running with it.

So, let me give your first clue... I don't have a "laissez-faire" stance... now start over.

Actually, it seems that you're the one grasping for the strawman by ignoring the bulk of my remarks in favor of disputing a label that accurately describes your rightist economic stance. Even if you're not a radical free marketer, you're indisputably in the camp of Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Now after witnessing your dismissal of my comments elsewhere, I realize that you're not especially able or inclined to respond to me. But why not do us the courtesy of at least pretending?

If the bulk of your remarks are based on a false premise then I'm doing you a courtesy of by not responding to them.. .as I said rework your remarks based on what you know not what you think you know and I'll be happy to respond and even better give what you have to say the consideration it deserves, in other words if I think you're right I'll tell you so. The previous dismissal you earned because you clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to be civil even before I gave you any feedback.

Now start again....

 

[Agnapostate]

If the bulk of your remarks are based on a false premise then I'm doing you a courtesy of by not responding to them.. .as I said rework your remarks based on what you know not what you think you know and I'll be happy to respond and even better give what you have to say the consideration it deserves, in other words if I think you're right I'll tell you so. The previous dismissal you earned because you clearly demonstrated an unwillingness to be civil even before I gave you any feedback.

Now start again....

That's now two off-topic remarks in a row for you. I hope you won't strike out with a third! Instead of engaging in your...ruminations, perhaps it would be best for you to simply respond to my post.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

That's now two off-topic remarks in a row for you. I hope you won't strike out with a third! Instead of engaging in your...ruminations, perhaps it would be best for you to simply respond to my post.

Have it your way, just remember you owe me a beer.

You're undoubtedly utopian; your laissez-faire stance necessitates it.

Completely unfounded and inaccurate.

However, capitalism neither involves voluntary cooperation, nor does it maximize legitimate competition. For instance, the labor market is characterized by exchange and coercion (consider the role of asset specificity in contracts, for instance),

How is the labor market "characterized" by coercion... since "employees" voluntarily exchange their labor with "employers" at a mutually agreed upon rate? Where do you derive your premise that capitalism is neither involuntary nor maximizes legitimate competition?

and the nature of market power facilitates concentration that would be avoided in a market socialist economy, for example.

Concentration of what, capital? the concentration of capital is DESIRABLE since it directs resources (supply) based on real world demand. However this isn't avoided in a socialist economy the only difference in a socialist economy is that central planners direct the concentration instead of decentralized market forces. Central planning invariably results in an inefficient distribution of capital since it is impossible for any group of central planners to account for all the variables in an economy of any scale (for example a sudden shift in consumer tastes .... say from pocket watches to wrist watches).

Moreover, the least productive actively do exploit the labor of the most productive in the capitalist economy, since the subordination of the working class under the financial and coordinator classes ensures the unjust extraction of surplus labor during the production
process and subsequent utilization during the circulation process to sustain a vicious cycle of capital accumulation, which is thus based on theft.

Unjust extraction of surplus labor? You mean a laborer voluntarily selling his labor to a buyer at a mutually agreed upon rate who then generates a profit from said labor? how would exactly would that be "unjust"?

To top it off, advocates of capitalism have perhaps the worst understanding of human nature that I've ever encountered, since they reduce the labor market to a mere collection of factors of production,

Depends on which "capitalists" you are referring to, however the psychology involved is perfectly inline with actual human psychology, specifically two sides of it, we are COOPERATIVE and COMPETITIVE creatures both sides pursuing a single end, namely acting in our perceived own best interests. Capitalism allows both of these components to coexist simultaneously and harmonously since it does not attempt to centrally direct the individuals perception of what's in his own best interests nor does it require a rigid centralized mechanism to adapt the market to changes in demand.

whereas most socialists understand the human psychology involved. That's why socialists were able to expertly weave the various facets of human nature into their economic theories long ago (consider Kropotkin's Mutual Aid, for example).

Socialists may have "explained" the various facets of human nature, however they got them completely wrong, human beings do not voluntarily or consciencously act against there own perceived best interests and socialism only works (and I use the term loosely) when you apply the threat of direct force in order to make the participants comply with the wishes of central planners, if this were not so, there would be no need for central planners since people would naturally fall into the patterns that the central planners would develop anyways, right? One need only look at the failure of socialism in the former U.S.S.R and the results of the retreat from socialism in China to see that central plans do not work, then compare that with the United States which has been for the most part and for most of it's history a capitalist nation... wealthiest nation in the history of human kind.

 

[Agnapostate]

Completely unfounded and inaccurate.

A laissez-faire stance indisputably necessitates a utopian perspective. It's difficult to be anything other than dreamy-eyed when pining for the implementation of an economic system that has never existed throughout human history, especially in light of the prevalence of market failure that occurs in the capitalist economy regardless.

How is the labor market "characterized" by coercion... since "employees" voluntarily exchange their labor with "employers" at a mutually agreed upon rate? Where do you derive your premise that capitalism is neither involuntary nor maximizes legitimate competition?

Simple question, simple answer! We first need to consider several important realities. There's first the strategically weaker role of the labor class, as noted by Alfred Marshall's observation that "labor is often sold under special disadvantages arising from the closely connected group of facts that labor market power is 'perishable', that the sellers of it are commonly poor and have no reserve fund, and that they cannot easily withhold it from the market," as well as Adam Smith's similar observation that "in the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate." This is an important reality, since it enables us to understand the nature of manipulation or coercion that laborers can be subject to. Robert Dahl's spectrum of influence terms (rational persuasion, manipulative persuasion, inducement, power, coercion physical force), also aids in forming an analysis here, in that components of wage labor constitute "power" or outright coercion.

In our present state of affairs, the private ownership of the means of production permits the utilization of wage labor, which is a critical element in the coercive nature of capitalism. Since the means of production are privately owned, large components of the public have no alternative but to subordinate themselves under an employer. The best way to illustrate this form of authoritarianism is to use the "robbery analogy." If a person were to be violently tackled by an assailant and have his/her valuables torn out of his/her pockets, we would accurately call this a robbery. Now, if the assailant were to instead point a gun at the victim and demand that the valuables be surrendered, we would still call this a robbery, as coercion was used to gain the valuables, if not outright physical violence. The fact that the victim technically "consented" to surrender his/her valuables is not pertinent, since it was consent yielded while under duress.

The former example represents the direct tyranny of statism, often blunt, direct, and brutal, whereas the latter represents the more subtle tyranny of capitalism, specifically wage labor, in which a person technically "consents" to work for an employer, but does this only because he/she has no other alternative for sustenance.

Concentration of what, capital? the concentration of capital is DESIRABLE since it directs resources (supply) based on real world demand. However this isn't avoided in a socialist economy the only difference in a socialist economy is that central planners direct the concentration instead of decentralized market forces. Central planning invariably results in an inefficient distribution of capital since it is impossible for any group of central planners to account for all the variables in an economy of any scale (for example a sudden shift in consumer tastes .... say from pocket watches to wrist watches).

No. Market and wealth concentration in the sense of general conditions of monopoly, or more aptly, oligopoly. No true market advocate would describe such conditions as "desirable," considering that it inhibits the entry of new and more productive enterprises into the market and thus undermines legitimate market competition. That's why socialism is able to facilitate the existence of a true free market where capitalism is not. I also did not make any reference to central planning, though immediate reference to it on the part of anti-socialists typically indicates an ignorance of socialist political economy; few modern socialists advocate central planning, and generally support either democratic market socialism or marketless decentralized planning.

Unjust extraction of surplus labor? You mean a laborer voluntarily selling his labor to a buyer at a mutually agreed upon rate who then generates a profit from said labor? how would exactly would that be "unjust"?

I've already explained this to you in detail. I merely noted that the economic framework of capitalism involves a scheme wherein the private ownership of the means of production (acquired through a coercive process of "primitive accumulation") and consequent hierarchical subordination of labor under capital enables the extraction of surplus labor from the working class in the production process through the use of wage labor and subsequent utilization in the circulation process in order to perpetuate a vicious cycle of capital accumulation. Don't you remember the purdy picture?

Try and pay attention, class! There might be homework next time!

Depends on which "capitalists" you are referring to, however the psychology involved is perfectly inline with actual human psychology, specifically two sides of it, we are COOPERATIVE and COMPETITIVE creatures both sides pursuing a single end, namely acting in our perceived own best interests. Capitalism allows both of these components to coexist simultaneously and harmonously since it does not attempt to centrally direct the individuals perception of what's in his own best interests nor does it require a rigid centralized mechanism to adapt the market to changes in demand.

This has little conceivable bearing to my comment about the labor market. However, your statement is incorrect nonetheless. You've attempted to speculate about the failure of the central planner to imitate the Walrasian auctioneer without noting the reality of the nonexistence of the latter, as did Mises. Furthermore, do you not understand the elements of the labor market that I'm referring to? I've criticized the perspective of the labor market as a collection of factors of production, which is primarily a laissez-faire stance. Socialists generally know better, which is why they generally possess a greater understanding of markets than capitalists do.

Socialists may have "explained" the various facets of human nature, however they got them completely wrong, human beings do not voluntarily or consciencously act against there own perceived best interests and socialism only works (and I use the term loosely) when you apply the threat of direct force in order to make the participants comply with the wishes of central planners, if this were not so, there would be no need for central planners since people would naturally fall into the patterns that the central planners would develop anyways, right? One need only look at the failure of socialism in the former U.S.S.R and the results of the retreat from socialism in China to see that central plans do not work, then compare that with the United States which has been for the most part and for most of it's history a capitalist nation... wealthiest nation in the history of human kind.

Your lack of understanding of socialist political economy is exacerbated through a repeated rather than a single mention of the USSR and central planning. The USSR was state capitalist in nature, not socialist. Socialism necessitates the collective ownership and management of the means of production; that was not an element of the economic order there, nor was it or is it the case in China. Moreover, U.S. development has largely been based around economic protectionism rather than laissez-faire principles, so you won't be winning there either.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

LOOK how our resident PUSSY cuts and pastes his line of bullshit to respond , it's really pathetic Mr. Smart guy can't answer the fairly simple economic questions I asked him without pasting cartoons and others peoples words into his response...

What a FUCKING JOKE YOU ARE AGNO ... when your figure out how to think for yourself let the rest of us know.. in the meantime DON'T WASTE MY TIME AGAIN POSER ...

 

[Agnapostate]

LOOK how our resident PUSSY cuts and pastes his line of bullshit to respond , it's really pathetic Mr. Smart guy can't answer the fairly simple economic questions I asked him without pasting cartoons and others peoples words into his response...

What a FUCKING JOKE YOU ARE AGNO ... when your figure out how to think for yourself let the rest of us know.. in the meantime DON'T WASTE MY TIME AGAIN POSER ...

I certainly wasn't expecting a coherent or rational response, but I was expecting an attempt to pretend. Then again, your deep ignorance of socialist political economy was exposed rather quickly through your repeated mentions of "central planning," so can sympathize.