EsYuGee's forum posts

Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts
[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] funding bureaucracy does not aid any state.

Well then the recipient states should cut back on their bureaucracy and start living within their means.

money should not have to touch a thousand hands before it does its intended good. we should not have so much counterproductive policies. why does the fed give money to state governments at all? why does it tax and supplement farmers? with every department money goes through less comes out the other end and the difference is bureaucratic funding. how about the fed stops being the grand collector distributor and let the states take care of their own needs, let the farmers farm and find what is the actual cost of production and market rate for their product, end special oil subsidies and taxes, a little consistency would be nice, stop pandering to every lobby, if i had it my way they would not be able to pander to any lobby because these non-federal "issues".

You're right. And most average Americans would probably agree with you. Everyone knows the problem in government on both state and federal levels is too much special interest money swirling around. The problem is once you add political ideology people don't think sensibly anymore. They adopt an "us vs them" mentality that damages everything. The amount of influence and power the federal government should possess and exert is always in flux and there is no perfectly definite balance. We might need a stronger federal government in some areas today but that doesn't mean it should always stay as powerful or as powerless in other areas indefinitely.
Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts

[QUOTE="EsYuGee"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Because states can't afford it? The problem with spending so much money on a select few areas is that other places don't get the money they need for maintenance and upkeep.

Plus I don't think it's right that certain states' citizens should have to pay for places like New York and California. So I'm against the Fed just handing out cash to begin with.

surrealnumber5

Actually, New York and California are donor states that give the federal gov't more money than they receive back in funding. So, it's really the other way around. Other states are getting benefits of the backs of Californians and New Yorkers.

funding bureaucracy does not aid any state.

Well then the recipient states should cut back on their bureaucracy and start living within their means.

Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]Pretty much. I'm still confused as to how infrastructure is being ignored so heavily. It should be something both sides can agree to. Can't have a functioning country if your bridges fall down and if other countries have faster more efficient trains and highways.airshocker

Because states can't afford it? The problem with spending so much money on a select few areas is that other places don't get the money they need for maintenance and upkeep.

Plus I don't think it's right that certain states' citizens should have to pay for places like New York and California. So I'm against the Fed just handing out cash to begin with.

Actually, New York and California are donor states that give the federal gov't more money than they receive back in funding. So, it's really the other way around. Other states are getting benefits of the backs of Californians and New Yorkers.
Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts

Wow. He was actually really articulate in his point.Wish there weremore OWS protesters like him instead of the drum beaters who don't know what they're really protesting.

Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts

No one has the "right' to a job. People should have to earn a job. Most of the OWS people are just hippies/hipsters (for lack of a better term) who just think its cool to fight the Man. You hit on a good point about demand though. Demand drives business more than anything else. And people need money and jobs to drive demand. Businesses and business people do not create jobs simply because they have money on hand, whether it's through tax breaks or good strategy.

Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts
wasn't the president's comment talking about the effort america had to put forth to go out and seek foreign investment? where are people getting that he's calling joe the plumber lazy for laying on the couch eating frtios from???comp_atkins
I think you know why. People would rather snack on information and only read the title without reading the whole thing. Also, if they want to believe something is true they will take any sound bite at face value as the god given facts. I could have put up there "Rick Perry is a racist" and link to a Spongebob article and people would jump on Perry as the embodiment of Jim Crow.
Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts
[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"][QUOTE="TheHighWind"]

I hate it when people call Americans lazy, considering we work way more hours than most countrys in Europe do.

That's incorrect.

Got anything to back that up?
Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts

The man that lost over 4 billion to bankers is calling me lazy? How about doing your own job Mr. Rockstar?

anthonycg
Why do you think he is calling you lazy? (I'm guessing you didn't read the article to get the context)
Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts

I do not have problem with Obama said that clearly. But, I have concern with TC's attitude toward GOP. That kind of attitude can easily cloud his judgement.magicalclick

Ouch! That kinda hurt:P. The old GOP from twenty years ago is not the GOPof today. I wrote the sentence the way I did because I'm seeing this kind of distortion more and more from conservative politicians and pundits. Death panels, Obama apologising for America and nowObamacalling Americans lazy. When was the last time you saw the Democrats distort someone's comments so much on the national stage?

Avatar image for EsYuGee
EsYuGee

466

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 EsYuGee
Member since 2007 • 466 Posts

Well not really, but that's the way the GOP is gonna play it (out of context, of course). Apparently he was asked a question about foreign investment in the US and he said the US has been such agood place to invest in over the past decades that we haven't actively gone out to seek investment very much.

Rick Perry has already released an ad trying to attack the President over this. What do you guys think? Is the GOP routecherry picking at its finest or do they have something here?

From Politico:

The controversy started when Obama, responding to a question about impediments to foreign investment, attributed the perception to a lack of motivation in the United States.
"I think it's important to remember that the United States is still the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. And there are a lot of things that make foreign investors see the U.S. as a great opportunity: our stability, our openness, our innovative free-market culture," the president said to business executives. "But we've been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades. We've kind of taken for granted — well, people will want to come here, and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68534.html