Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigaba
|
Well, the analogies need to be made congruent.
Also, arriving at a decision involves considering all of the pertinent roles and circles of influence.
In the case of the federal government and the Arizona government, it is within my circle of influence from 2 directions.
I am a shareholder of both the federal government and the Arizona government.
As a shareholder of the federal government, I want non-defense spending (as a percentage of GDP) to be reduced.
It would follow that I am generally against grants to any/all of the states.
As a shareholder of the Arizona government, I want the federal government to stay out of our business (especially when it comes to gun/self-defense laws).
It would follow that I am specifically against grants with strings attached meddling in gun/self-defense laws.
In the case of the federal government and UPS, it is within my circle of influence from 1 direction.
I am a shareholder of the federal government but I am not a shareholder nor a bondholder of UPS.
Concerning the DOT:
-The DOT as a whole should be scrapped and the powers/spending rescinded entirely.
-It is a waste of money.
Concerning the contractor misconduct:
-Obligation of contracts should be enforced.
-This is a valid function of government.
Concerning the GSA contract:
-If the federal government is going to spend money for a service, it should use the provider which delivers sufficient service at the least cost.
In the hypothetical case that I was a shareholder/bondholder of UPS:
-I would want government spending as a percentage of GDP to decrease.
-This would result in greater economic growth which benefits UPS because they get a piece of almost all domestic commerce.
As a UPS driver, the issues you cited are not within my circle of influence.
They may or may not have a significant effect in that realm, but how I would deal with any effects involves decisions within a much smaller/local circle of influence.