A Quote by Bill Foster

I'm not opposed to the idea of helping regions that are struggling to get a reasonable fraction of federal research spending. — © Bill Foster
I'm not opposed to the idea of helping regions that are struggling to get a reasonable fraction of federal research spending.
Medical research is needed, and I just saw there was a need for help that the government - state or federal - was not spending the taxpayers' money on helping people get through college.
Conservatives in general, and even so called Tea Party conservatives, are not against transportation spending. Indeed, interstate commerce is one purpose of interstate highways and byways, and is one of the things the federal government is actually supposed to spend our tax dollars on. What conservatives are opposed to is needless and excessive spending, pork-barrel spending, deficit spending, spending to pick winners and losers among American individuals and corporations, and spending to promote the social and economic whims of the Washington few.
Today, I heard directly from Connecticut workers about the importance of strong, predictable federal research funding and how the federal government can be a better partner in spurring innovation and helping life-saving medication reach families who need it most.
I cannot disagree with you that having something like 500 economists is extremely unhealthy. As you say, it is not conducive to independent, objective research. You and I know there has been censorship of the material published. Equally important, the location of the economists in the Federal Reserve has had a significant influence on the kind of research they do, biasing that research toward noncontroversial technical papers on method as opposed to substantive papers on policy and results
An important fraction of United States industry adheres to the idea that research of a fundamental character is worthwhile from a practical point of view.
If politicians get money to spend and don't have to be responsible for taxation, then of course that will bias their attitude toward more spending as opposed to cutting back on spending.
My job is making money, helping other people make money. I am spending money, trying to make sure more people get rich, because you cannot spend a lot of money, right? So my job is spending money, helping others. This is a headache.
One of the best programs that the federal government sponsors is the Small Business Innovation Research program, in which more than 2.5 percent of federal research and development funding at the largest agencies goes directly to small businesses.
After almost 50 years in which federal spending averaged about 20 percent of GDP, Joe Sestak and Nancy Pelosi took federal spending to 25 percent. You know, that's a 25 percent increase in the size of the government overnight. That's what we - that's what we've got to rein in.
I've been dictating to my son, who's helping me on his computer. I'm spending a lot of time doing research - I've just got up to 1971, when I went crazy and dived through the window. My life is so full of interesting stories.
Most meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.
Cut defense spending as part of cutting all federal spending.
We [Federal Government] have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.
I am opposed to both cloning and the destruction of human embryos and adamantly opposed to funding of embryonic stem cell research.
In the early days, I promoted the idea of spending time in libraries to gain facts that other investors didn't have. Not many people did that kind of research, so it worked.
I hope that I'm always struggling, really. You develop when you're struggling. When you're struggling, you get stronger.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!