Here's part of the "plan", according to the gubment website:
Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose.
People, the government is not your father. If you want broadband, get a job and pay for it. Government under Hussein is completely out of control.
I am only interested in leaders who acknowledge the three basic problems facing the country:
1. Eliminate deficit spending and pay down debt
2. Energy independence
3. Creation of private sector jobs
The fact that some Americans choose not to get broadband isn't a problem. It wouldn't even make the top ten list of our problems.
4 comments:
To a power hungry, spread the wealth socialist like Obama it’s a top priority.. Much of the mainstream or State run media is already in his bed. The last bastions of open ideas and debate are cable TV, internet and radio and make no mistake they don’t like it.. Look at what his FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd has said about the thug Hugo Chavez..The fairness doctrine and media "diversity".. It’s really scary who this guy associates with and is using to, as he has said himself, "Fundamentally Transform America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vRHuhCpgxQ&feature=related
You are mistaken sir, not every person has broadband available. I live in a rural part of America and broadband is not even available here. To use satellite is $150/mo., far more than the $20-$30 you reference.
You totally missed Dons point..Who gives a flying fuck if its $250 per month! Pay for it yourself or don’t get it! It’s not the governments job to use our tax dollars to subsidize internet access or anything else for that matter.. Good grief.. Look at governments track record!! Are you that dim to not see everything government gets its hands onto has been exponentially more costly and made worse (regarding both our liberty and our economy) than if they would have just stayed out?
Mondotti is on point, as always.
I admit I didn't consider people in very rural areas may not have access. Still, if a person chooses to live in such an area, am I supposed to pay to extend infrastructure into all portions of the country?
Living in a city area, I don't have facilities for keeping horses, nor do I have a duck pond. Should rural American pay to build these capabilities in my area?
I believe a communist would say "yes" and everyone else would say "no".
Moving to cities gives you the benefits, and drawbacks, of city life. You get a sewer system instead of a septic tank, you get city water instead of a well, and you get cheap broadband instead of satellite.
Post a Comment