Originally Posted by NorCal Cat (Post 150983)

Yes, that is my primary complaint. Let's see if talking about this becomes a habit for him on is stump speeches. Also, it is my complaint about Dems in general. It's a race to see who can promise the most freebies.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 150971)

Or- why don't we compare wifi since that is what we are discussing? I suppose we could compare who has the best flowers too, but I don't see how it would be helpful either.

Examples: Asia and Western Europe. Beating our socks off. If you don't agree, then you simply need to do some research.

Our wifi is woefully behind that of many other industrialized nations. And it isn't a matter of the government paying for the infrastructure to be built here. Private enterprise is shouldering much of the responsibility because they are quickly learning that it is very profitable for them to do so. There is a reason Google wants to give people wifi for free.

Private enterprise needs a willing partner in the government. Cities like San Fransisco have jumped on that bandwagon, to their benefit.

We are willing to pay for highways because they are good for the nation for defense and commerce. Wifi isn't much different- and the government doesn't even have to foot the bill for most of America. This is a common-sense idea that Obama has presented.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 150977)

Obama's plan allows for this very thing to happen. He hasnt said the government will pay for it for everyone.

The market has largely already dictated coverage maps. Broadband will use the same broadcast towers as already exist for GSM and CDMA cellular. There will be little change to coverage maps as a result of new broadband demand. Cellular phone demand will shape new tower placement much more drastically than broadband demand.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 150990)

Are you really a cat? Or should I assume you are a person who just wants to be a cat?

You never got back to me on how this is any different than promising a tax cut (which you would favor). And keep in mind Obama hasn't even promised he will spend money on this initiative (or that it is his first priority). Basically, keep in mind that your only stated complaints so far are ones you have imagined and then extrapolated into the government buying everyone a laptop (and then a rocketship?).

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 150995)

So tell me again ... if the gov't isn't getting involved financially, what exactly is it doing to "lend support"?

If all Obama is advocating is passing a few laws permitting companies to offer wi-fi wherever they want, for whatever price they want, then by all means. The less gov't involved the better.

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy (Post 151006)

Even if the gov creates a tax to accomplish this, I am all for it.

While they are at it, I wish they would create a tax that would help subsidize my xbox live annual membership, too.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 150955)

Porsche's are good for everyone too. So are $150,000-a-year paying jobs. Shouldn't we want it for everyone as a matter of national policy?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 151016)

Talk about a straw man.

Originally Posted by Tex (Post 151028)

It's not a straw man.

"Isn't it great? Shouldn't we want it for everyone?" is not sufficient reason to get the gov't involved, as my example illustrates. And anyway, you elected not to express what "support from the gov't" means (TripletDaddy finally admitted it'll probably mean a tax increase).

Almost anytime the gov't "supports" anything, we're talking about tax money. Get out of the way of private enterprise, says I.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 151018)

No- you didn't. The question was why you don't consider both to be buying votes, not why you consider one to be better than the other.