 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
1 edit | reply to DeathK
Re: more money said by DeathK:I think he meant spending less, ie. reduce the budget. The point is the money is already allocated thus his point is moot and has nothing to do with the topic. If he wants to rant about the deficit there are baords for that. This is not one of them. He needs to stay on topic. |
|
|
|
jus10
join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| I certainly think that whether or not these funds are worth increasing the deficit is relevant to the topic at hand. Since the impact affects broadband afford-ability for everyone.
On the other hand, $310 million is kinda small potatoes in terms of the overall budget. I'm still a bit amused that USDA is the one handing out these funds but I guess they had to find someone. |
|
BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by jus10:I certainly think that whether or not these funds are worth increasing the deficit is relevant to the topic at hand. Since the impact affects broadband afford-ability for everyone. Since the money is ALREADY ALLOCATED there is no way to stop spending the money. What part of that is too hard to comprehend? So yes the point is moot. Now if you want to make an argument about FUTURE spending( meaning after the initial $7.2 billion runs out ) THEN it's on topic. Since this money is part of the $7.2 billion ALREDAY ALLOCATED no it's not on topic.
On the other hand, $310 million is kinda small potatoes in terms of the overall budget. I'm still a bit amused that USDA is the one handing out these funds but I guess they had to find someone. Yes $310 million is like having $10,000 and giving a $1 to someone. That being said this money as I have aready stated, is part of the $7.2 billion already allocated in the budget for this year. This is not extra money we are spending. |
|
ContentsContents
join:2003-04-10
Circle Pines, MN | Will I get a USDA approved sticker on my cable modem?
--
www.EdgeGamers.org |
|
| reply to BF69
said by BF69: Now if you want to make an argument about FUTURE spending( meaning after the initial $7.2 billion runs out ) THEN it's on topic. I think there was a lot of discussion about how this initial money was only the beginning of many more expenditures to expand broadband. If Obama's pronouncement of 3 yrs of stand still and some cutbacks is true, the chances of future broadband spending becomes iffy at best.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
|
|
jus10
join:2009-08-04
Sterling, VA Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to BF69
Well, Congress has the ability to rescind appropriation authority at any time as far as I know. OMB can also yank the apportionment authority. Or USDA could elect not to spend the money (although I don't know why they would do that ... usually that only happens for some legal reason like them not having the statutory authority to spend and they could just ask Congress to fix that). There are numerous ways to stop spending. Just because money has approved for spending doesn't mean it has to be spent. Although I don't think that was your point.
If your argument is that we should be focused on the outyear spending, I agree that is much easier to change. And I think this and all of the other threads in response to this topic are really dancing around the issue of "should the US government support broadband deployment in this fashion"?
Since we're on this site, I would gather a large number of folks answering "yes" to the should, and then a massive debate about "in this fashion". Particularly strong "yes" responses from those presently without broadband, which frankly, I understand.
I think the worry of many is that this money will simply be squandered and not give any more folks broadband. People want results and well, that has been a challenge for the telecom industry.
And yes, I'd like a USDA certified Organic cable modem  . |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | reply to Contents
quick someone photoshop one up! |
|
