ya, if you remember we still have Bush's stimulases to pay off so frankly no matter how you look at it adding on top of that wont really effect much. Figure all gov spending at the moment is in the red anyways so it would jsut mean we would be deeper in the red which does matter since we are 49 trillion dollars on debt. So realisticaly it costs us but it doesnt since our generations wont be paying of it.

If installed it will show a clear benefit since infrastructure still needs maintenance work, there will be need of in-home service support, and new customers would appear making it so that ISPs would have to support their bandwidth needs. Also with this type of infrastructure there is other services that can be carried over like TV and voip.

so your philosophy is, if you are in debt, who cares, just spend more? sounds great..... I thought Obama was about change not continuing down this crazy path of spending more than we have.

unfortunately you have to spend to get something back. Bush failed because no other country wanted to buy our weapons during the war which would have majorly benefited us.

Obama's way is more of a longer route to money. As more people get jobs and more ISP/phone/voip companies are born the more people get taxed which means that more money goes to the gevernment.

 70% of the UK population already has broadband (as of of Jan 7th 2007, so that's much higher now). A much higher percentage of the population can already receive it, the UK Government doesn't need to do anything.

err... Net Neutrality has nothing to do with the amount of people who use the internet. It protects the general user from their ISPs regulating their internet use.

Why is it so popular to be a fiscal conservative these days while no one has really given a shit for the last eight years or so when Bush was setting record deficits like nobody's business? It makes no sense to me, especially now that the Republican Party has acted like it has always been the fiscally party, which is blatantly untrue.

They though cutting taxes would force the government to spend less, well, that is at least until they gained power over Capitol Hill and drove us deeper into the red.

heh, I've always cared, and I always will. I would love to vote for someone who wanted to actually work toward paying off our debts.

Actually, American arms sales are booming.

Also, how can we spend money we don't have? The govt. is creating the money for the bailout...Not really a good policy to have. You have to spend money to make money, I understand, but that doesn't work for people in debt, and won't work for the government.

Woo... they're wrong so lets be wrong too!

If they went with one of these better cheaper options that means we could create even more useful jobs.

The best things Obama has in his stimulus package is paying people to make government building more energy efficient.  Or at least that's the best thing i've seen so far.

I hope they bring it to my area, then I can finally get rid of this dial up.