Notice she has access to the internet, but now the federal government is going to use your tax dollars to provide faster internet access. This under the guise of "economic stimulus."
While I don't claim to be a constitutional expert, I'm pretty sure this one isn't provided for in the original document. I mean, let's be serious people; not only doesn't the constitution provide for funding of fast access to the internet, we're to accept that providing this service somehow "stimulates" the economy. Hence the use of "stimulus" funds.
I freely admit that it might be a nice gesture to offer broadband service to rural areas, but vital to the security of our nation or its commerce? I don't think so. Thank you to all the idiots that voted FOR the stimulus bill from BOTH parties!
I am intrigued by your statements about internet access for the following reasons: 1) She is working. She has a business that is portable (especially if she is doing it with a laptop). 2) The economy is stimulated in that she is working and paying business taxes. 3) I think the government might disagree that internet does affect national security when so many things are online. No, it is not in the Constitution but neither is allowing people to open up or own their own businesses.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that this is a Constitutional question.
I see that the woman has found a way to use technology from an entrepenuer standpoint. As one who did some work in a similar field, I think it is an example of how to utilize technology, reduce overhead (at least keeping it minimal), paying taxes, and hopefully turning a profit.
I guess my rant should have been more specific. The anonymous commenter focuses on the business woman and maybe I shouldn't have made her my focus. For that I apologize.
ReplyDeleteMy problem is not with the woman and her business, but that tax money is being used to expand the internet access. She already had access, it just wasn't sufficient for her particular business.
I see it like this; if I set up a business on a rural road because the land is cheap, I don't have the right to taxpayer money being used to expand the road in hopes it will drive customers to my business. Same holds true with the internet access.
I believe the federal government used stories like this woman and her business as their excuse to confiscate (or borrow) more money for their desires.
I believe the US Constitution doesn't bestow rights, it merely limits our government's infringement on our God-given rights. Maybe I shouldn't have injected the Constitution into the argument, but I maintain that our government has allocated numerous spending programs and feel-good bills (like the "stimulus bill") to make us think they're doing great things when they are sacrificing our future by making us beholden to the lenders we now borrow from.