ya wanna see some stoooopid?

[sirs]

I even contacted the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma because we would qualify, but we decided it was not really worth the trouble, plus we didn't feel right about using skin color/heritage to gain advantage.[/b]

And yet the left, like the NAALCP, embraces that philosophy.  Pretty much the polar opposite of MLK Jr's platform.  Sad, how they've mutated his message     

[Xavier_Onassis]

There were four transcontinental railroads built across the western US between the Civil War and 1900 , five if you say North America. The Union Pacific, the Northern Pacific, the Great Northern and the Santa Fe/ Southern Pacific, and the Canadian Pacific. Each one got HUGE subsidies from the government in both land and money. Most went broke numerous times and corruption was far more rampant than any recent period.

Synthetic rubber was essential for fighting WWII, as the Japanese took over Indochina. It was developed with government money. Aircraft and air transportation was subsidized by the government in many ways.

Individual projects need to be judged on their own merits, and there is always the understanding that not all will be as successful as proposed. There will always be some failures. But to say that the government should not subsidize ANYTHING is insane. Were it not for ARPANET, we would not be having this discussion, not here, and almost certainly not anywhere else.

[sirs]

NO, projects need to be judged if they fulfull constitutional parameters.  Nothing individual about that.  They either do, or they don't.  If a project doesn't fit within the pervue of what the Fed is allowed to do, the Fed has no business in trying to invest our tax dollars.  National security projects do.  Commerce projects can.  And that would be ANY, not just those that are more politically correct, than others

[BT]

The internet was invested in as a national security issue, thus it was a constitutional use of govt funds.

Energy independence is a national security issue, and electric cars and other alternative energy explorations and investments would fall into that realm, and thus a constitutional use of govt funds.

The problem is more management than constitutionality.

[kimba1]

Corruption on the use of government funds is too public for the money to be effective. Meaning despite the bids are low balled it still cost more than normal. That low cost have often turn to a higher cost later on

[sirs]

The internet was invested in as a national security issue, thus it was a constitutional use of govt funds.

Energy independence is a national security issue, and electric cars and other alternative energy explorations and investments would fall into that realm, and thus a constitutional use of govt funds.

The former not so much, but the latter yes.  Thus my reference that ANY and all areas of such be addressed per the Gov, and not trying to preselect which areas are to be pushed vs those to be punished

[BT]

Are you saying that development of a secure independent communications channel had no national security or military applications?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Does the Hoover Dam fall within Constitutional parameters? Does the TVA fall within Constitutional parameters? Did finding the development of synthethic rubber?

I really do not think that the Founding Fathers had any position on electricity or ersatz rubber at all.

Perhaps the Aptera would have been a major breakthrough if it had been funded, perhaps not. We will never know.

All I can say was that it was a really cool idea and it is a shame that it did not work out.

[sirs]

Are you saying that development of a secure independent communications channel had no national security or military applications?

Literally anything can have "applications" that could include the Military or "national security", with the proper rationlizations.  The issue is level.  The Fed is mandated to protect this country.  Now, that can include applications to protect us from internet/cyber atttacks.  That does NOT translate into a Fed mandate in either producing or supporting the internet, with Federal tax dollars

Perhaps the Aptera would have been a major breakthrough if it had been funded, perhaps not. We will never know.  All I can say was that it was a really cool idea and it is a shame that it did not work out.

We do know.....it was a failure.  Sure its a "cool idea".  Let some "rich" folks use their money to try and make it a success

[BT]

Literally anything can have "applications" that could include the Military or "national security", with the proper rationlizations.  The issue is level.  The Fed is mandated to protect this country.  Now, that can include applications to protect us from internet/cyber atttacks.  That does NOT translate into a Fed mandate in either producing or supporting the internet, with Federal tax dollars

I believe the topic was whether the arpanet expenditures were constitutionally proper. My answer is yes. The Al Gore tax on your phone bill perhaps not so much.

[sirs]

Literally anything can have "applications" that could include the Military or "national security", with the proper rationlizations.  The issue is level.  The Fed is mandated to protect this country.  Now, that can include applications to protect us from internet/cyber atttacks.  That does NOT translate into a Fed mandate in either producing or supporting the internet, with Federal tax dollars

I believe the topic was whether the arpanet expenditures were constitutionally proper. My answer is yes. The Al Gore tax on your phone bill perhaps not so much.

My answer would be no.  Especially given the selectivity of what companies the Government wants to push, vs those it wants to demonize.  Either everyone gets expenditures, or no one.  Simple as that

[BT]

My answer would be no.  Especially given the selectivity of what companies the Government wants to push, vs those it wants to demonize.  Either everyone gets expenditures, or no one.  Simple as that

Your answer indicates that you don't know the details of the arpanet project. You seem to want to make it a solyndra when that is not the case.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There is a good California answer from sirs: Arpanet and the Internet are valid projects, but paying for them with a slight tax is unconstitutional.

That's dumb. Whatever it is, the Internet is a service and is not entirely free. It is absurd to say that we must have it, but have no obligation to pay for it.

That is why California is in such a mess.

[sirs]

My answer would be no.  Especially given the selectivity of what companies the Government wants to push, vs those it wants to demonize.  Either everyone gets expenditures, or no one.  Simple as that

Your answer indicates that you don't know the details of the arpanet project. You seem to want to make it a solyndra when that is not the case.

My answer to you and xo is clear......Either the Government supports ALL forms of energy, or none.  It doesn't try to pick winners or losers. 

And no, I'm NOT trying to make it a Solyndra.  The fact that they didn't use any tax payer dollars kinds makes that point obvious.  This was a missed Solyndra......THANKFULLY.  I guess there weren't enough donors or big time Obama supporters at Arpnet

[sirs]

That is why California is in such a mess.

Umm, news Flash.....guess who's in charge?......guess who's been legislatively in charge for decades?  Guess which state has nearly the highest taxes than any other state, in nearly every category of what can be taxed?  Guessed who pushed those taxes?  THAT explains why CA is in such a mess, but I do appreciate your concession of how screwed up it is.  Thanks