Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Roger Long
 
Posts: n/a
Default Pay for what you've already been taxed for.

This has been mentioned here before but the following that I received
is a good summary with contact info to make your voice heard.

For all the talk about tax cuts and the political capital the repubs
get from them, this kind of arrangement where we users end up paying
for what our tax dollars already purchased is just an invisible tax.
These invisible taxes and user fees threaten to actually cost those of
us in the bottom 99% of the economy more than we're saving in income
tax reduction.

Whatever you think about the economics and politics though,
restricting free access to weather information by mariners and pilots
is a threat to safety.

Here's what I received:

A bill is currently pending in the U.S. Sentate which may require you
to pay for weather and related info you can now get from NOAA for
free. If this
disturbs, then write to your elected representatives and express your
concern.

Here's the summary - U.S. Sentate bill 786

PA senator Rick Santorum proposed a bill that would prohibit
federal meteorologists from competing with companies such as Surfline,
AccuWeather and The Weather Channel. His proposal is that the
information that we already pay for through our taxes would only be
made available to corporations that would then RESELL the information
you! For a fee, of course. What would this mean to you?

1. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY TO GET ACCESS TO BUOY READINGS.

2. YOU WILL NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS ANY OF THE DATA GATHERED BY THE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE OR ANY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY (THROUGH THE WEB
OR ELSEWHERE).

3. YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY SURF FORECAST.

4. YOU WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO READ A NESURF.COM FORECAST
(BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NONE).

If this disturbs you, pick up the phone now and call (or use the
webform) and voice your displeasure.

Senator Santorum's Email Submission form
Washington, D.C. Office:
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Main: 202-224-6324

If you use the online form the Subject line should read: "National
Weather Services Duties Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate) S. 786."
Your message
should mention, in the first sentence, that you disapprove strongly
to the proposed legislation.

--
Roger Long




  #2   Report Post  
Roger Long
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave" wrote in message Ah, another message
brought to you by the free lunch bunch.


It's not that the lunch isn't free that I'm complaining about. It's
paying for it twice.

--

Roger Long




  #3   Report Post  
Roger Long
 
Posts: n/a
Default


As a sailor who listens to NOAA weather radio and has listened
for many years, I can tell you NOAA weather radio has become
next to useless.


As a pilot who depends even more on weather forecasts than when I'm
wearing my sailor hat, I can tell you that the gubmint puts out some
pretty good stuff. NOAA radio may be useless but a lot of other stuff
isn't. It's so good in fact, that companies want to be able to get it
free from the taxpayers and then sell it back to them.

--

Roger Long


  #4   Report Post  
Rich Hampel
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Please .... Pass the Kool-AidI
Does strychnine leave a bitter after-taste?

Just simply go back in history and look to find the the greatest
periods of prosperity were preceded by times of tax cuts. 20s, 60s,
80s & 90s. Then go back and look what preceded recessions ..... yup,
increased taxation.

Maybe you'd be happier living in an economically stagnant society that
takes 80 to 90% percent of your income ... like Scandanavia, or central
Europe, etc. Then totally dimisses you when you reach 'retirement
age' and are no longer able to 'contribute' to the local socialism (all
you get is a clean sheet to die on) Please consider moving there as
that will help remove a non-productive 'taker' from this society.

n article ,
Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 14:56:58 GMT, "Roger Long" said:

[snip]

Ah, another message brought to you by the free lunch bunch.

  #5   Report Post  
Roger Long
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Original poster successfully resists urge to be pulled OT and point
out that he is for lower overall taxes but, cutting taxes and then
instituting invisible taxes like giving stuff the tax payers paid for
to private companies to sell is not really cutting the drain on
consumer's wallets.

--

Roger Long



"Rich Hampel" wrote in message
...

Please .... Pass the Kool-AidI
Does strychnine leave a bitter after-taste?

Just simply go back in history and look to find the the greatest
periods of prosperity were preceded by times of tax cuts. 20s,
60s,
80s & 90s. Then go back and look what preceded recessions .....
yup,
increased taxation.

Maybe you'd be happier living in an economically stagnant society
that
takes 80 to 90% percent of your income ... like Scandanavia, or
central
Europe, etc. Then totally dimisses you when you reach 'retirement
age' and are no longer able to 'contribute' to the local socialism
(all
you get is a clean sheet to die on) Please consider moving there as
that will help remove a non-productive 'taker' from this society.

n article
,
Dave wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 14:56:58 GMT, "Roger Long"
said:

[snip]

Ah, another message brought to you by the free lunch bunch.





  #6   Report Post  
Glenn Ashmore
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There's an old saying. "You get what you pay for."

As a sailor who listens to NOAA weather radio and has listened
for many years, I can tell you NOAA weather radio has become
next to useless. It used to be something accurate and reliable.
Now, it's become inaccurate and unreliable. They can't even
predict wind speed and direction accurately anymore.

Cheers,
gangplank


If you have the intelligence to understand what you are listening to the
NOAA weather is very good. Accuweather and the other private services get
99.9% of their information from the NWS for free. We have used private
services in the past on deliveries to Tortola. Except for Clark's Gulf
Stream analysis (which was excellent) info all we got from the other service
was just a rehash of the NWS data.

And to Rich, Mr. Santorum, like many others in congress is simply trying to
give one of his constituents and campaign donors, Pennsylvania based
Accuweather a present. It will not save a dime nor will it produce any
significant income for the government. The private services will still
receive the data for a fraction of what it costs us, the tax payers. The
way the bill is written even the FAA would have to buy the weather data from
private services. Supposedly the NWS could still issue warnings for
tornados and hurricanes but if the VHF weather radio and web service goes
away, how are they going to do it?

Has anyone suggested that we do away with the post office because FedEx is a
private company? The whole idea is assinine. Even his home town newspaper
is saying it is an idiotic idea.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com


  #7   Report Post  
Roger Long
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That's certainly an option, perhaps even a good one. But, that's not
what is being discussed here. The proposed bill is just more of the
welfare and freebies that fiscal conservatives seem equally unable to
resist handing out when they get their hands on the purse strings.
They just hand it out to different people than the liberals.

--

Roger Long



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:41:25 GMT, "Roger Long"
said:

It's not that the lunch isn't free that I'm complaining about. It's
paying for it twice.


Coupla ways to solve that. First, turn over the entire operation,
including
the forecasting, to private enterprise. If that doesn't appeal, put
guvmint
distribution of the forecasts (radio transmission and the computer
software
"voice" reading the information) in private hands. In either case
you're
only paying once to have the information created and distributed.
But you're
removing the inefficiencies of (i) guvmint employees, and (ii) union
work
rules.




  #8   Report Post  
Glenn Ashmore
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 May 2005 17:41:25 GMT, "Roger Long" said:

It's not that the lunch isn't free that I'm complaining about. It's
paying for it twice.


Coupla ways to solve that. First, turn over the entire operation,
including
the forecasting, to private enterprise. If that doesn't appeal, put
guvmint
distribution of the forecasts (radio transmission and the computer
software
"voice" reading the information) in private hands. In either case you're
only paying once to have the information created and distributed. But
you're
removing the inefficiencies of (i) guvmint employees, and (ii) union work
rules.


That is the absolute last thing the private services want. They get their
raw material for free now. Why would they want to pay for launching
hundreds of weather balloons a day, staffing weather observation stations
arlond the country and maintaining satellites and weather bouys. They would
much rather us tax payers pay for that.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com


  #9   Report Post  
prodigal1
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2005 18:07:49 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore" said:


Has anyone suggested that we do away with the post office because FedEx is a
private company?



Dunno, but it sounds like a damned good idea.


Yeah, let's put a hundred thousand well-paid taxpayers out of work. I'm
sure they'll still be able to afford mortgages, cars, appliances,
vacations, goods and services etc. when they're collecting food stamps.
After all, just look at how good outsourcing auto-jobs has been for
Michigan, Ohio etc...
Just how stupid are you anyway?
  #10   Report Post  
Roger Long
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think a better question would be:

Would the economy and the society be healthier if all roads were toll
roads and no tax dollars were use?

The specific question for this group is:

Will you cruising (and aviation if your are a pilot) be safer and more
convenient if the only weather data available to you is that which you
pay for with your credit card at time of access or get via monthly
subscription?

Point to ponder: The government is not going to privatize the very
expensive searches for sailors and pilots who get in trouble. Human
nature being what it is, how many more of them are there going to be
to look for if everyone has to pay for weather reports?

--

Roger Long



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 May 2005 18:07:49 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
said:

Has anyone suggested that we do away with the post office because
FedEx is a
private company?


Dunno, but it sounds like a damned good idea.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017