Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |