On 28 Jun 2005 18:48:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:25:04 GMT, WaIIy said:

Frankly I can't get too worked up about it. I don't feel any more entitled
to feed at the public trough than the next guy just because I've got a boat.
Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not at
all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

Huh?

Pray tell, who pays for it?

Wrong question. The question is who _should_ pay for it.

If we take this to the extreme, only people who's house is on fire should pay
for fire services...only people with kids should pay for education..on and on.
Can you assure me that if *all* services were fee-based, my taxes would go
to zero?

Society as a whole, and historically, has decided some essential services
should be "free"...meaning paid for via taxes...meaning we share in providing
for others even if we ourselves don't need a particular service. I, for one, can
live with that.

As to your Business 101 comment, you forgot one essential point...cost to produce
the product versus profit..otherwise known as margin. When you get the raw materials for free,
do a bit of value-added, then resell it, that's like making money out of dirt. In the weather
case, no inventory costs, not much in the way of distribution/transportation costs...heck,
10 people could probably cover the whole operation. Like that business model?

Another point...how would it be paid for? Do I call a 800 number when a storm comes up?
Do I "subscribe" to a service I may or may not use? If I don't have a credit card, am I locked out?
When people get wiped out because they couldn'r afford to pay for hurricane warning, is that
a good thing?

The more I type, the angrier I get at the Dave's of the world.

Norm B