On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:53:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why 5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who do
YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5 years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not expect
to pay more for produce?

Of course. But I would also expect to be paid proportionately higher
as well, so it becomes a wash. It's when sharp increases come that
fall outside the normal inflationary increases, that kill people's
buying power.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:53:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing
the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why
5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies
here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who
do
YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear
reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part
of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5
years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not
expect
to pay more for produce?

Of course. But I would also expect to be paid proportionately higher
as well, so it becomes a wash. It's when sharp increases come that
fall outside the normal inflationary increases, that kill people's
buying power.

Dave

What??? If *ONE* group of products becomes more expensive, you expect to get
a raise from your employer?

Doug Kanter wrote:
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 13:53:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:00:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

I would say that when the level of pollution becomes a direct health
threat, then steps need to be taken. But bear in mind that passing
the
costs on to the rate payers, will hurt those on the low end of the
economic scale.

Dave


The level of pollution has ALREADY become a direct health threat. It's
universally accepted science. No more questions about it. This is why
5
states are suing a bunch of utilities and will very likely win.

As far as the cost, we're talking primarily about private companies
here.
Everything you buy has the cost of doing business built into it. Who
do
YOU
think should pay for the improvements utilities must install?

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear
reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be part
of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5
years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not
expect
to pay more for produce?

Of course. But I would also expect to be paid proportionately higher
as well, so it becomes a wash. It's when sharp increases come that
fall outside the normal inflationary increases, that kill people's
buying power.

Dave

What??? If *ONE* group of products becomes more expensive, you expect to get
a raise from your employer?




Dave is so remarkably consistent in his political beliefs, eh?

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Then you'd have no problem paying higher electric rates? How about
if
the electric company decides to reduce or (horrors!) outsource some
of
it's functions in order to lessen the costs?

The man in the
moon? When your local utility finally has to dismantle a nuclear
reactor
whose lifespan has been reached, don't YOU expect the cost to be
part
of
your bill?

I had to pay to build the damn thing in the first place. Fortunately
they were not allowed to pass on the costs until the reactors went
on
line. The really disgusting part of the whole thing was that our
electric company touted the building of this nuke plant in 1969 as a
way to reduce electric rates for local customers. So what did they
do?
As soon as the reactors went on line, they added the construction
surcharges to our bills while selling the power produced to other
markets where they could get more for it, and our bills went up, not
down.

Dave


So what? Let's say the cost of fertilizer quadruples over the next 5
years
and it affects ***all*** produce grown in this country. Would you not
expect
to pay more for produce?

Of course. But I would also expect to be paid proportionately higher
as well, so it becomes a wash. It's when sharp increases come that
fall outside the normal inflationary increases, that kill people's
buying power.

Dave

What??? If *ONE* group of products becomes more expensive, you expect to
get
a raise from your employer?




Dave is so remarkably consistent in his political beliefs, eh?

Maybe he's got the right idea. Sometime in the past 5 years when I wasn't
watching, the price of Kodak film increased. Based on Dave's theories, I
should get a raise proportional to the film's price increase.