 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsBoatsPaddle BoatsSailingCruisingBuildingElectronics Related Topics CarsMotorcyclesMore Topics ... |
Boat Forum / Cruising / May 2005Pay 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.  SignatureRoger Long > This has been mentioned here before but the following that I > received is a good summary with contact info to make your [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > strongly > to the proposed legislation. 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 > 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. SignatureRoger Long > 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. And the first time you wrote your congresscritter demanding an end to farm subsidies was.....? > There's an old saying. "You get what you pay for." > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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. SignatureGlenn 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 >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. >>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? >Yeah, let's put a hundred thousand well-paid taxpayers out of work. Been in the post office lately? If there a hundred thousand, the job could be done by 50,000. Those 50,000 wouldn't, of course go on the dole. If they're half competent and motivated they'd be hired by the private company. As for the rest, I'm not sure there's any advantage to having them on the dole while claiming to be working over having them on the dole and not claiming to be working. >>>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. To follow your logic is to argue that the government should employ every citizen. Defend such a society. Start here: ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ >>>Has anyone suggested that we do away with the post office >>>because FedEx is a private company? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > good outsourcing auto-jobs has been for Michigan, Ohio etc... > Just how stupid are you anyway? Anybody what pays taxes is an idiot. I haven't filed or paid one thin dime for over twenty years. I say f.ck the IRS. SignatureNo regards, Bradley Jesness http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/ > Anybody what pays taxes is an idiot. I haven't filed or paid one > thin dime for over twenty years. I say f.ck the IRS. Since you are on welfare, no one expects you to pay taxes. If you were employable it would be a different story. 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? SignatureRoger Long >>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. > I think a better question would be: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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? Another thing to think about. Each private company will have their own interpretation of the source data. So will you have to subscribe to multiples services and try to guess which one will be the most accurate? JR >Each private company will have their own >interpretation of the source data. So will you have to subscribe to >multiples services and try to guess which one will be the most accurate? As opposed to just one service getting it wrong. <g> I think I could live with that uncertainty. > Another thing to think about. Each private company will have their own > interpretation of the source data. So will you have to subscribe to > multiples services and try to guess which one will be the most accurate? .... as opposed to hearing only the government's version and knowing it's wrong. >>Another thing to think about. Each private company will have their own >>interpretation of the source data. So will you have to subscribe to >>multiples services and try to guess which one will be the most accurate? > > .... as opposed to hearing only the government's version and knowing it's > wrong. So you say all of the NOAA weather forecasts are wrong? Then why would a private company even want them? It's strange but I have found NOAA to be pretty damn good. Where did you have problems with them? >Would the economy and the society be healthier if all roads were toll >roads and no tax dollars were use? Interesting question. I was recently in an Eastern European country and in contact with a government agency that's currently considering that very question (not as to all roads, but as to some new and much needed cross-country highways). At least one other Eastern European country has decided that's the way to go. > 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? I think a better question would be: Have you ever read the Constitution and do you have the understanding of what a "delegated power" is? > The specific question for this group is: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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, it just might have results other than you implied. A consumer (public or private corporation, private citizen or a government agency) does tend to use more responsibly those services which it has to pay for. It's likely that "the very expensive searches for sailors and pilots who get in trouble" are in large part for operators who already have adequate safety equipment, and certainly have the means to obtain all forms of weather information. It might make sense to charge for the services provided, whether that be forecasting or search and rescue. Maritime accidents that result from small boat operators lack of planning with FREE weather information, would hardly be affected by charging all operators for that service. Jack Painter Virginia Beach, Virginia > Has anyone suggested that we do away with the post office because > FedEx is a private company? Unlike weather forecasting, a postal service is actually an enumerated Constitutional power of the federal government. The Constitution: not just a good idea, it's the law. >Unlike weather forecasting, a postal service is actually an enumerated >Constitutional power of the federal government. > >The Constitution: not just a good idea, it's the law. But of course whether the guvmint may lawfully do something is a different question from whether it should. > 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. This should surprise nobody. No government entity is subject to competition, therefore it has no incentive to provide a better service or product at a more affordable price. A comparison of private vs. government school SAT/ACT scores is left as a (painful) exercise for the reader. >A comparison of private vs. government school SAT/ACT scores is left as a >(painful) exercise for the reader. Not a valid comparison, I'm afraid. If you were to compare those guvmint schools who can choose their students as private schools do (e.g. Bronx Science, Stuyvesant, Hunter, etc.) you'd get a very different result. >>A comparison of private vs. government school SAT/ACT scores is left >>as a (painful) exercise for the reader. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (e.g. Bronx Science, Stuyvesant, Hunter, etc.) you'd get a very > different result. Maybe we should offer Vincente Fox a deal: all his fuckin' wetbacks in exchange for all the invertebrate anteaters polluting our public schools. I'd do it in a second - at least the Spics want to work. >> As a sailor who listens to NOAA weather radio and has listened >> for many years, I can tell you NOAA weather radio has become [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >competition, therefore it has no incentive to provide a better service or >product at a more affordable price. Then the for-pay services have no right to use NOAA data. Additionally, since that data is, in your mind, so obviously flawed, they must intend to set up their own superior observation and data collection network, right? No. NO? Then, why? >A comparison of private vs. government school SAT/ACT scores is left as a >(painful) exercise for the reader. That is about as ignorant a comparison as I can conceive. It is like comparing the weather in Key West to any point North of Detroit. Schools with open doors can logically and reasonably be expected to have lower scores than schools that pick their students. What a statistical surprise..... not. Signature************************************************* 23' Grady White, out of Southport, NC. See where Southport, North Carolina is: http://www.southharbourvillage.com/directions.asp Real Time Picture of Marina "B" Dock,"A" Dock, and ICW: http://www.southharbourvillage.com/autoupdater.htm And courtesy of Lee Yeaton: see the boats of rec.boats at: www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats >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. As a boater and pilot, I can assure you that there is nothing wrong with NOAA forecasts. Additionally, where do you think the for-pay services get their data? Signature************************************************* 23' Grady White, out of Southport, NC. See where Southport, North Carolina is: http://www.southharbourvillage.com/directions.asp Real Time Picture of Marina "B" Dock,"A" Dock, and ICW: http://www.southharbourvillage.com/autoupdater.htm And courtesy of Lee Yeaton: see the boats of rec.boats at: www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats [snip] Ah, another message brought to you by the free lunch bunch. "Dave" <Dave@nothere.com> 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. SignatureRoger Long >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'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. SignatureRoger Long >>It's not that the lunch isn't free that I'm complaining about. It's >>paying for it twice. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > work > rules. > 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. Notice the deafening silence as soon as you underline the _corporate welfare_ aspect of this scam? Republitards like Dave just don't get it. >Notice the deafening silence as soon as you underline the _corporate >welfare_ aspect of this scam? Republitards like Dave just don't get it. Who said anything about corporate welfare? If the guvmint is gonna do it, charge for it. >>It's not that the lunch isn't free that I'm complaining about. It's >>paying for it twice. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > 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. SignatureGlenn 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 >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. Oh ye of little imagination! So stop giving it away for free. Why is it so hard for the free lunch bunch to comprehend that concept? >>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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Oh ye of little imagination! So stop giving it away for free. Why is it so > hard for the free lunch bunch to comprehend that concept? Dave since you are not a member of the free lunch bunch you must have sent you child to a private school, had your own police and fire department, built roads (or paid tolls) and never used any government services. Or you are one hell of a hypocrite. JR >Dave since you are not a member of the free lunch bunch you must have >sent you child to a private school, had your own police and fire >department, built roads (or paid tolls) and never used any government >services. Or you are one hell of a hypocrite. Only partially true. I did send my kid to private school and a private college, and live in a doorman building in large part for the security. I've paid plenty of tolls, and still do going from one borough to another. Can't say I've never used any guvmint services, and there are a few services that can best be supplied by guvmint. But I've lived long enough to recognize that generally, having guvmint perform services that can reasonably be provided by private industry is an inefficient solution. 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 <uubf71p7a39ahtniqtcu1430ffea2fp54d@news-west.newscene.com>, > [snip] > > Ah, another message brought to you by the free lunch bunch. 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. SignatureRoger Long > Please .... Pass the Kool-AidI > Does strychnine leave a bitter after-taste? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> Ah, another message brought to you by the free lunch bunch. >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. Nope. Original poster promised not to post OT. I consider the following to be a trolling OT post from a known liberal. Why don't you call Ted Kennedy's office and tell him you oppose the bill? 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. -=- This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services. > Please .... Pass the Kool-AidI > Does strychnine leave a bitter after-taste? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 80s & 90s. Then go back and look what preceded recessions ..... yup, > increased taxation. oh and here I thought it was World Wars...ignorant me > 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. you've never been there, you probably couldn't even find these places on a map, you are...._without_clue_ > 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) naw you're confused...it's your private insurance companies in the States that will toss you like yesterday's trash when for example your cancer treatment gets too expensive, but you've never anywhere near "Scandinavia" so you wouldn't have a clue what you're blathering about. > Please consider moving there as > that will help remove a non-productive 'taker' from this society. ad hominem crap you're done *plonk* >> Please .... Pass the Kool-AidI >> Does strychnine leave a bitter after-taste? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > oh and here I thought it was World Wars...ignorant me Ignorant you indeed. WWI preceded the Roaring Twenties. WWII started in 1939; in 1938 (5 years into the horrendous FDR administration) unemployment was 18%. Hitler ended the Depression. >> 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. > > you've never been there, you probably couldn't even find these places on > a map, you are...._without_clue_ I have my ad hominem filter on and this part of your response is curiously blank. >> Then totally dimisses you when you reach 'retirement >> age' and are no longer able to 'contribute' to the local socialism (all [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cancer treatment gets too expensive, but you've never anywhere near > "Scandinavia" so you wouldn't have a clue what you're blathering about. How many American cancer patients go to Scandanavia for their utopian socialist medical treatments? Now, how many Canadians come to the United States? Give. It. Up. Comment below: <bit snipped was here> > >> Then totally dimisses you when you reach 'retirement > >> age' and are no longer able to 'contribute' to the local socialism (all [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > socialist medical treatments? Now, how many Canadians come to the United > States? Very few Canadians actually. How many Americans buy their prescription drugs in Canada (including State Health Authorities)? Quite a few I understand... SignatureKen Heaton & Anne Tobin Cape Breton Island, Canada kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca > for what our tax dollars already purchased is just an invisible tax. Considering that the budget deficit is $400 billion, "we" are not "purchasing" ANYTHING. We are STEALING from our future. > 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. The top 5% of earners pay 50% of income taxes. You're already getting a free ride. Is that fair? That Bill Gates and Warren Buffett and Michael Jackson and Steve Forbes are entitled to EXACTLY THE SAME level of military protection, interstate highways and public education that YOU are, despite paying thousands of times more in taxes than you do? Yes, they're wealthier than you are, but "from each according to his ability" is the foundation of communism, not of the United States Constitution. > Whatever you think about the economics and politics though, > restricting free access to weather information by mariners and pilots > is a threat to safety. Taking into consideration the full text of the Tenth Amendment: "The Powers not delegated to the United States by this Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People." please cite the Article and Section of said Constitution which grants the United States the power to provide "free" (Ha!) weather information: Article: Section: Didn't think so. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.