Do You Want Senate Bill 786 To Be Passed?

[brunota2003]

I personally think it shouldnt be, so now I want to see what everyone else has to say...

[Pipercub]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:s786:

For those who want to read the bill.

[huricanwatcher]

well dont have any concerns about this bill but the new one that will be coming up regarding animals and evas... should go to law IMMEDIATELY...

All i can say..... is if you have pets.... you have to evac... you dont take them with you SHAME ON YOU.. fish, dogs, cats, birds , whatever....... hey... there maybe a law very soon that will fine you for stupid stuff you do... if you cant afford or dont want to take them with you in event of what we are seeing YOU SHOULDNT HAVE THEM TO BEGIN WITH and you should have major impositions against you..

[Coredesat]

$#@% no.

[Dmetal81]

well dont have any concerns about this bill but the new one that will be coming up regarding animals and evas... should go to law IMMEDIATELY...

All i can say..... is if you have pets.... you have to evac... you dont take them with you SHAME ON YOU.. fish, dogs, cats, birds , whatever....... hey... there maybe a law very soon that will fine you for stupid stuff you do... if you cant afford or dont want to take them with you in event of what we are seeing YOU SHOULDNT HAVE THEM TO BEGIN WITH and you should have major impositions against you..

Thats great, but what exactly does that have to do with this topic/bill. For those that havent taken the time to read it, they should. Weather.gov could be disappearing very shortly if this is passed

[bvigal]

well dont have any concerns about this bill but the new one that will be coming up regarding animals and evas... should go to law IMMEDIATELY...

All i can say..... is if you have pets.... you have to evac... you dont take them with you SHAME ON YOU.. fish, dogs, cats, birds , whatever....... hey... there maybe a law very soon that will fine you for stupid stuff you do... if you cant afford or dont want to take them with you in event of what we are seeing YOU SHOULDNT HAVE THEM TO BEGIN WITH and you should have major impositions against you..

Well I think we should make you in charge of all Red Cross shelters. You can figure out where those animals will go to the bathroom, and who will clean it up, while closed in a building with a Cat 4 cane outside. Not everyone can afford to drive away and stay in a motel! Maybe you can figure out how to instantly teach all those animals how to use a porta-potty! I don't want the government passing a law that human life must be sacrificed to save that of an animal. I love my dog, and leaving her would make my life pure misery. But if I have to go to a shelter, and they don't take pets, or die in my house, I'm going to choose to live! And that shouldn't make me a lawbreaker!

[mikemiller18]

I take it this is about privitizing the NHC? Of course I am for it.

The private sector will encourage more investment, with better technology meaning better warnings and forecasting for our safety. Government monopolies cut off competition leading to inefficiency. I can't stand this senator, but this is something I am. Most things I agree should be privitized.

And to the person who said the pets law should be passed, great. Forcing places of shelter to accept pets can be hazardous in return. Basically the government is saying if you're going to accept federal aid, you need to go by our way or no money is coming. So these people of private business who have enough to shelter people but not the energy and resources to clean up after animals will be forced to not take people in? What if the federal aid they receive is only enough for people? The sanitation risks are really high. But this goes all along with FEMA...and that's something I don't agree with but that's another thread.

[temujin]

I take it this is about privitizing the NHC? Of course I am for it.

Did you read the part about the government being forbidden to disclose any weather information that could affect the value of any product? That would be pretty much any and all weather... we'd all have to buy it or just go without. That means companies like Accuweather would make a mint providing large corporations with forecasts for droughts, etc. That would hurt the small companies and small farmers, and Joe Sixpack.

It's a very sinister bill. Even as a libertarian-leaning Republican, I can't support such a thing.

[Dmetal81]

While I agree generally with the idea of privatizing for competition, this is a service we are ALREADY paying for through our taxdollars. Why should the information be funneled to corporations for us to have to pay for it again? In that case, NOAA should be dissolved all together and we should leave hurricane tracking to Accuweather. I love the availability of info as is. I think NHC and Weather.gov are AWESOME sites with the most reliable info. Weather just has too much to do with everything to leave it JUST up to private companies to dispense with the info. Leave things be, Accuweather still gets their airtime[/quote]

[Andrew92]

No, this bill canNOT pass. If the NWS was privatized, how would we get our warnings? Oh that's right, through paying extra money for them, money that comes from our tax dollars. And how much would it cost for us to the get the weather information that some people actually might need on a daily basis? Could they afford it? The answer to the last question will very possibly be "no." Therefore, this bill must begone. NOW.

-Andrew92

[Dmetal81]

No, this bill canNOT pass. If the NWS was privatized, how would we get our warnings? Oh that's right, through paying extra money for them, money that comes from our tax dollars. And how much would it cost for us to the get the weather information that some people actually might need on a daily basis? Could they afford it? The answer to the last question will very possibly be "no." Therefore, this bill must begone. NOW.

-Andrew92

You'll still get your watches and warning... but thats about ALL you will get... agreed, this is a MUST NOT PASS for ANY weather enthusiast who uses government sources for their info.

[mikemiller18]

That's a very fatalist point of view. The problem is, everyone is paying tax dollars for a service they might not want. This is a representative government, not a socialist one. If NHC asked for donations, I would gladly reach out of my pocket to donate. With the demand of weather forecasting, I highly doubt it would be an outrageous price. Not to mention there are other ways for corporations to make a profit besides subscriptions. Websites are a good example of this.

[mikemiller18]

It's a very sinister bill. Even as a libertarian-leaning Republican, I can't support such a thing.

Eh, just call yourself a libertarian. The R word has too much baggage.

http://www.lp.org

[Dmetal81]

That's a very fatalist point of view. The problem is, everyone is paying tax dollars for a service they might not want. This is a representative government, not a socialist one. If NHC asked for donations, I would gladly reach out of my pocket to donate. With the demand of weather forecasting, I highly doubt it would be an outrageous price. Not to mention there are other ways for corporations to make a profit besides subscriptions. Websites are a good example of this.

Like I said before though, if they want to pass something like this, then they need to do away with NOAA altogether. With the passage of this bill I will be forced to pay twice for my weather info. Once to NOAA to provide it, and then again to get it from the corporation. I guess this wouldnt be the time to mention that the scum who introduced this calls his homestate to the same one accuweather is incorporated in

[mikemiller18]

I take it this is about privitizing the NHC? Of course I am for it.

Did you read the part about the government being forbidden to disclose any weather information that could affect the value of any product? .

It's basically an agency that is funded by the government that hires workers for the government. I guess I can just see these employees working at a privitized company with the same amount of great work. Imagine the investment that will pour into weather and the school opportunities that will arise. I only know of a few schools that carry metereology and tropical meterology, etc.. but this could be my dream of a business finally specializing in such a thing to supply to news agencies, whatever.

[mikemiller18]

That's a very fatalist point of view. The problem is, everyone is paying tax dollars for a service they might not want. This is a representative government, not a socialist one. If NHC asked for donations, I would gladly reach out of my pocket to donate. With the demand of weather forecasting, I highly doubt it would be an outrageous price. Not to mention there are other ways for corporations to make a profit besides subscriptions. Websites are a good example of this.

Like I said before though, if they want to pass something like this, then they need to do away with NOAA altogether. With the passage of this bill I will be forced to pay twice for my weather info. Once to NOAA to provide it, and then again to get it from the corporation. I guess this wouldnt be the time to mention that the scum who introduced this calls his homestate to the same one accuweather is incorporated in

What if the corporation pays NOAA for this information and you just watch it on TV, from say an news organization like Scripps that comes with basic cable?

[Dmetal81]

That's a very fatalist point of view. The problem is, everyone is paying tax dollars for a service they might not want. This is a representative government, not a socialist one. If NHC asked for donations, I would gladly reach out of my pocket to donate. With the demand of weather forecasting, I highly doubt it would be an outrageous price. Not to mention there are other ways for corporations to make a profit besides subscriptions. Websites are a good example of this.

Like I said before though, if they want to pass something like this, then they need to do away with NOAA altogether. With the passage of this bill I will be forced to pay twice for my weather info. Once to NOAA to provide it, and then again to get it from the corporation. I guess this wouldnt be the time to mention that the scum who introduced this calls his homestate to the same one accuweather is incorporated in

What if the corporation pays NOAA for this information and you just watch it on TV, from say an news organization like Scripps that comes with basic cable?

Being a student majoring in meteorology, I rarely watch the television weather. Its nearly worthless IMO anyways lol. Im getting at the raw data here. The wind reports, the SPC mesoscale analysis page, windfield products, atmospheric conditions at various MBs levels, satellite images, radar, models, etc. (Yes, I know you get radar for free from Intellicast and Accuweather, but its crappy svc IMO)... most of this would be gone unless you paid for it. Eventually yes, competition would take over and probably most websites would switch from subscription base to advertising base.

As for the government getting paid for providing the data? What is the point, all I can see here is adding in an extra step to fix something that isnt broken. I dont even want to get into the political mumbo jumbo of ethics vs. false reporting of weather to change outcomes of things like the stockmarket. Right now I get my info in a clear, precise, quick fashion presented in a reasonable way in a highly accessible manner. I just dont understand what the point is I guess....

[HurriCat]

This bill should not pass. I think that it is one more closed door for those without loads of money to "just pay" for more and more things.

[mikemiller18]

I agree with the stock market outcomes, especially since we saw a rise when Rita went down to a 4, but a government organization can be just as corrupt.

With the competition, I highly doubt an oligarchy would exist to influence the stock market, due to multiple sources on one thing. There's always exposes, news agencies, etc.. that can keep some of these in check.

[jj_frap]

I guess Rick Santorum wants to fatten the pockets of his corporate buddies at Accuweather.