Exactly, money will be stolen from someone through taxation - at gunpoint if necessary - so that Wildbore may have the illusion of a cheap service.

Liberals love the system - as long as they don't have to pay for it.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

The cost of administering the wholesale electricity system and ensuring reliability of the grid is included in the electricity bill. People who use it pay for it, there are no extra taxes.

People can choose to buy off electricity retailers, where they wouldn't need to pay for regulation, but usually they don't because they constantly get shafted by high prices. So people usually choose to buy off local utilities, and pay the extra regulation price, simply to avoid the fact that they will be shafted badly with electricity retailers.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

Hilarious. Of course you fail to mention just what effect all the regulation and compliance has on prices. Taxes aren't the only action of government that can increase prices.

The electricity retailers have regulations and taxes to comply with also.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I live in San Diego. I have lived in California most of my life. I was born here, I hope to die here. Governor Schwarzenegger saved California. He is doing so well that a state that refuses to ever vote Republican, elected him. Twice. Everything you have said is wrong. Not opinion-wise, just malicious.

The fires are a natural event. They have more to do with people building their homes in fire prone areas, and refusing small containment fires, than your big government tirade lends credit to.

You mention the black outs. Where were you in 2000-2001 when Gray Davis started all this? When our bills went nuts from failed deregulation, and I had to actaully leave school because I wasn't allowed to learn during power out hours? Who are you anyway? We elected Governor Schwarzenegger to stop Gray Davis regime. No more blackouts buddy.

You want more firefighters and you blame the Governor? Do you even know who makes that decision? It is a city issue. San Diego for example has refused to pay firefighters, and has spent the last 3 years firing them and closing down houses. It has nothing to do with the Governor. You simultaneously blame federal involvement, presumably because it is too distant, then expect state involvement, instead of local

The final point I would like to make is, you can go ahead and dislike Arnold for being too lefty for us, because this is California I doubt anyone agrees with you, but don't try to turn a natural fire that burned down real people's homes, and put many of my friends into shelters and hotels, into your political platform. You are just as bad as Al Sharpton standing in the mud on day 1 of the Katrina flood blaming white people. Only this time, everyone did an awesome job, thousands volunteered. There was never any time where a lack of resources caused homes to be lost, rather the weather prevented the resources from coming. It was a perfect execution. Probably the finest handling of any natural disaster in all of human history.

Governor Schwarzenegger was here with us from the begining, moving mountains to save people and their homes. He stopped the world for us. Show some respect.

I've lived in Orange County for 16 years.

Total 112% crapola.

He was elected the first time because he ran against the Twirp of the Century, Gray Davis, who (1) Refused to appeal proposition 187, which had been passed overwhelmingly by california voters, and struck down by an arrogant lib judge; (2) Created a record budget deficit; and (3) Presided over the disastrous California electricity crisis. The republicans could have run a monkey against Davis and he would have won. Why did he win the second time? Because he was completely without principles and morphed into a liberal.

Some of the fires, including the one near my house (which is STILL burning), the Santiago fire, was started by arsonists - a natural event? And the issue isn't what starts fires, it's the government's efficiency in putting them out - and the state failed miserably.

You're completely ignorant. The major widespread fire-fighting resources are either state owned or state provided. The state firefighting resources provided to orange county is TWO ancient helicopters - this for a county with 3 million people. The state commission on fires in 2003 presented eleven recommendations on reacting to widespread fires - the governor and dem statehouse did nothing. Two california national guard C-130s were supposed to be converted to carry fire suppressant - never happened.

Beyond any shadow of a doubt, the state's ignoring its own commission's recommendations, its unforgiveable lack of preparedness, and it's bureaucratic inertia at the beginning of the fires have caused the loss of Californians' homes and lives.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847

1) In truth bringers fantasy world there would not even be a fire deparment.
So what is the gripe?

You hate government in all its forms, but when they have trouble stopping 100's of square miles of raging fire, you blame them????

Sounds like you are saying we need more government firefighters...

2) I live in San Antonio, where we have some of the lowest cost energy in the nation. Our Energy is highly regulated and owned by the government. We have NO BLACKOUTS, and the company is revenue Neutral. From time to time, they will write every customer a big check if they accidently charged more than their expenses.

GOV Energy is San Antonio rush PERFECTLY and cheaply.

Ixtellor

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

The one living in a fantasy world is you, professor. Let's look at some more examples:

With farm subsidies, you actually get an increase of the price of food:

1. Lower Food Prices for American Families

The foremost reason to curtail farm protectionism is to benefit American consumers. By shielding the domestic market from global competition, government farm programs raise the cost of food and with it the overall cost of living. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the higher domestic food prices caused by U.S. farm programs transferred $16.2 billion from American consumers to domestic agricultural producers in 2004. That amounts to an annual "food tax" per household of $146. This consumer tax is paid over and above what we dole out to farmers through the federal budget.

American consumers pay more than double the world price for sugar. The federal sugar program guarantees domestic producers a take of 22.9 cents per pound for beet sugar and 18 cents for cane sugar, while the world spot price for raw cane sugar is currently about 10 cents per pound. A 2000 study by the General Accounting Office estimated that Americans paid an extra $1.9 billion a year for sugar due to import quotas alone.

American families also pay more for their milk, butter, and cheese, thanks to federal dairy price supports and trade barriers. The federal government administers a byzantine system of domestic price supports, marketing orders, import controls, export subsidies, and domestic and international giveaway programs. According to the U.S. International Trade Commission, between 2000 and 2002 the average domestic price of nonfat dry milk was 23 percent higher than the world price, cheese 37 percent higher, and butter more than double. Trade policies also drive up prices for peanuts, cotton, beef, orange juice, canned tuna, and other products.

These costs are compounded by escalating tariffs based on the amount of processing embodied in a product. If the government allowed lower, market prices for commodity inputs, processed foods would be substantially cheaper. Lifting sugar protection, for example, would apply downward pressure on the prices we pay for candy, soft drinks, bakery goods, and other sugar-containing products.

The burden of higher domestic food costs falls disproportionately on poor households. Farm protections act as a regressive tax, with higher prices at the grocery store negating some or all of the income support the government seeks to deliver via programs such as food stamps.

If American farm subsidies and trade barriers were significantly reduced, millions of American households would enjoy higher real incomes.

Rest of Article Here

All government regulations, such as environmental regulations, drive costs up on things such as gas and real estate for everyone:

Government and High Prices

By Thomas DiLorenzo

The U.S. Congress is holding hearings on why gasoline prices have risen; pundits are beginning to repeat the anti-capitalist oil company bashing of the 1970s; and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently issued a report blaming prosperity for rising housing prices and self-servingly calling for more HUD subsidies for "the poor."

The Washington establishment has been quick to blame "greedy oil companies" and American prosperity for higher gas and housing prices, but the government itself is at fault with its policies of government-mandated price increases.

Urged on by American environmentalists' hate affair with the automobile, the U.S. government has employed every possible means to restrict the supply and drive up the price of gasoline. Regulation places over 90 percent of the outercontinental shelf off the California coast off limits to oil exploration; there are massive oil deposits in Alaska which are also off limits for exploration despite the fact that the existing oil wells there are being bled dry; and myriad other environmental regulations imposed on the oil industry drive up the costs of oil production.

For example, the government recently mandated that "reformulated" gasoline be sold in many areas of the U.S., which caused an immediate 10 cents per gallon price increase. American motorists have also been paying at least another 10 cents more per gallon of gas because of another Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandate for "oxygenated fuel," which the EPA itself claimed even before it issued the mandate contains Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, a water contaminant and potential health hazard. Gasoline taxes add as much as another 75 cents per gallon in some states.

Tax cuts and deregulation are the obvious means to deal with rising gasoline prices, but that would diminish the power and influence of the state, so it is not likely be achieved.

Housing prices have gone up sharply in some American markets because of increased demand for housing fueled by rising prosperity. Normally, after a short lag, housing supply increases will follow, which would moderate the price increases. But zoning, building code, and environmental regulations have made it more difficult and costly to build houses. More ominously, there is currently a nationwide governmental movement to dramatically reduce the supply and increase the cost of housing under the rubric of "smart-growth" regulation, one of the dumbest ideas to be hatched by the state in many years.

Motivated in part by the environmentalist hatred of the automobile, so-called smart-growth proponents, which include dozens of governors, hundreds of local government officials, and Vice President Al Gore, want to force much of the population back into the cities (and presumably out of their automobiles an into mass transit) by using regulation to drive up the costs of housing in the suburbs.

Rest of Article Here

And let's not forget the garbage situation, which government failed miserably at:

Garbage Mess: Private Sector is Cleaning Up

By Geoffrey Segal

Remember the "garbage crisis" of the 1980’s, when the forlorn garbage barge, full of New York city’s trash, cruised up and down the East Coast looking for somewhere to dump its load. While it littered the headlines a decade ago, you hardly hear about it anymore. In fact, the "crisis" of insufficient landfills went away, almost unnoticed, and the nation now has more landfill space than ever before. Thanks to a government program? Nope. In addition to recycling programs, a factor that played a significant role in addressing this crisis was that the private sector got into the business of running solid-waste disposal facilities.

Private sector landfill management has dramatically improved the efficiency of landfill operations, lessened their environmental impact, and saved cities countless amounts of money in the process. However, a handful of governors want to derail this move in a classic NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) move, by re-initiating "flow control", the placement of limitations on the interstate trade of trash.

Over the last decade, city and county governments have turned over their solid-waste operations to private companies at a vigorous pace. According to a recent survey by solid-waste consulting firm, R.W. Beck, 27 percent of municipalities with populations greater than 100,000 are considering privatizing their landfill. Another survey showed that more than half (17) of the nations 30 largest cities have already privatized their landfills, and two others contract out their landfill operations.
But why the sudden change? What gives the landfill industry the edge that lets it grow so fast? A major contributing factor is that private firms are much better situated to address the regulatory and financial challenges of the modern solid-waste industry.

In 1976 federal regulations were established to minimize environmental impacts of landfill operation. But two results of these regulations have been rising landfill costs and the closure of "unfit" sites--mostly thousands of small government-owned landfills. This dramatic increase in capital and operational costs of solid-waste disposal made larger, regional "megafills" more cost effective and accelerated privatization.

While larger landfills are more environmentally friendly because of the reduction in the amount of smaller sites, they also cost a great deal more money to build. This is a difficult hurdle for local governments to overcome; however, a solid waste company can finance the megafill, find an acceptable location, and build and operate it serving any willing governments in the region.

Private companies are interested in profit and focus a great deal of attention on efforts to reduce costs, and thus, improve efficiency. Private companies can also raise capital more easily than local governments, without the use of unpopular taxes to raise revenue. Finally, private landfills are held to a higher standard of environmental regulations than local governments. And municipal and county contracts hold landfill operating companies accountable for inadequate performance.

Rest of Article Here

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

1) I am against farm subsidies.

2) Yes government regulations drive costs up. It is a lot more cost effective for a company to dumb its waste into the river than have to actually dispose of it in a manner that does not hurt human beings and the environment.

But now they have to charge more for Mufflers all because they can't dumb the waste into lake Michigan. BOO HOO.

Ixtellor

P.S. One of us is a blind zealot.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.

One of the things government did though, is they took away property rights and riparian rights. Basically, if you owned property and pollution was stinking it up, or if you lived on a river and someone was dumping into it, you could sue the local mill/factory and they would be forced to stop and/or compensate you. Even if a dog pooped on your lawn, you could sue the owner and get money. Now its just thrown out and dogs continue to poop.

Government got involved and said no, mills are more important because mills provide jobs to the community. Government was telling people what the greater good was. Government decided to put the greater good ahead of the individual, property, and riparian rights, so they just took those rights away.

Libertarians would scrap regulation, but they would bring back riparian rights. Basically if you live along a river and it becomes polluted by dumping, you can sue the company and they will be forced to stop or compensate you. It would also serve as a deterrent.

Farm susidies are stupid, most regulation is useless, in Canada we have a broadcasting company called the CBC and it takes our tax dollars and I think thats bad.

In all aspects of the domestic economy though, it would be mistake to blindly follow the Libertarian arguements the Truth-Bringer and others constantly advocate.

For example, I still think government does have a role to play in electricity markets. Look at Ontario in the early 1900s, the government came in, build hydro dams all over the place, build transmission lines between all cities, brought electricity to rural consumers, this all helped advance the economy way faster than it would have doing nothing. Hydro dams are capital intensive, no private company could develop them. Same with a transmission system. Tax-payers a) got their money back in only a few years because hydro dams pay for themselves quickly b) got cheaper power from these sources, and c) saved money because the transmission system used up power that would otherwise be wasted. Private companies eventually would have done this, but clearly Ontario wouldn't have one of the best economies in the world if we waited an extra 20-30 years for this development to occur.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

I checked - the South Texas Project gets its power from two nuclear reactors, and plans to build two more. This is just for one part of texas. Thanks to the government of california, know how many reactors there are in ALL of california, a state with more than 50% greater population than ALL of texas? Three, and at least two are about to go offline. Because the state government drones have an irrational fear of nuclear power, the state had to depend on other sources out of the state, which was part of the reason for the california power crisis.

__________________
Blade: "more educated and literate people than Justabubba"

Justabubba: "that would include everyone"

http://politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=27847