No. of Recommendations: 14
My question was posed in response to a TDS driven post that Trump would financially benefit from the elimination of the National Weather Service. Realizing how silly that proposition was, I asked "How would that work?"
No, you asked how THEY would get paid. “They” are the people who would profit from privatization of a formerly taxpayer funded service. AccuWeather would clearly stand to make a lot of money if you couldn’t get your forecast “free.” (Even if you could, say on radio or TV, *they* - the radio/tv stations, internet apps, newspapers etc. would have to pay to access the information. Of course AccuWeather could write into their contracts that the forecasts could not be retransmitted if they chose.
The PRIVATEERS would benefit, the public would lose.) It was the head of AccuWeather, along with his co-owner brother who, through use of sloshing around lobbyist funds, convinced several Reps to introduce a bill to do just that: to fill AccuWeather’s pockets with coin. Then it came out how venal they had been: warning paying customers about approaching tornados, and not bothering to tell anyone else.
This is not unlike the oligarchy set-up in Russia, where formerly state owned enterprises were sold at ridiculous prices to Putin’s friends, who are then in a position to prop him up in other endeavors. (No, I am not saying that all state owned enterprises should remain so forever. The Internet was transitioned, for example.)
I am ashamed to admit that I must not be among the smarter and better informed MAGA's. So as I strive for enlightenment, could you explain the mechanics of how getting rid of the National Weather Service can be monetized for their own personal gain?
I answered your question fully. You choose not to understand it, or possibly are incapable of. I’m not sure which.
