Where is the "progressive" outrage?

[theeedude]

It is a city service not a private company.
There is no "choice and competition" in the energy market.

If I wanted to CHOOCE to buy energy from a company at lower prices but they didn't have an "green" mandate that should be my choice. Conversely, I should be able to pay a higher rate to support a "green" mandate.

This is the government forcing a rate increase to pay for its pet projects because it don't have to compete with the private sector.

I don't think it should be your choice to chose a public utility that pollutes more and impacts my health and well being. HELL NO!

 

[Patranus]

I don't think it should be your choice to chose a public utility that pollutes more and impacts my health and well being. HELL NO!

Funny, AT&T was a "natural" monopoly sponsored by the government and that monopoly was very "anti consumer".

 

[Harvey]

Funny, AT&T was a "natural" monopoly sponsored by the government and that monopoly was very "anti consumer".

Welcome to decades ago. Or hadn't you noticed that they were broken up in 1982 as a part of their settlement of government's anti-trust suit, United States v. AT&T?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Where is the "progressive" outrage?

When a health insurance company raises its rates, it is vilified by the "progressives" yet when the government does something similar there is no outrage.


http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/15/local/la-me-dwp-rates16-2010mar16

How many of you got a 28% pay increase recently?

Strawman again? Yaa!

 

[Patranus]

Welcome to decades ago. Or hadn't you noticed that they were broken up in 1982 as a part of their settlement of government's anti-trust suit, United States v. AT&T?

Yes they were broken up and their lines were open to competition. This competition resulted in the significant reduction in utility costs to the consumer.

Why should the city of Los Angeles be able to operate in such a monopoly but not a private company when it is not in the interest of the people in either scenario?

 

[First]

Yes they were broken up and their lines were open to competition. This competition resulted in the significant reduction in utility costs to the consumer.

Why should the city of Los Angeles be able to operate in such a monopoly but not a private company when it is not in the interest of the people in either scenario?

The same reason we don't open up the police and fire department to private competition; because people aren't nearly as stupid as you are.

 

[EndGame]

The same reason we don't open up the police and fire department to private competition; because people aren't nearly as stupid as you are.

Sad thing is..............they're still that much smarter than you for your blindness.............

 

[her209]

The same reason we don't open up the police and fire department to private competition; because people aren't nearly as stupid as you are.

Lets remember that for-profit companies have one motivation: to make money. So if you're one of the poor schmucks that lives in an area that the private water company deems unprofitable to operate in, too bad.

 

[Patranus]

The same reason we don't open up the police and fire department to private competition; because people aren't nearly as stupid as you are.

Why is it that some cities that are facing budget problems have contracted outside companies to fill some of their policing needs at a lower cost?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027127337237011.html

So yes, some cities ARE opening the police (and maybe fire) to private competition AND saving money.

 

[her209]

Why is it that some cities that are facing budget problems have contracted outside companies to fill some of their policing needs at a lower cost?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027127337237011.html

So yes, some cities ARE opening the police (and maybe fire) to private competition AND saving money.

Is the city or the company liable for the actions of the security guards if something were to happen? If the company is liable, what happens if the company is bankrupted due to a lawsuit and/or settlement? The article says the company has insurance, but its not specific as to what its for.

 

[Harvey]

Yes they were broken up and their lines were open to competition. This competition resulted in the significant reduction in utility costs to the consumer.

Why should the city of Los Angeles be able to operate in such a monopoly but not a private company when it is not in the interest of the people in either scenario?

Because big energy speculators like Enron already showed us what happens when greedy, predatory corporate assholes control the life blood of a population. Our government agencies ostensibly work for the people. Whether or not that actually happens is another matter, but the elements of human survival, including water, power and health care should not be sold for profit only to those who can afford to support the mega-buck bonuses and golden parachutes of corporate executive parasites.