• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

Catawba said:
Like I said, you don't have the "freedom" to **** in my back yard.
Click to expand...

I would think that there are still places in the U.S. where people have outhouses in their back yards.
 
LesGovt said:
I would think that there are still places in the U.S. where people have outhouses in their back yards.
Click to expand...

And, I don't recall any Federal legislation banning outhouses from my or your back yards. Do you? The fort example is probably not a valid example. First, was it a Federal law against a state militia or was it for the Federal military? The Feds can regulate their property. That is far different from the outhouse in your backyard. Catawba, don't you agree?
 
Gill said:
Yeah?? Tell that to the single mother with two kids working two jobs just to pay for the electric bill, much less having to pay $20 for a new led bulb in her bathroom.

Why do libs hate poor people so much ??
Click to expand...

I would tell her, since she can save money over the long run by buying more efficient bulbs now.

Why do wingnuts hate poor people so much?
 
Henrin said:
If the harm to the well being of people is so obvious and has indeed occurred this harm should easily be proven in a court of law and easily be reflected on the light bulb itself. If freedom is so trivial to you that you think its justified to use government force to push your will, I think you should reconsider that stance.
Click to expand...

That's how the government imposes laws on the people- through the courts. Most law is civil, so it is just people suing each other. This is a civil law, but they would sue the distributor of the lightbulbs in court instead of the buyer. Much easier and cheaper that way instead of trying to sue a million individuals or something.

Of course consuming more energy than you need to for no reason causes harm... You don't even need to believe in science to see why that would be a bad thing.
 
teamosil said:
That's how the government imposes laws on the people- through the courts. Most law is civil, so it is just people suing each other. This is a civil law, but they would sue the distributor of the lightbulbs in court instead of the buyer. Much easier and cheaper that way instead of trying to sue a million individuals or something.
Click to expand...

They oppose laws on people through many ways, not just through courts.

In my example, I was in fact talking about suing the light bulb companies, but knowing full well it could not be proven they were at fault for the source of the supposed problem.

Of course consuming more energy than you need to for no reason causes harm... You don't even need to believe in science to see why that would be a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Believe in science? Lol. I love that talking point! I swear it never gets old.

Anyway, I already dealt with this.
 
teamosil said:
With everything going on in the world the big line in the sand the GOP wants to draw is the "right" to use crappy, overpriced, lightbulbs that wear out faster? Seriously guys?
Click to expand...
there is also the payroll tax reduction, 2% !! big whoop....
they say having the reduction will create jobs...I have my doubts.
 
Henrin said:
They oppose laws on people through many ways, not just through courts.

In my example, I was in fact talking about suing the light bulb companies, but knowing full well it could not be proven they were at fault for the source of the supposed problem.
Click to expand...

That isn't how the courts work. If the light bulbs are harmful to the public in general, but there was no law against them, you couldn't sue companies for it. You can't assert a generalized injury against the people as a whole in court unless the legislature gives you a private cause of action. The legislature didn't do that here, they created a cause of action that the government could assert. That's a better way to go because you don't want a ton of nuisance suits against like hardware stores that forgot to change out their stock or whatever.
 
UtahBill said:
there is also the payroll tax reduction, 2% !! big whoop....
they say having the reduction will create jobs...I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

The payroll tax break means $120 BILLION more in consumer spending. Even if you figure the super rich will skim 50% of that off the top, that still leaves $60 billion for jobs. That's 1 million $60k/year jobs they killed.
 
teamosil said:
The payroll tax break means $120 BILLION more in consumer spending. Even if you figure the super rich will skim 50% of that off the top, that still leaves $60 billion for jobs. That's 1 million $60k/year jobs they killed.
Click to expand...
you assume that the money will be spent....
 
teamosil said:
That isn't how the courts work. If the light bulbs are harmful to the public in general, but there was no law against them, you couldn't sue companies for it. You can't assert a generalized injury against the people as a whole in court unless the legislature gives you a private cause of action. The legislature didn't do that here
Click to expand...

I'm aware. On a sidenote, I find that just gives more power to government to deal with harms.

they created a cause of action that the government could assert.
Click to expand...

I'm aware and that is why I'm against it.

That's a better way to go because you don't want a ton of nuisance suits against like hardware stores that forgot to change out their stock or whatever.
Click to expand...

You could just not accept those cases. /shrug.

Really nuisances is your argument? Its better to ban products because its a bit annoying otherwise? Really?
 
UtahBill said:
yet so many people trivialize it with insanely trivial issues, like light bulbs...
Click to expand...

You can't be trivial with the want for more freedom and less force. You are really not a believer in the idea are you?
 
Henrin said:
Really nuisances is your argument? Its better to ban products because its a bit annoying otherwise? Really?
Click to expand...

Creating a private right of action would be the far MORE invasive approach. Business hates when they create a private right of action because then they get sued a ton of times, sometimes by people just wanting a payoff, where if they don't create a private right of action, so only the government (sometimes state, sometimes federal) can sue, that is much better for business. For example, in this case, the government would just send a store a letter reminding them to stop selling the outdated lightbulbs, where with a private right of action and wouldn't sue unless they refused to do it or something. Create a private right of action and they could potentially be sued 10 times instead of getting a letter. It seems like you have things backwards if you think a private right of action would be less invasive...
 
UtahBill said:
you assume that the money will be spent....
Click to expand...

Well, in general, the middle class does spend most of the money they get. Economically that's the difference between giving tax breaks to the rich and giving tax breaks to the middle class. The middle class tends to spend it, the rich tend to invest it. Right now what we're desperate for in the economy is consumer spending, so this hits our economy right where it hurts. But, even if they do decide to save it, invest it or pay down debt with it, that all still creates jobs too. It'll be better for the economy if more of it is spent, but the middle class typically delivers on that front.
 
teamosil said:
Creating a private right of action would be the far MORE invasive approach. Business hates when they create a private right of action because then they get sued a ton of times, sometimes by people just wanting a payoff, where if they don't create a private right of action, so only the government (sometimes state, sometimes federal) can sue, that is much better for business. For example, in this case, the government would just send a store a letter reminding them to stop selling the outdated lightbulbs, where with a private right of action and wouldn't sue unless they refused to do it or something. Create a private right of action and they could potentially be sued 10 times instead of getting a letter. It seems like you have things backwards if you think a private right of action would be less invasive...
Click to expand...

So you are saying keeping track of lawsuits is unbelievable to consider?
 
Henrin said:
So you are saying keeping track of lawsuits is unbelievable to consider?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're saying. The private right of action means way more lawsuits, way more hassle for business, way more expense for business, and has no real upside over only creating a right of action for the government. The times when creating a private right of action is the best plan is where something is so crucial that you want to error on the side of OVERenforcement. You seem like you're saying you want LESS enforcement. Well that would be the path they took- no private right of action.
 
teamosil said:
Not sure what you're saying. The private right of action means way more lawsuits, way more hassle for business, way more expense for business, and has no real upside over only creating a right of action for the government. The times when creating a private right of action is the best plan is where something is so crucial that you want to error on the side of OVERenforcement. You seem like you're saying you want LESS enforcement. Well that would be the path they took- no private right of action.
Click to expand...

I'm saying your argument is a red-herring as there is no reason to just allow endless lawsuits for the same action.
 
Henrin said:
I'm saying your argument is a red-herring as there is no reason to just allow endless lawsuits for the same action.
Click to expand...

Dude. That's what I am saying. That's why they didn't create a private right of action... You were initially saying that you thought individuals should just work it out in court- a private right of action. Now you agree that would be the wrong path, right?
 
teamosil said:
Dude. That's what I am saying. That's why they didn't create a private right of action... You were initially saying that you thought individuals should just work it out in court- a private right of action. Now you agree that would be the wrong path, right?
Click to expand...

No. You assume to much in your position.
 
Henrin said:
No. You assume to much in your position.
Click to expand...

Maybe I don't understand your position. I thought you were arguing that people should just sort it out in court individually, no? If not, what is your position?
 
UtahBill said:
yet so many people trivialize it with insanely trivial issues, like light bulbs...
Click to expand...

And, I repeat myself. "Freedom is apparently not easily understood by all. Even small steps of eroding freedom should not go unchallenged."
 
LesGovt said:
And, I repeat myself. "Freedom is apparently not easily understood by all. Even small steps of eroding freedom should not go unchallenged."
Click to expand...
when I see an issue that is actually eroding a freedom, I will protest.
Lightbulbs ain't it....
I didn't spend all that time in the military defending the rights of others to trivialize over lightbulbs...there are important issues to consider...try spending time on something important for a change...
 
UtahBill said:
when I see an issue that is actually eroding a freedom, I will protest.
Lightbulbs ain't it....
I didn't spend all that time in the military defending the rights of others to trivialize over lightbulbs...there are important issues to consider...try spending time on something important for a change...
Click to expand...

I can play that card too. I didn't spend all that time in the military defending the rights of others to have them stripped away.
 
Blue_State said:
I can play that card too. I didn't spend all that time in the military defending the rights of others to have them stripped away.
Click to expand...
good, you fight for this issue, I'll wait til my govt tries to force me to waste money and pollute, instead of saving money and the environment at the same time.....:2wave:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom