Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

Phys251 said:

But I worry deeply that we have lost that focus. I worry that innovation nowadays is tarred and feathered under the guises of "big government."

Click to expand...

Is your argument that big government is the cause of innovation?

Do you like it when big government and big business (GE for example) get together to select the things we shall be allowed to buy? Once we start down this path are there no limits? For example, would you be delighted (very small pun here) if big government got together with big recycling to decide that from now on all of our clothing must contain no less than 65% recycled plastic? And further that no "old" clothing would be available for purchase if it did not meet the "new, more enlightened, and efficient standard" for new clothing? Then, given that the new clothing would last for 25 years instead of the old clothing's tendency to show wear and tear after far fewer years, the price rose by a factor of ten or fifteen?

Would you ever recognize the transition from being a citizen to being a subject, or later, a slave of the state? Would you ever recognize that you had sold, so cheaply, your right to live free from government interference, in return for the promise of utopia?

Phys251 said:

I seriously question the truth value of these statements. You ever seen "Who Killed the Electric Car"? Do you not realize that Big Coal and Big Oil have a vested interest AGAINST cleaner energy? I am aware, however, of the unfortunate dilemma that dirty power tends to be cheap. That's a big part of the problem here. It's an even bigger problem when Big Oil companies spend only a tiny portion of their research and development on clean energy, relying instead on old, dirty technology.

Click to expand...

You think I have lied to you? The only difference between us is that is how we achieve things. This is the thrust of the entire discussion. You want to use coercion to bring about research and development. Conservatives do not want such tyranny.

Phys251 said:

You are in absolutely no position to lecture me on this matter. The silent majority--get this--actually WANTS clean energy. They WANT society to press harder for developing clean, cost-effective sources of power. Do you? Or are you perfectly okay with Big Coal and Big Oil continuing to trash our seas and our skies? That's the status quo, Les. That's what we have right now. And you would fight to defend that? You think it's patriotic to continue polluting with no end in sight? Puh-lease! A fundamental part of the American Spirit is innovation. Innovation is what got us steam power in the first place, and weeded our dependence off of slavery. Innovation is what sent us to outer space. Innovation is what has given us cures to diseases that would have been an automatic death sentence just decades ago. Innovation is what will plummet the cost of clean energy far enough to put Big Coal and Big Oil out of business. Innovation is what will sharply decrease the grossly underrated health care costs due to dirty energy. THAT, sir, is what I think of when I think of patriotism. I could not be prouder of a nation that has come so far, primarily due to its innovation.

Click to expand...

LOL! I would be very pleased to have what you consider clean energy. I am also very pleased to have coal and oil and wish we had a great deal more. As for patriotic, cut the BS. Oppressive, authoritarian tyranny is not patriotic. You believe Chicken Little and I don't. The sky is not falling. We can move towards any energy you prefer and I would be pleased so long as the transition is within free enterprise and without the oppressive laws that you favor.

Phys251 said:

But I worry deeply that we have lost that focus. I worry that innovation nowadays is tarred and feathered under the guises of "big government." Had the Tea Party the influence back in the 1960s that it does now, I seriously wonder whether our spaceships would have even gotten off the ground. The USSR would have kicked our tails and made us look silly. And guess what? Quietly, that exact same thing is going on. Several other nations are leading the charge in clean energy--Denmark, Germany, Spain, China, and even India. Meanwhile, we sit on our butts and whine about some freakin' lightbulb and how it's about to become too freakin' efficient. Jesus, what have we come to? It is a BAD thing that public policy dictates that an appliance be efficient?? What the hell??

Click to expand...

I can sum up our differences here using a word that you just used. You want public policy "dictates." I remain against dictatorial powers.

Phys251 said:

I really want to understand conservatives' position on the matter. I hear you when you say that the cost per megawatt-hour really should be the primary determining factor in terms of what energy sources we use. Disagree partially I may, but I do hear you. All I'm asking for is the same in return.

Click to expand...

I have heard you and very clearly. You want dictated policies. I don't.

Phys251 said:

Um, no he didn't. He allowed the space shuttle to cease operations, but NASA is still rolling on.

Click to expand...

NASA grieves over canceled program - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.com

Phys251 said:

That's the kind of crap I'm talking about. Do you libertarian/conservatives have the slightest interest in trying to get things done,

Click to expand...

Perry slams Obama for closing down NASA's space shuttle program

LOL.

Misterveritis said:

Anyone who thinks the government should be choosing what we can have, what we can buy, what we can use, how we shall live, who we must buy health care from...is a government man and may be unsuited to live free.

May your chains rest lightly upon you.

Click to expand...

If only you realized how ignorantly overgeneralized your argument is. "Oh the agony of having any restrictions on my choices. I should be free to buy crack and hand grenades."

1Perry said:

Well the Middle East isn't exactly the moon or Mars, but yeah, O.K.

Obama’s new mission for NASA: Reach out to Muslim world

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Obama

Click to expand...

There were two other goals that Obama made here. What are you thoughts on them?

You've certainly got ranting down to a science.

Click to expand...

lol, that's all you can come up with? You're gonna let me get off that easy?

LesGovt said:

I did not put words in your mouth. I said "...people from your side of the argument...""...have said that the masses are stupid..." I don't see your name in that statement. You might want to reread it and then apologize to me for doing something I did not do. If you do not believe that people from your side have made such statements, please let me know and I will repost the quotes for you.

Click to expand...

You are putting words in my mouth by assuming what is on our minds, not to mention that that is a massive strawman. I could just as easily argue that your side believes that Average Joe knows exactly as much about a particular subject as someone who has given his or her life to studying it.

LesGovt said:

You think I have lied to you? The only difference between us is that is how we achieve things. This is the thrust of the entire discussion. You want to use coercion to bring about research and development. Conservatives do not want such tyranny.

Click to expand...

Oh you want to lecture me about coercion? What the hell do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were? See, this is one of the many things I don't get about conservatives: It's absolutely fine to start preemptive wars, deny women's choice, and treat children like soldiers in training. But when it comes to policies that *gasp* actually make our planet a little cleaner, you guys throw a fit! What the hell, man?

LOL! I would be very pleased to have what you consider clean energy. I am also very pleased to have coal and oil and wish we had a great deal more. As for patriotic, cut the BS. Oppressive, authoritarian tyranny is not patriotic. You believe Chicken Little and I don't. The sky is not falling. We can move towards any energy you prefer and I would be pleased so long as the transition is within free enterprise and without the oppressive laws that you favor.

Click to expand...

Dude, if you think that conservatism doesn't espouse any kind of authoritarianism, then you are severely misguided in what your views are. See above.

And I couldn't see coal, oil, and gas disappear fast enough. There are all sorts of hidden costs to fossil fuels, in addition to all the known dangers. Again, I actually believe that a clean environment is a GOOD thing. For you, it's all about the money.

Let me ask you a question I asked on another thread: If I want to burn my garbage in a city park, shouldn't I have the freedom to do so?

I have heard you and very clearly. You want dictated policies. I don't.

Click to expand...

My god...you just don't get it. Why will Republicans not back down from farm subsidies? Why will Democrats not back down from CAFE standards? Because this is how stuff works, dude. See, this is one of the things I don't get about conservatives: They think that choice is the greatest thing that a human can have--subject, of course, to quite a few conditions.

Phys251 said:

There were two other goals that Obama made here. What are you thoughts on them?

Click to expand...

They are typical Obama plans. "Sometime in the future (when I'm not around) I have these grand plans that I'll let you know about later as we are working on ideas right now"

I guess you can't blame the guy. If I had been handed a 97-0 no vote on the one plan I actually did turn in, I'd be reluctant to try again.

lol, that's all you can come up with? You're gonna let me get off that easy?

Click to expand...

I should waste more time than that?

No to derail this wonderful topic but.

My god...you just don't get it. Why will Republicans not back down from farm subsidies? Why will Democrats not back down from CAFE standards? Because this is how stuff works, dude. See, this is one of the things I don't get about conservatives: They think that choice is the greatest thing that a human can have--subject, of course, to quite a few conditions.

Click to expand...

The Dems support farm subsidies every bit as much as the GOP and in most cases they both are wrong. It was Carl Levin (D) Michigan that fought for years to keep CAFE standards from rising.

1Perry said:

They are typical Obama plans. "Sometime in the future (when I'm not around) I have these grand plans that I'll let you know about later as we are working on ideas right now"

I guess you can't blame the guy. If I had been handed a 97-0 no vote on the one plan I actually did turn in, I'd be reluctant to try again.

Click to expand...

Dude that's politics. Watch them being interviewed--most of them will intentionally not give a straight answer. Sometimes this is a shrewd move, other times they need to just come out and say it.

I should waste more time than that?

No to derail this wonderful topic but.

Click to expand...

Beh, this joke of a debate is typical of what the political discussion has degraded to here in America. It's very difficult to debate people who claim laughably absurd positions, such as the idea that restricting low-efficiency light blubs = an attack on freedom, AND, on top of that, who resort to childish tactics when their bluff is called.

The Dems support farm subsidies every bit as much as the GOP and in most cases they both are wrong. It was Carl Levin (D) Michigan that fought for years to keep CAFE standards from rising.

Click to expand...

Good--I was hoping someone would catch that point about farm subsidies. And you're right.

FWIW, a lot of Democrats in Congress are in bed with Big Oil and Big Coal. It isn't just Republicans.

Phys251 said:

Dude that's politics. Watch them being interviewed--most of them will intentionally not give a straight answer. Sometimes this is a shrewd move, other times they need to just come out and say it.

Click to expand...

He gave a straight answer. The part where he says that NASA should become Goodwill agents to Muslims.

Beh, this joke of a debate is typical of what the political discussion has degraded to here in America. It's very difficult to debate people who claim laughably absurd positions, such as the idea that restricting low-efficiency light blubs = an attack on freedom, AND, on top of that, who resort to childish tactics when their bluff is called.

Click to expand...

I believe my latest jump in was to point out where you were resorting to the same tactics.

Good--I was hoping someone would catch that point about farm subsidies. And you're right.

FWIW, a lot of Democrats in Congress are in bed with Big Oil and Big Coal. It isn't just Republicans.

Click to expand...

Then why create a boogeyman to argue against? Why slam one side when you know both are guilty?

1Perry said:

He gave a straight answer. The part where he says that NASA should become Goodwill agents to Muslims.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that SO was a straight answer. Here, lemme talk about how good basil spice is when mixed in with pasta. Yeah, that's relevant to this discussion.

I believe my latest jump in was to point out where you were resorting to the same tactics.

Click to expand...

If you actually believe that he and I are on the opposite side of the same coin, then I cannot help you.

Then why create a boogeyman to argue against? Why slam one side when you know both are guilty?

Click to expand...

Because it's not that simple. It never is. Hint: Many liberals have some serious complaints about Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Contrary to what libertarian/conservatives want to think, we do NOT blindly support them simply because they wear a "D". It just doesn't work that way on this side of the fence.

Phys251 said:

Yeah, that SO was a straight answer. Here, lemme talk about how good basil spice is when mixed in with pasta. Yeah, that's relevant to this discussion.

Click to expand...

Hey, I agree that thinking that it was a good fit for NASA is crazy talk. Indeed, making them cooks for Olive Garden would make as much sense, but that's his plan.

If you actually believe that he and I are on the opposite side of the same coin, then I cannot help you.

Click to expand...

No, I noted that you were the same side of the coin you weren't crazy about.

Because it's not that simple. It never is. Hint: Many liberals have some serious complaints about Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Contrary to what libertarian/conservatives want to think, we do NOT blindly support them simply because they wear a "D". It just doesn't work that way on this side of the fence.

Click to expand...

Well you certainly fooled me.

1Perry said:

Hey, I agree that thinking that it was a good fit for NASA is crazy talk. Indeed, making them cooks for Olive Garden would make as much sense, but that's his plan.



No, I noted that you were the same side of the coin you weren't crazy about.



Well you certainly fooled me.

Click to expand...

Can you please actually make some points that are worth addressing instead of this childish trolling? What the hell does the Olive Garden even have to do with this discussion?

Phys251 said:

Can you please actually make some points that are worth addressing instead of this childish trolling? What the hell does the Olive Garden even have to do with this discussion?

Click to expand...

You brought up points about basil spice, not me.

To my libertarian and small government conservative friends: Calling energy standards on light bulbs tyranny and oppression is overstating your case a bit. If you're are concerned about the size and scope of government, there are far more pressing concerns than one minor additional energy standard. To hear some folks here, you'd think we're on the verge of becoming a police state. Yes, you can argue that its not an appropriate use of federal authority. You can argue the government has overstepped its bounds as envisioned by the founding fathers. But shouting "Tyranny!" and saying anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is a sure fire formula for most people to dismiss you as shrill, bombastic, and out of touch with reality.

Now, for the topic at hand. I have no problem with the government occassionally stepping in and acting to correct a market failure. Pollution is a classic example. Safety standards is another. A couple hundred years ago there was a limited amount of products you could buy and they were all relatively simple and easy for a buyer to inspect and judge the construction as being safe or not. Today we have millions of poducts on the shelves and many are complex items. How many consumers can inspect a car and tell if the construction is safe or not? How many can tell if the electrical appliance they bought is a fire hazard or not? Not many and no one can have that degree of knowledge over everything. So the government steps in and helps us out by ensuring that there is a basic minimum standard of safety. Pollution is similar. The cost of pollution to society is not factored into the final cost of a product, so the market fails to take it into account. So the government steps in and creates standards to minimize pollution.

However in this circumstance, I don't believe there was a market failure. Many people, myself included, have already converted to the higher efficiency bulbs. And as companies compete and innovate to find new ways to lower the price, more and more people will make the switch. Decreasing the demand for the old less efficient bulbs until we reach the point where demand is so low, its no longer worth it to companies to manufacture them. We were already on this path. The market was working as intended. New, better technology was being introduced and it was slowly replacing the older, less efficient technology. Many supporters of this regulation have said the same thing. So why do we need the regulation in the first place? Why not let the market take its natural course? There is no market failure here, and therefore I see no need for government intervention.

Plus, without this regulation, companies had a strong incentive to keep innovating to reduce the cost of these new bulbs, to attract new customers who had not yet made the switch due to the relatively higher price of the new bulbs. Now, with the entire nation forced to buy the current technology, there is less of an incentive to lower costs. Sure competition is still in place, so there is an incentive, but its probably less pressing without the possible reward of new customers. And that's the problem with many regulations. By picking a winner, even a product who was already more or less destined to win, the government removes part of the market forces that give incentive to innovate and lower costs.

Psychoclown said:

To my libertarian and small government conservative friends: Calling energy standards on light bulbs tyranny and oppression is overstating your case a bit. If you're are concerned about the size and scope of government, there are far more pressing concerns than one minor additional energy standard.

Click to expand...

Just as there was when they passed these.

However in this circumstance, I don't believe there was a market failure. Many people, myself included, have already converted to the higher efficiency bulbs. And as companies compete and innovate to find new ways to lower the price, more and more people will make the switch. Decreasing the demand for the old less efficient bulbs until we reach the point where demand is so low, its no longer worth it to companies to manufacture them. We were already on this path. The market was working as intended. New, better technology was being introduced and it was slowly replacing the older, less efficient technology. Many supporters of this regulation have said the same thing. So why do we need the regulation in the first place? Why not let the market take its natural course? There is no market failure here, and therefore I see no need for government intervention.

Click to expand...

Which has been my point. People will and have been doing this all along. The government doesn't need to force the issue. Especially while they were ignoring the housing market collapsing.

Phys251 said:

You are putting words in my mouth by assuming what is on our minds, not to mention that that is a massive strawman. I could just as easily argue that your side believes that Average Joe knows exactly as much about a particular subject as someone who has given his or her life to studying it.

Click to expand...

Be my guest and make an argument that the Average Joe knows exactly as much about a particular subject as an expert. You would look foolish doing that and, of course, I have never suggested any such ridiculous idea.

Phys251 said:

Oh you want to lecture me about coercion? What the hell do you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were? See, this is one of the many things I don't get about conservatives: It's absolutely fine to start preemptive wars, deny women's choice, and treat children like soldiers in training. But when it comes to policies that *gasp* actually make our planet a little cleaner, you guys throw a fit! What the hell, man?

Click to expand...

ROFL! First of all, per the Constitution, Congress and the President can take us to war. I'm pretty sure that the authors of the Constitution did not intend to grant to Congress the power to limit what lightbulb a person could purchase. Women should have the choice to purchase whatever lightbulb they wish, but liberals are denying them that choice. Treat children like soldiers? ROFLMAO!!! Whew! You are taking a long walk on a very short pier there. As for the cleaner planet, I am for that too. I never throw trash from my car nor do I relieve myself in streams. If you are speaking of less pollution, I am for that too. I have said this over and over. Again, the difference is really simple to understand. You are for oppressive authoritarian tyanny and I am not. That's the difference between you and me.

Phys251 said:

Dude, if you think that conservatism doesn't espouse any kind of authoritarianism, then you are severely misguided in what your views are. See above.

Click to expand...

Oh I saw.

Phys251 said:

And I couldn't see coal, oil, and gas disappear fast enough. There are all sorts of hidden costs to fossil fuels, in addition to all the known dangers. Again, I actually believe that a clean environment is a GOOD thing. For you, it's all about the money.

Click to expand...

I bet you do not have any idea of the consequences of your desires. Let's assume that you could have that one wish. Tomorrow morning you wake up and you find that coal, oil and gas were gone and we cannot get any under any circumstances. What do you think would be the consequences?

Phys251 said:

Let me ask you a question I asked on another thread: If I want to burn my garbage in a city park, shouldn't I have the freedom to do so?

Click to expand...

There are three problems with your attempt to come up with an analagous situation. First, the park is city land. My house belongs to me. Second, there are many places where you can burn your garbage on your own land or someone else's land if they give you permission. In 2012, I will not be able to find a store in the U.S. to purchase the lightbulbs that us "stupid" people wish to purchase. Third, you can burn your garbage right now in your own home, if you wish. Just put bits and pieces in the fireplace and burn it. Bottom line, if I were prone to do so, I could burn my garbage in the U.S. I cannot; however, purchase a lightbulb next year that I might want.

Phys251 said:

My god...you just don't get it. Why will Republicans not back down from farm subsidies? Why will Democrats not back down from CAFE standards? Because this is how stuff works, dude. See, this is one of the things I don't get about conservatives: They think that choice is the greatest thing that a human can have--subject, of course, to quite a few conditions.

Click to expand...

In response here, let's get something straight. I am not a "dude," nor, in relation to anyone else on this site, am I anyone's "son." I am a Republican and I do not support farm subsidies. Your statement is false. Incidentally, Democrats started farm subsidies. Most Democrats probably do support C.A.F.E. standards. Authoritarians normally support oppressive authoritarian acts of tyranny. I have not said that choice is one of the greatest things a human can have. I am simply arguing that enacting standards that are in effect a ban on a commodity that the public wants is oppressive. And, yes, I do indeed get it. I think you do too, but you want the oppressive legislation anyway.

Psychoclown said:

To my libertarian and small government conservative friends: Calling energy standards on light bulbs tyranny and oppression is overstating your case a bit.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Early in this discussion, I provided definitions for oppressive, authoritarian, and tyranny. They are perfect words to demonstrate what the left is doing with this law.

Psychoclown said:

If you're are concerned about the size and scope of government, there are far more pressing concerns than one minor additional energy standard.

Click to expand...

That might be true; however, as the liberals turn up the heat on the water [minor instances of oppressive, authoritarian tyranny], one might not even realize that the next higher level of heat is just one more step closer to your demise.

Psychoclown said:

To hear some folks here, you'd think we're on the verge of becoming a police state. Yes, you can argue that its not an appropriate use of federal authority. You can argue the government has overstepped its bounds as envisioned by the founding fathers. But shouting "Tyranny!" and saying anyone who disagrees with you hates freedom is a sure fire formula for most people to dismiss you as shrill, bombastic, and out of touch with reality.

Click to expand...

Did you just turn the heat up one level on the stove?

LesGovt said:

I disagree. Early in this discussion, I provided definitions for oppressive, authoritarian, and tyranny. They are perfect words to demonstrate what the left is doing with this law.

Click to expand...

Words have meanings and they have connotations. I could scrape my knee and call it a bloody wound and be technically correct. But when the average person hears the words "bloody wound" they don't picture a scraped knee. The average person imagines something along the lines of the kind of damage we'd see from a gunshot or a knife wound. When you say tyranny and authoritarian, people think of images of Hitler and Stalin and Hussien. They picture concentration camps and death gulags. So while you may be within the dictionary defination of tyranny, the connotations are clearly way beyond what we're talking about.

That might be true; however, as the liberals turn up the heat on the water [minor instances of oppressive, authoritarian tyranny], one might not even realize that the next higher level of heat is just one more step closer to your demise.

Click to expand...

I agree that one reason the big government agenda has been so successful is becasue it has been done incrementally. I don't think its necessarily part of some grand scheme, but rather just people trying to address the issues of their day through government. Nor do I think its part of an exclusively liberal agenda. Conservatives are quite willing to use expand government to push their agenda as well. Both sides of the isle are guilty of falling in love with the coercive power of government.

And I'm not saying don't oppose these new regulations. I disagree with them as well, as I explained in the rest of my post. I'm saying use arguments that people can take seriously. Running around screaming "tyranny" and such is going to cause most people to dismiss you as a libertarian chicken little. If your words don't persuade people, or at least make them pause and think, then you're wasting your time.

I doubt anyone will be persuaded one way or the other.

Then why bother debating?

Psychoclown said:

Then why bother debating?

Click to expand...

It's a fun activity.

Psychoclown said:

However in this circumstance, I don't believe there was a market failure. Many people, myself included, have already converted to the higher efficiency bulbs. And as companies compete and innovate to find new ways to lower the price, more and more people will make the switch. Decreasing the demand for the old less efficient bulbs until we reach the point where demand is so low, its no longer worth it to companies to manufacture them. We were already on this path. The market was working as intended. New, better technology was being introduced and it was slowly replacing the older, less efficient technology. Many supporters of this regulation have said the same thing. So why do we need the regulation in the first place? Why not let the market take its natural course? There is no market failure here, and therefore I see no need for government intervention.

Plus, without this regulation, companies had a strong incentive to keep innovating to reduce the cost of these new bulbs, to attract new customers who had not yet made the switch due to the relatively higher price of the new bulbs. Now, with the entire nation forced to buy the current technology, there is less of an incentive to lower costs. Sure competition is still in place, so there is an incentive, but its probably less pressing without the possible reward of new customers. And that's the problem with many regulations. By picking a winner, even a product who was already more or less destined to win, the government removes part of the market forces that give incentive to innovate and lower costs.

Click to expand...

This is the only part of what you said that I have a problem with because it wasn't the American people as a whole who cared about the efficiency of light bulbs, it was the companies who make the light bulbs in the first place. They wanted this bill so that they all would be forced to innovate their light bulbs to a lower efficiency at once, most likely so that it wasn't just one or a couple of them taking an initial drop in their profits due to their having to do the research and charge more for their incandescent bulbs. If every company is doing it at once, then the profit loss due to the innovation is distributed amongst all of them.

Now, I'm sure that most of those who are on the bill side of this argument could care one way or another about the bill itself. I, for one, don't care if the bill got repealed but I consider it a waste of time to do so, since it really has very little affect on any person's actual freedom. The bill isn't making the decision to move jobs to China nor is it forcing those companies to fire any Americans. Those companies were already losing money due to the more energy efficient light bulbs, which were completely free choice to buy. There are much more important things to be concerned with than the repeal of this energy efficiency bill or parts of it.

roguenuke said:

This is the only part of what you said that I have a problem with because it wasn't the American people as a whole who cared about the efficiency of light bulbs, it was the companies who make the light bulbs in the first place. They wanted this bill so that they all would be forced to innovate their light bulbs to a lower efficiency at once, most likely so that it wasn't just one or a couple of them taking an initial drop in their profits due to their having to do the research and charge more for their incandescent bulbs. If every company is doing it at once, then the profit loss due to the innovation is distributed amongst all of them.

Click to expand...

This is so ****ing stupid. How is it that only the light bulb industry that is incapable of making improvements on their own? Who forced improvements on our televisions? Appliances?

roguenuke said:

This is the only part of what you said that I have a problem with because it wasn't the American people as a whole who cared about the efficiency of light bulbs, it was the companies who make the light bulbs in the first place. They wanted this bill so that they all would be forced to innovate their light bulbs to a lower efficiency at once, most likely so that it wasn't just one or a couple of them taking an initial drop in their profits due to their having to do the research and charge more for their incandescent bulbs. If every company is doing it at once, then the profit loss due to the innovation is distributed amongst all of them.

Now, I'm sure that most of those who are on the bill side of this argument could care one way or another about the bill itself. I, for one, don't care if the bill got repealed but I consider it a waste of time to do so, since it really has very little affect on any person's actual freedom. The bill isn't making the decision to move jobs to China nor is it forcing those companies to fire any Americans. Those companies were already losing money due to the more energy efficient light bulbs, which were completely free choice to buy. There are much more important things to be concerned with than the repeal of this energy efficiency bill or parts of it.

Click to expand...

I am sitting here in a pot of warm water and I think I just felt the temperature rise a degree or two.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Franklin's Contributions to the Conference on February 17 (III) Fri, Feb 17, 1775

Catawba said:

No, thanks to our state vehicle inspection program.

Click to expand...

So you are saying they didn't crash into you? Where is the crime then?

Catawba said:

Try reading the Preamble to the Constitution sometime, and I am not your boy, sonny!

Click to expand...

Tell me what you think the General Welfare clause means so I can correct you.

Psychoclown said:

Then why bother debating?

Click to expand...

If you talking about the government doing less you almost have no chance against most people on here. There really is no point in debating here.