• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Republicans Try to Block New Light Bulb Restrictions

Sadly, the GOP isn't good at financial matters in the long run, as SheWolf pointed out, and the Democrat aren't good at either long or short run. Hell, Democrats can't count.
 
Henrin said:
Its called freedom. You should try it sometime. If I want to buy a lightbulb that isn't effective, that is my business and you can butt the hell out of it.
Click to expand...

Why do you want to buy a bulb or anything that is ineffective? That really undermines the economic rational man assumption in neoclassical, free market economics... Inefficiency is supposed to self destruct under the capitalist structure and be replaced by newer, more effective technology.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Plenty wrong with telling the citizens what they can't do, though.
Click to expand...

I don't see some of think the government is telling us what to do... this seems to be about a policy telling Congress what to do
 
Patrickt said:
Do you see any difference in switching because CFL work for you and are economically feasible versus doing it because the Congress says you'll do it or else?

One would think that if an expensive CFL were more cost effective than an incandescent, all cost accountants would agree. It isn't rocket science, you know. Also consider the fact that Congress is always wrong.
Click to expand...

Is congress telling us to do it? and yes, there is a difference between the two. However, reading the OP that wasn't impression about what is going on here.
 
Patrickt said:
Sadly, the GOP isn't good at financial matters in the long run, as SheWolf pointed out, and the Democrat aren't good at either long or short run. Hell, Democrats can't count.
Click to expand...

I think it's easier for them to defend short term expenses because they know they may not serve public office long term... i.e. they won't reap the benefits of a long term gain, so they only make ****ty short term decisions. Politics as usual. :roll:
 
Deuce said:
Do you think you should have the right to drive a car without emissions controls and pollute my skies?
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but I want the right to drive what I want. Energy efficient or not.
If they can outlaw a light bulb because it's not efficient, is my '97 F150 next? It's still in great shape and less than 100,000 miles on it. Are we going to eventually be forced into hybrids or electric cars whether we like it or not? Or will the market just be allowed to work it's magic? I prefer the latter.
 
Deuce said:
So you do think you have a right to pollute skies for other people. How about my land? Do you have the right to pollute my land?
Click to expand...

Geez... he said get an air filter
I'm not against emmisions regulations as long as they don't get so strict people are forced out of real cars and trucks. I don't think people can drive around spewing pollution and still pass inspections every year. I know you can't in Texas.
 
SheWolf said:
It's an investment worth making... a lot of cost accountants are recommending factories switch to the same light bulbs.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with recommendations.
I've switched bulbs to save electricity. See how easy that was, and nobody had to take away my freedom to choose.
 
the free market works best with an educated populace....the average shopper sees a CFL at $3 and an incandescent at $1.50, and decides to spend the latter now, but then much more over time in their electric bills.
 
UtahBill said:
the free market works best with an educated populace....the average shopper sees a CFL at $3 and an incandescent at $1.50, and decides to spend the latter now, but then much more over time in their electric bills.
Click to expand...

A better example is the pet rock... who the hell would pay money for a damn rock? Well, enough people did it to make the man a millionare. Economic rational man my ass.
 
SheWolf said:
A better example is the pet rock... who the hell would pay money for a damn rock? Well, enough people did it to make the man a millionare. Economic rational man my ass.
Click to expand...

and now the rest of the story....the pet rock funeral, and burial....at sea if you like....:doh
google pet rock burial...
 
UtahBill said:
and now the rest of the story....the pet rock funeral, and burial....at sea if you like....:doh
google pet rock burial...
Click to expand...

That's awful...
 
I like the comment... this is a joke, right?
 
We shouldn't force light bulbs to be more energy efficient. It should be up to the individual if they want to conserve energy or not.
 
digsbe said:
We shouldn't force light bulbs to be more energy efficient. It should be up to the individual if they want to conserve energy or not.
Click to expand...

yep, we shouldn't make people save money, or use less energy, no matter what it costs them, or us.....

Quiz, without researching this, how many CFL bulbs per USA household would it take to save enough energy to provide all the lighting for 3 million homes?
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 20? other?
 
UtahBill said:
the free market works best with an educated populace....the average shopper sees a CFL at $3 and an incandescent at $1.50, and decides to spend the latter now, but then much more over time in their electric bills.
Click to expand...

In other words, average people are too stupid to make good decisions.
I take it you are a proponent of the nanny state.
 
Whovian said:
Sorry GOP (or whichever members are fighting this), but I'm not with you on this one. Still looking to see how many Republicans are supporting Ryan on this.

Republicans Try to Block New Light Bulb Restrictions - FoxNews.com
Click to expand...


"But since the new bulbs can last 6 to 10 times longer, industry supporters of the new regulations say this will benefit consumers."


One point to note that tends to get little attention in the comparisons between incandescent and CFL. The "longer lifetimes" of CFL bulbs diminish down depending on how often the lamp is switched On/Off. Eventually reaching a point where lifespan of the 2 options are essentially equal.

Personally have several CFL bulbs in my house and am happy with them. But don't think the Federal government should have its fingers in this. Let the market dictate...
 
SheWolf said:
A better example is the pet rock... who the hell would pay money for a damn rock? Well, enough people did it to make the man a millionare. Economic rational man my ass.
Click to expand...

If they got pleasure from owning them, I don't see a problem.
Congrats to the guy who thought of it. Goes to show anyone is capable of getting rich in America if they work hard enough or are creative enough.
BTW, I wonder who thought up selling stars?
 
Barbbtx said:
In other words, average people are too stupid to make good decisions.
I take it you are a proponent of the nanny state.
Click to expand...

yes, and no.....yes, MANY people are too uneducated (stupid is your wording), or too lazy, to do the math.....
no, we don't need a nanny state yet, but if our populace gets any lazier, or we continue to under educate them so they remain ignorant, some decisions have to be made for them.
Sort of like how many voters are single issue idiots. They can't or won't see the big picture. They'll vote in a clown if he is in favor of thier favorite single issue.
 
Barbbtx said:
In other words, average people are too stupid to make good decisions.
I take it you are a proponent of the nanny state.
Click to expand...

People are stupid in a lot of ways, a nanny state will just enable their ignorance.... Pointing out that individuals are not economically reasonable is not the same as demanding a nanny state.
 
Barbbtx said:
If they got pleasure from owning them, I don't see a problem.
Congrats to the guy who thought of it. Goes to show anyone is capable of getting rich in America if they work hard enough or are creative enough.
BTW, I wonder who thought up selling stars?
Click to expand...

Well, IMO you're just defending and embracing ignorance... and that's a problem.
 
uncleray said:
Nothing wrong with efficiency standards. Let innovation and the market determine the best method of achieving the 30%
increase in efficiency. Once again, Congress IS the problem.
Just my $0.02 (before taxes)
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with not stealing the freedom of choice from people.

So, let's see...in the United States today, or in the near future, some people will have the freedom to murder babies, and no one will have the freedom to use incandescent light bulbs.
 
How can conservatives demand the government be fiscally responsible, when they defend economic agents acting fiscally irresponsible and unreasonable in the free market?

Something isn't right about this picture...

Capitalism in many ways spurs economically rash decisions, wasting money on pleasure as opposed to practicality, and even bad investments. I am not against Capitalism, nor am I demanding a nanny state. However, I think a lot of Conservatives expect unreasonable outcomes of Capitalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom