Thread: Federal Department of Toilets & Light Bulbs

Federal Department of Toilets & Light Bulbs
Posted by Chuck Muth
January 3, 2008 at 10:12 am

How many congressmen does it take to change a light bulb? 400.

That’s how many members of Congress recently voted for a bill to force Americans to change the 50-cent incandescent light bulbs they’re currently using and replace them with expensive new, $3 “energy-efficientâ€

THIS IS BULLSHIT!!!

Seriously......this is a joke.....I saw it from our last "global freeze". ANY excuse for you to spend more money to have nothing done. All for the sake of the environment. What did they do? Changed everything. How many of us had reduce, reuse, recycle ...DRILLED on our heads. So we did.......only to find out now....they changed the compositions to where it's DANGREOUS to put water back into our water bottle. No you can't re-use the plastic dishes our freezer dinners come in. Things that used to last 30 years now last 3. I've learned anything useful, safe and effective will soon be outlawed. Can't have that.....we NEED a disposable nation to keep the money flowing.

I did the "buy re-usable".....get rid of the disposable.....but turn your water to cold....you can't re-use what can't be sterilized.....can't sterilize without HOT water....can't have HOT water unless you use energy......never ending cycle to NOWHERE. There isn't 1 thing they replaced anything with that was BETTER......only more expensive.

Whole thing is a JOKE!!!!!!

Just think of the electricity and water we would save if the border fence was built and illegals were deported.

"We have had a Bush-Clinton crime spree in America that has lasted 27 years and we know it is all about oil, money and power." ~ Keith Olbermann

All I can say is, ain't that some sh%*!

"Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said he thought the light bulb ban was an appropriate exercise of federal power."

This is the same idiot that conspired with Pelosi to get the amneisty bill pushed through congress.

We have illegals and god knows who and what else pouring over our Southern Border and Harry Reid believes passing legislation regarding light bulbs is an "appropriate exercise of federal power."

Our so called leaders can all agree on light bulbs put they cannot agree and come together on legislation that will keep the country safe. This cannot be true. It cannot.

Originally Posted by NoBueno

"Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said he thought the light bulb ban was an appropriate exercise of federal power."

This is the same idiot that conspired with Pelosi to get the amneisty bill pushed through congress.

We have illegals and god knows who and what else pouring over our Southern Border and Harry Reid believes passing legislation regarding light bulbs is an "appropriate exercise of federal power."

Our so called leaders can all agree on light bulbs put they cannot agree and come together on legislation that will keep the country safe. This cannot be true. It cannot.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

INSTEAD OF DOING SOMETHING SILLY AND STUPID LIKE BANNING LIGHT BULBS....WHY DONT THEY PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR AND WIND POWER....

I can tell you they are promoting wind power in Oregon and Washington for sure, and the tax breaks these people are getting to install wind generators is unbelieveable..

Yep, is true (I live in OR).


On a related note... I heard an interview of a NYT (New York Times, [I know ] reporter on an NPR program that had published a book or some other article recently about how corporations/corporate power and reliance and influence on government has intensified in recent years.

Although I am rarely a fan of anything emanating from the NYT, this one reporter sounded reasonable and had some very interesting things to say. He was basically contending that, through ever increasing corporate lobbying and working state/local government for tax breaks, they were able to generate greater [apparent] profits "on paper" (after all, any measure of "profit" and "loss" is ultimately a bunch of numbers recorded on paper/computers/etc)...with the real difference being large tax breaks given by local governments (and, indirectly, of course, by definition paid by local taxpayers) in order to [supposedly necessarily] to woo business investment.

He did a good job in debunking the assumption that such policies yield the favorable results that they claim. Most often, the policy simply boosts the profit level of the business and gives local communities a sour cocktail of: 'higher taxes, more low-paying service jobs, a need for greater infrastructure/health care/law enforcement/etc.

In case anyone here wasn't able to discern, I am not one to believe in corporate welfare

The author's name was either David K Johnston or David Cay Johnston - not sure which (?)