This whole Administration is better suited for the USSR circa 1945:
In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Chu said the more-efficient
bulbs required would save consumers money over the life of the product,
even if the up-front price is higher.
"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said.
----------
Ah, that's right, it is for the common good!
Remember, liberals are all for "privacy" and "freedom," just ask them...
This whole Administration is better suited for the USSR circa 1945:
In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Chu said the more-efficient
bulbs required would save consumers money over the life of the product,
even if the up-front price is higher.
"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said.
----------
Ah, that's right, it is for the common good!
Remember, liberals are all for "privacy" and "freedom," just ask them...
I have LED lighting of varying intensity in all of my outside flood lights. I paid @ $50 for each bulb and thought it was rather expensive. The reason I switched over was because Mike "Make It Right" Holmes did an episode and he installed LED lighting in some outside stairs for an older woman and he stated LED lights don't get hot and will not attract bugs. I live on a lake and there are zillions of bugs and over the last 2 years the bat population has taken a nose dive because of some virus. Less bats = more bugs. I can honestly say I'm not seeing many bugs so I'm glad I bought them. Also the upfront cost is expensive but my electric bill has also decreased so I can't really argue with that.
Here's a story my buddy told me though and this is not good...He put one of his friends up in a hotel for the night. During his stay the guy broke 2 lamps (he was drunk). The hotel billed my buddies credit card $1500....the amout to clean up the broken bulbs....they were the CFL type. Now that is absurd and what happens when that type of bulb no longer works? You just can't throw them in the trash because they contain mercury....you're actually supposed to call the HazMat team to remove them from the light. That's just crazy!!
I have LED lighting of varying intensity in all of my outside flood lights. I paid @ $50 for each bulb and thought it was rather expensive. The reason I switched over was because Mike "Make It Right" Holmes did an episode and he installed LED lighting in some outside stairs for an older woman and he stated LED lights don't get hot and will not attract bugs. I live on a lake and there are zillions of bugs and over the last 2 years the bat population has taken a nose dive because of some virus. Less bats = more bugs. I can honestly say I'm not seeing many bugs so I'm glad I bought them. Also the upfront cost is expensive but my electric bill has also decreased so I can't really argue with that.
Here's a story my buddy told me though and this is not good...He put one of his friends up in a hotel for the night. During his stay the guy broke 2 lamps (he was drunk). The hotel billed my buddies credit card $1500....the amout to clean up the broken bulbs....they were the CFL type. Now that is absurd and what happens when that type of bulb no longer works? You just can't throw them in the trash because they contain mercury....you're actually supposed to call the HazMat team to remove them from the light. That's just crazy!!
GE is going to be the biggest beneficiary of the new laws that mandate that you have to have a certain type of lightbulb. When the Energy star appliances and lo flow (non working) toilets get mandated, GE will also garner a lion's share of the new business.
Taking away the ability for the consumer to make the decision of what products they can spend their money on is about par for the course when it comes to the liberty hating administrations of current history.
GE is going to be the biggest beneficiary of the new laws that mandate that you have to have a certain type of lightbulb. When the Energy star appliances and lo flow (non working) toilets get mandated, GE will also garner a lion's share of the new business.
Taking away the ability for the consumer to make the decision of what products they can spend their money on is about par for the course when it comes to the liberty hating administrations of current history.
This whole Administration is better suited for the USSR circa 1945:
In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Chu said the more-efficient
bulbs required would save consumers money over the life of the product,
even if the up-front price is higher.
"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said.
----------
Ah, that's right, it is for the common good!
Remember, liberals are all for "privacy" and "freedom," just ask them...
Compare this to 1930s Germany instead not Marxism it's Fascism taking over.
This whole Administration is better suited for the USSR circa 1945:
In a conference call with reporters, Mr. Chu said the more-efficient
bulbs required would save consumers money over the life of the product,
even if the up-front price is higher.
"We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money," he said.
----------
Ah, that's right, it is for the common good!
Remember, liberals are all for "privacy" and "freedom," just ask them...
Compare this to 1930s Germany instead not Marxism it's Fascism taking over.
Government hacks always know best. "We are taking away a choice that wastes their own money", from someone that works for a government that's $14.7T in debt and needs more.
Sure Chu, how about cleaning up your own house before you start concerning yourself with my purchases.
Just wondering who will make the biggest scores on this light-bulb scam - GE?
Government hacks always know best. "We are taking away a choice that wastes their own money", from someone that works for a government that's $14.7T in debt and needs more.
Sure Chu, how about cleaning up your own house before you start concerning yourself with my purchases.
Just wondering who will make the biggest scores on this light-bulb scam - GE?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.