Yes, when it comes to light bulbs, cheap usually = short life.
A suggestion: Use Energy Star CFLs. They go through 3rd. party testing for life and carry a warranty backed up by Energy Star. If a bulb fails early, it has to be replaced at no charge. Keep the bulb carton so you have the
800 number to call for a replacement.Tomsic
"Robert Green" wrote in news:jdd1h4$ruf$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
That statemen used to be valid for some halogen lights, like slide projector bulbs. It was because the "glass" was pure quartz, and the oils of fingerprints would burn and damage the quartz. To be handle with a tissue or the like.
They're not really free at all. If you investigate closely, you'll find that the power company boosted your electrical bill by much more than the amount it took to pay for the "free bulb" distribution program. Usually, customers end up paying full list cost for the bulbs but they don't know. You didn't really think they were free, did you?
They're certainly not free. The only issue is how much less than free they really are. That's a number that's going to be hard to find because it's been buried so deep.
-- Bobby G.
This disparity of wealth has happened in society after society. Even our own. Sometimes the results are very, very bad for the very, very wealthy. In the long run, they are the very few against the very many. The massive failure of the free (for all) market in 1929 seriously amplified the interest in communism in this country. It also led to a great deal of socially-oriented legislation like Social Security. That cycle could easily repeat itself and it appears to be doing so as we speak.
The right-wingers are quick to say that it was government regulation that caused the 2008 crash but that fails to explain why the crash of 1929 occurred when there was none of this allegedly excess regulation. The more likely explanation is that capitalism has some serious defects that business doesn't seem able to correct without help from the government, whom they run to with their hands out like starving street urchins when things go wrong.
I think what disturbs me most about the strident voices on the right is that for all the talk about exporting democracy and the rule of law, they're working *very* hard to effectively reverse the election of 2008. If you can't abide by the outcome of a national vote, what kind of respect can you really have for the Constitution and the rule of law? It wasn't until just recently that I heard some seriously un-American gasbags declare they were dedicated to seeing the President of the United States fail. They don't realize how repugnant that sounds to people who respect the office, no matter who holds it. The "we lost but we're working hard to make sure the winners can't function" is pretty much the definition of a sore loser and that's a quality I've associated with spoiled brats, not real Americans.
-- Bobby G.
On 12/28/2011 7:53 AM, Robert Green wrote: ...
...
All of which is simply another demonstration of why the idea of mandates is so silly...when the cost becomes burdensome to the consumer, they'll figure out how to conserve on their own and such shenanigans won't be needed.
--
When you turn a wing nut to the left, things loosen up, the wing nut comes off and everything falls apart. When you turn a wing nut to the right, it tightens up holding everything together but if you wind it too tight, the bolt will snap off and everything falls apart. The best way is to turn the wing nut to the right until it reaches the proper torque so you don't damage the bolt and everything stays together. ^_^
A repairman's guide to society, 12-28-11
TDD
Daring,
Excellent.
You've managed to finally bring all this home repair politics into on-topic range and make a decent point while you are at it.
The Daring Dufas wrote in news:jdfd6i$sn9$1 @dont-email.me:
In other words, the extremes don't work, the balance lies somewhere in the middle. My version is to have both fiscal responsibility, and social safety nets.
But, as always on usenet, YMMV.
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in news:nXGKq.38720$ snipped-for-privacy@news.usenetserver.com:
Not sure, a truly free market should also take into account social and environmental costs. Anyway, there should not be an oil depletion allowance.
You mean if oil companies weren't given subsidies and tax write offs for drilling, they'd drill even more wells and the act of drilling would produce oil even if it wasn't in the ground?
The Communists proved what ideology is worth.
Then the tail end of your blatant assumption is that more energy at lower prices is a good thing. I assume that it's a good thing regardless of the environmental damage caused. The evil government looks at coastlines and says, hey people swim here, motel owners make their livings based on clean beaches. Maybe this is one of those areas we need not exploit until we really need to.
I'm telling you, this ideology crap is dangerous. Learn that there are 2 sides to every argument and that decisions must be balanced. Try to see both sides before coming to a conclusion.
Don't look now but the bolt is about ready to fall off.
Let's hope it gets tightened up again reel soon. ^_^
TDD
Well, since you're being absurd, you sure help make my point. Thank you.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
You mean if oil companies weren't given subsidies and tax write offs for drilling, they'd drill even more wells and the act of drilling would produce oil even if it wasn't in the ground?
The Communists proved what ideology is worth.
Then the tail end of your blatant assumption is that more energy at lower prices is a good thing. I assume that it's a good thing regardless of the environmental damage caused. The evil government looks at coastlines and says, hey people swim here, motel owners make their livings based on clean beaches. Maybe this is one of those areas we need not exploit until we really need to.
I'm telling you, this ideology crap is dangerous. Learn that there are 2 sides to every argument and that decisions must be balanced. Try to see both sides before coming to a conclusion.
The Daring Dufas wrote in news:jdfmvs$q4r$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Let's see. I believe we're finally winding down a war or two that cost not only lives and made incomplete humans of a lot of wounded people, but also cost a lot of money. Whether or not the war was really necessary is open to debate, but until the "surge" in Iraq, it wasn't going too well. Whether our disengagement now will leave Iraq stable or not is something we'll see soon enough - hopefully the different tribes there will learn to live together peaceably.
During that time of extra expenditures, incomes to the governments was rather drastically cut, helping a false boom in financial products (much fraudulent) and housing (often fraudulent by either or both sides of the financing deals).
I also hope that things get tightened up again real soon. Both ends of the financing should contribute - expenditures and taxes.
As always, the above is a personal opinion, and I recognize some may have different ones.
I read this morning about the trouble Israel is having with the super-ultra-orthodox Jews who've been spitting on an am orthodox 8 year old girl walking to school for not dressing according to their strict code.
Somewhere in the past 30 years or so, loonies and extremists began to exert disproportionate force on the rest of society. I am not sure what the cure is, other than saying if you want to be a loon, get a large compound to contain your looniness. Unfortunately, as David Koresh proved, even that's not a viable solution.
Now, we're locked in a battle over oil and sanctions that smells very much like the issues we had with Japan that some say was the root cause of WWII in the Pacific. It seems that the players for WW Three are already starting to line up. )-:
-- Bobby G.
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@cs7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
Let's see. from :
Year Receipts Outlays in current dollars
George HW Bush
1989 991.1 1,143.7 1990 1,032.0 1,253.0 1991 1,055.0 1,324.2 1992 1,091.2 1,381.5 Clinton 1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 1995 1,351.8 1,515.8 1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 George W Bush 2001 1,991.1 1,862.9 2002 1,853.1 2,010.9 2003 1,782.3 2,159.9 2004 1,880.1 2,292.9 2005 2,153.6 2,472.0 2006 2,406.9 2,655.1 2007 2,568.0 2,728.7 2008 2,524.0 2,982.5 Obama 2009 2,105.0 3,517.7 2010 2,162.7 3,456.2I think you're right, outlays are generally NOT in balance with receipts, except for a few Clinton years. So how are we going to fix this? Deeper recessions, or some stimulus, with some of the better off people contributing a little more?
Yes, it IS INDEED my old refrain. If this Christmas season was better than the last 4 or so previous ones, it was because the middle class was spending.
snipped-for-privacy@cs7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
I see, you're now going to just weasel away instead of admit that what you posted was flat out wrong. You tried to once again link the current deficit and debt problems to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and claimed that govt revenue was drastically reduced during that period, presumably by the Bush tax cuts. I showed you how revenue not only did not decline from 2003 until
2007 when those tax cuts were in effect, but actually grew 40%. The deficit was steadily declining and was down to $160bil in 2007. Conversely, SPENDING has risen by 40% in just four short years, from 2007 to 2011. Geeze, will you libs never learn?You didn't answer my question. Is that how you'd run your household? Spending is up 40% in just 4 years, the family is racking up debt and can't make ends meet. Would you not immediately come up with a plan to cut that spending? Or would you sit around and piss and moan that the real problem is daddy needs to work harder, get another job and until he agrees to do that, you won't cut a dime in spending?
And trying to link the cause of the subprime fiasco and recession to a decline in govt revenue that never occured. How ridiculous and sad.
Been there, done that. We had a huge stimulus package. Unfortunately it didn't achieve much because it was the govt spending money. A lot of it went to bridges to nowhere and the likes of Solyndra. Now with a $15tril national debt, you want MORE of it? No, wait, make that $16tril because that is the new debt ceiling Obama is now seeking.
And I don't understand the false choice offered in your proposition of either deeper recessins or some stimulus. You think the joke of a cut in the social security tax of two months is stimulus that is going to actually do something?
Which has nothing much to do with anything.
ilouts req'd outlays now >
The lie repeated. Let's start with the facts, shall we? The stock market peaked and began it's crash in spring
2000. That signaled the recession that started the next year. Faced with a recession and the impact of 911, Bush cut taxes. And it worked. The recession ended and the economy grew. Despite the two wars, the deficit was steadily declining, even as spending increased. By 2007, the deficit was down to $160bil. If that is Soooo bad, what the hell do you libs say about $1.6tril? That's right, the deficit right now is 10x what it was in 2007.
What would you libs have done after 911? Send a cake? And once again, Monday morning quaterbacking is real sweet ain't it? No need to make decisions to protect the country in the face of uncertain threats in an imperfect world. You just sit back, wait for events to unfold and then piss and moan, knowing now what worked and what didn't work.
The lie repeated. The deficit in 2002 was $158bil. The deficit in 2007 was $160bil. Lockstep? I think not.
Obama's spending is not just higher, it's exploded. The federal govt is spending 40% more in 2011 than it did in 2007. How much longer is Obama gonna try to claim that it's all Bush's fault? Did you see Reagan running around the country bitching about how God awful everything was that Carter left him? And why did he have to approve paying higher salaries at TSA? Hmmm? Maybe they should have taken a pay CUT instead, just like civilian employees have to do if their employer falls on hard times. Here's what's really going on:
And trying to throw the medical care for vets of the recent wars in there is pathetic. In the universe of a $1.6tril deficit, it doesn't even register.
-snip-
Are you adjusting for inflation or something? The DOW got close to
12K in 1999. It jumped in the 10-11.5 range until after 9/11/2001 when it dipped below 8k.Then it was artificially inflated to 14K by 2007-- and crashed to less than 1/2 of that in 2008-9.
Jim
" snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@y7g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
Of course, when taxes go down, and there is an artificial inflation of the economy based on fraud, revenues can go up. But not really enough to account for the wars. As you could see, during the Clinton years there was a few years of surplus. If you claim that was because of the dotcom bubble, then the slight narrowing of the gap between revenue and outlay during the Bush years was also because of the false housing bubble. Let's make the same assumptions now, please. I will still maintain that it is better to have a few billionaires pay more tax than the man in the street.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.