In order to meet the demand to save energy the US government will be
adding a tax to the price of all lightbulbs, effective January 1,
2008. All bulbs will be charged one dollar per watt tax. Thus the
price of a 100 watt bulb will be about $101.00 (the one dollar is the
cost of the bulb itself). This tax will also be added to all
electrical appliances, tools, motors and other equipment. For
example, a toaster which generally draws 1250 watts will have a tax of
$1250 added to the price of the toaster. An electric range could cost
as much as $55,000. You will be required to pay this tax upon
purchase. As of 2010, all homes will be inspected and all remaining
and existing appliances and lights will also be taxed at the same rate
You may say that in jest, but a U.S. Senator from New York admitted we have
a 200-year supply of guns, but only a ten-year supply of ammunition.
Obviously, then, the way to attack the "gun problem" is to tax the
ammunition out of existence.
What happened to the America I grew up in? Something needs
to change. I hope you people are paying attention out there.
We take freedom for granted, but it's not a right, it must be earned
and defended. I'm not talking about Iraq, who knows if that's the
right or wrong way to go, I'm talking about those dimwits in congress
and sitting on the bench.
Don't get me started.
Oh, too late.
lol, of course not. Because that's not how it happens. The reality
is our freedoms are eroded much slower than that; at a pace we hardly
I was taking the opportunity of this obviously exaggerated claim
to point out that if if did happen all at once it would be outrageous
and no one would stand for it. A tax on non-CF bulbs out of the
question? I don't think so. Tax policy is used to mold society
as our 'leaders' see fit. That is not their job, and that is not
You are right about not feeding the trolls, however.
As our children and grandchildren grow up under these restrictions, they
think it is normal and they may add even more.
Look at the number or government employees per private worker and how that
has changed. Look at the number of people paying taxes versus the number
collecting some sort of government check or aid. Look at the number of
boneheads on the House of Representatives and how that has grown.
We should consolidate some of the states and lower the number of people in
Washington. From 50 states, we could whittle it down to about 25 or so.
Like join Nebraska and the Dakotas together and dump four senators. One
Carolina and two more senators are out of work. You get the idea.
The House grows according to population;seems proper.
you want to cut government size,get rid of gov't programs that gov't is
*not supposed to be doing*,like Social Security,Welfare,various other
social programs.THAT is where the gov't sticks its nose into people's
what about states like Texas and California that are big and populous
enough for TWO states? Split 'em up?
What we need is TERM LIMITs,so that Congresscritters don't spend their
entire working lives there.
That's when they start thinking they are "elites",different and better than
the rest of us. They don't have to follow the laws like the rest of us
do. They lose touch with reality,too.
The job was never meant to be a lifelong career.
You know, I don't even mind the 'safety net' of welfare. I do
mind when the safety net becomes a hammock though.
I see 40% of the population that will blindly vote for anyone that
will promise them free stuff, and that number is growing fast.
Left as it is I don.t see any hope for change. It's going to take a
series of 9/11's or WWIII to get the USA out of this socialist spiral,
which, of course, is not how I would like to see the change come about.
Well we are far away from socialistic system however we are on
the road to it.
When such as NJ treasury department penalizes victims because
of some Corporation commit fraud what more can we aspect
The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says "The
Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."
Congress regularly increased the size of the House after the census to
account for growth but fixed the size of the House at 435 seats in 1911.
While theoretically could revoke/revise that law, since then all that
has been done is to reapportion seats based on relative populations
after the official census.
I believe you are wrong in that.
I find no Amendment near that date that modifies Article I,Section 2.3.
It was modified by the 14th Amendment(in 1868),but not in the manner you
Cites Reapportionment Acts of 1929 and 1941,but since these are not proper
Constitutional amendments,IMO;the Reapportionment Acts are
*unconstitutional*. I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing
Congress to alter what is set in the Constitution -without- amending it.
Interesting,the government is not following the Constitution.(no big
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 mentions an Act of
1911,but no link to it.
http://www.house.gov/fattah/features/faq.htm mentions 1913 for fixing the
number of Reps.(but no links)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5 mentions a change in 1911.
I don't see how this law is Constitutional,either.No Public Law can go
against what the Constitution authorizes,unless the Constitution is
amended,and there's a specific procedure for that.
My guess would probably be some sort of a nod to 1 S8 18 that says
Congress has the right to make all laws necessary and proper to carry
out their duties under constitution. ALthough I would suppose that the
Courts would say the specific trumps the nebulous. But I could be wrong.
Interestingly, I don't see any references to any court cases on these
subjects. Everybody seems to be studiously ignoring them.
What, specifically, do you think wrong?
I didn't say there was an Amendment. AFAIK, the number has been 435
since 1911 except for a short period after the addition of AK and HI to
which it then reverted. The fix of the number was, I believe by a
legislative act. It is possible it actually is a House Rule as opposed
to Federal law, I don't recall; I'm going on what I remember from HS
Government which is almost that long ago itself, by now. :)
The real point I was making is that the size of the House doesn't change
after every Census, only reapportionment as necessary.
Whichever mechanism it was, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court which is the arbitrating authority for such questions.
One would presume in the nearly 100 years subsequent if there were much
doubt of how a ruling would come down there would have been a case filed.
From a practical matter, it's unlikely the founders considered the
possibility of 300 million in population in the calculation of any size
growth and a consequent essentially unlimited growth in the size of the
I haven't been able to find any cases on that. Could be like the War
Powers Act, which hasn't been tested in court either, where my theory is
that nobody WANTS to know if it legal. One side in case it isn't and the
other side in case it is.
Yeah. I doubt that the founders would have liked a 10,000 member
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.