Your toilet, your light bulbs, and now ... your TV?

[jimpeel]

Oh I will let up soon, but what I can't wrap my mind around, is that how someone who is obviously quite intelligent, can on the one hand say that global warming and stuff is all a myth, but on the other hand debate the finer points of automotive emission controls. As I see it it's hard to have it both ways. Perhaps he has some convincing argument why he can have it both ways, but I sure have not seen it to date.

On both, simply follow the money. The answer will become obvious.

 

[jimpeel]

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to tell me how to use my electricity that I'm paying for. If I want a big-ass TV, and I'm willing to pay the associated energy costs, they should not be able to stop me. Same with the "gas guzzler" tax. If I am willing and able to pay additional fuel costs (and additional fuel taxes), then I should be able to use as much fuel as I want.

And, of course, it all blows up when you realize that emissions, fuel consumption, and energy consumption are all directly dependent on the length of time the product is used for. Laws like this don't take that into account at all. It's really simple math - If I watch my 46" LCD one hour per day, and you watch your 23" LCD that uses half as much electricity for 2.5 hours per day, guess who is using less energy.

All of these schemes just reek of being a way for them to tax the shit out of the middle class even more than they already are. If I like cars, and I can afford to purchase a second car that is not fuel efficient to be able to drive on the weekends or in the summer, and I can afford insurance and gas for it, I shouldn't have to pay an additional tax.

At this point, it's extortion. Mention "health" or "environment" in Congress, and your tax is gonna get approved. You can ban whatever you damn well please, or if you can't outright ban it, you can impose huge taxes on the people that buy it. Gas guzzler tax, tobacco tax, alcohol tax, gas tax - none of that exists to make people healthier, or to reduce the use of fossil fuels. It's because you can make a fuckton of revenue creating taxes like that, so we have more money to piss away on failed corporations and deadbeat losers. And it's hard to oppose something like that, because there are a bunch of "holier-than-thou" fucktards who will make you the bad guy.

Hear, hear!

 

[Professur]

One should have the freedom to choose whatever they want, regardless of the cost of purchase or operation, without constraint. Will we soon be like Britain where you have to pay a tax to own and operate a television set? How much control are you willing to give to the government?

By the way, pollution controls have been ruled by the SCotUS as being the purview of the Congress because of the interstate commerce clause. It seems that because the pollution can traverse across state lines it is "commerce" and is applicable to the interstate commerce clause.

I doubt seriously that they would find the same of large screen TVs.

Nice try, though.

Without constraint? Not a hope in hell, sunshine. I'm all for defending freedoms, but that's talking out your ass. Lead based paint lasts longer and has more brilliant colours. Think they should be allowed back on the market? Asbestos is a wonderful fire retardant material ... think your landlord should be allowed to use it in your walls? Not that long ago, lead was added to cheap wine to make it taste better. The lead spiked wine tasted as good as much more expensive wines .... but there was a hidden cost.

Just like there's a hidden cost in less efficient TVs. And it's not like they're mandating scrapping already sold sets ... just new products.

Have you bought any major appliances recently? I dunno about in your area, but up here, you'd be hard pressed indeed to find an appliance that wasn't energystar compliant. That's fridges, stoves, microwaves, washers, dryers ...airconditioners furnaces ...the full gambit. Frankly, I'd not buy any TV that didn't carry that sticker. If it couldn't pass their standard, just how bad is the quality??? I treat it just like a UL or CSA sticker. Surely you have to agree that having those stickers on an appliance is necessary ... even if it does force the manufacturer to maintain a more costly standard.

 

[Inkara1]

One should have the freedom to choose whatever they want, regardless of the cost of purchase or operation, without constraint. Will we soon be like Britain where you have to pay a tax to own and operate a television set? How much control are you willing to give to the government?

By the way, pollution controls have been ruled by the SCotUS as being the purview of the Congress because of the interstate commerce clause. It seems that because the pollution can traverse across state lines it is "commerce" and is applicable to the interstate commerce clause.

I doubt seriously that they would find the same of large screen TVs.

Nice try, though.

Yet somehow, the fact remains that pollution controls on vehicles add cost to the vehicle and you're forced to pay that cost by the government, just like requiring big-screen TVs to meet higher energy standards adds cost to the TV and you're forced to pay that by the government. I noticed you completely ignored that and argued some other crazy shit, presumably to confuse me into submission. The saying that best describes that is that if you can't wow them with wisdom, baffle them with bullshit.

Britain's TV tax? Irrelevant. Pollution being under the interstate commerce clause? Irrelevant.

Nice try, though.

Want to get out of having to have pollution controls? In California, 1973 and older cars are smog-exempt. Want to get out of paying the higher price for a more energy-efficient TV? Buy a used one (they're readily available on my local craigslist and I would assume yours as well). If you want to buy a new car, you have to pay the extra for the pollution controls, and if you want to buy a new TV, if this passes you'll have to pay the higher price.

So it's obvious to everyone BUT YOU that this is really the same thing as mandated expenses on your car (PCV valve, air bags, tire pressure monitor, catalytic converter, and so on). You're strongly in favor of the government forcing you to spend more money in order to buy a new car, even the cheapest, most basic one, yet you're somehow against the government doing the SAME THING when you buy a luxury TV.

Please quit being stupid and inconsistent. You really give us conservatives a bad name.

Also, it should be noted that Vizio, the second-largest manufacturer of HDTVs and one of the cheaper brands, said it would be happy to meet the new 2013 standards and do it early. Link here. Further, the new standards would add "a few tens of dollars" to the cost... of a TV that costs $2,000, or $4,000, or even more.

 

[spike]

Well said Inkara and Prof.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Surely you have to agree that having those stickers on an appliance is necessary ... even if it does force the manufacturer to maintain a more costly standard.

Actually...I don't think those stickers should be mandatory on the appliance itself. It should be in the owners manual on the first page marked "SAFETY". Thin out the herd a bit...