Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
You can't buy a good, inexpensive washing machine anymore. Who should you thank: the Left.

How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

The top-loading washer continues to disappear, thanks to the usual nanny state suspects.


It might not have been the most stylish, but for decades the top-loading laundry machine was the most affordable and dependable. Now it's ruined—and Americans have politics to thank.

In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."

How's that for progress?

The culprit is the federal government's obsession with energy efficiency. Efficiency standards for washing machines aren't as well-known as those for light bulbs, which will effectively prohibit 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year. Nor are they the butt of jokes as low-flow toilets are. But in their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.

The federal government first issued energy standards for washers in the early 1990s. When the Department of Energy ratcheted them up a decade later, it was the beginning of the end for top-loaders. Their costlier and harder-to-use rivals—front-loading washing machines—were poised to dominate.

Front-loaders meet federal standards more easily than top-loaders. Because they don't fully immerse their laundry loads, they use less hot water and therefore less energy. But, as Americans are increasingly learning, front-loaders are expensive, often have mold problems, and don't let you toss in a wayward sock after they've started.

When the Department of Energy began raising the standard, it promised that "consumers will have the same range of clothes washers as they have today," and cleaning ability wouldn't be changed. That's not how it turned out.

In 2007, after the more stringent rules had kicked in, Consumer Reports noted that some top-loaders were leaving its test swatches "nearly as dirty as they were before washing." "For the first time in years," CR said, "we can't call any washer a Best Buy." Contrast that with the magazine's 1996 report that, "given warm enough water and a good detergent, any washing machine will get clothes clean." Those were the good old days.

In 2007, only one conventional top-loader was rated "very good." Front-loaders did better, as did a new type of high-efficiency top-loader that lacks a central agitator. But even though these newer types of washers cost about twice as much as conventional top-loaders, overall they didn't clean as well as the 1996 models.

The situation got so bad that the Competitive Enterprise Institute started a YouTube protest campaign, "Send Your Underwear to the Undersecretary." With the click of a mouse, you could email your choice of virtual bloomers, boxers or Underoos to the Department of Energy. Several hundred Americans did so, but it wasn't enough to stop Congress from mandating even stronger standards a few months later.

Now Congress is at it once again. On March 10, the Senate Energy Committee held hearings on a bill to make efficiency standards even more stringent. The bill claims to implement "national consensus appliance agreements," but those in this consensus are the usual suspects: politicians pushing feel-good generalities, bureaucrats seeking expanded powers, environmentalists with little regard for American pocketbooks, and industries that stand to profit from a de facto ban on low-priced appliances. And there are green tax goodies for manufacturing high-efficiency models—the kind that already give so many tax credits to Whirlpool, for example, that the company will avoid paying taxes on its $619 million profit in 2010.

Amazingly, the consensus also includes so-called consumer groups such as the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union. At last week's hearing, the federation touted a survey supposedly showing overwhelming public support for higher efficiency standards. But not a single question in that survey suggested that these standards might compromise performance. Consumers Union, meanwhile, which publishes Consumer Reports, claims that new washers can't be compared to old ones—but that's belied by the very language in its articles.

We know that politics can be dirty. Who'd have guessed how literal a truth this is?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6202212717670514.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,075 Posts
I have challenged my liberal friends to name one policy, one program, that has been rammed down America's throat in the past 80 years by democrats/socialists that did not have a profound negative affect, be it social, economic, military, whatever, on this Republic.

So far, over the past 10 years or so, no one has been able to do so, without fabricating lies and mis-information.

The main problem facing this nation today is political correctness. No one will stand up and speak the truth.

Democrats lie, spin and manufacture facts to suit their agenda. And the Republicans don't have the balls to call them out.

After the November election, I was inspired that perhaps some new blood was going to invade Washington. New warriors for conservatism and America.

However, after less that 3 months in the Capitol, I fear they, too, have contracted the disease.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,241 Posts
:laughing: Why would the pot, bother to call the kettle black?
:agree:

We need them all out, but at this point elections won't accomplish anything. The puppet masters (big special intrests funding the elections) will be there. The overturning of McCain-Feingold doomed us. Doomed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
I have challenged my liberal friends to name one policy, one program, that has been rammed down America's throat in the past 80 years by democrats/socialists that did not have a profound negative affect, be it social, economic, military, whatever, on this Republic.

So far, over the past 10 years or so, no one has been able to do so, without fabricating lies and mis-information.

The main problem facing this nation today is political correctness. No one will stand up and speak the truth.

Democrats lie, spin and manufacture facts to suit their agenda. And the Republicans don't have the balls to call them out.

After the November election, I was inspired that perhaps some new blood was going to invade Washington. New warriors for conservatism and America.

However, after less that 3 months in the Capitol, I fear they, too, have contracted the disease.

The civil rights movement? Clean air act? Social security? To name a few.

What have conservatives done over that time frame which has had the opposite effect?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
The civil rights movement? Clean air act? Social security? To name a few.

What have conservatives done over that time frame which has had the opposite effect?
All have good and bad points. Some started out good and took a wrong turn. Civil rights movement? It was necessary and accomplished a lot of good. But it went too far with Affirmative Action until the whole concept had a bad name. Clean air act? Probably the number one reason for America's loss of manufacturing. It took a scorched earth policy. Corporations were forced to spend billions that their foreign competitors didn't or go overseas. Don't blame Republicans for the lack of good manufacturing jobs here. Blame the environmentalists. Social Security? I won't try to list all of the problems because there are too many. Suffice it to say, it does do some good things, but it's biggest flaw is that it will not be able to support itself in the future, so many people will pay into the system and get nothing out when it's their turn to be on the receiving end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The civil rights movement? Clean air act? Social security? To name a few.

What have conservatives done over that time frame which has had the opposite effect?

Any others ? Tex already put those to bed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I don't know anything about the Peace Corps. What does it have to do with the article ? More importantly... what does it have to do with the title of the article ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
How about the Peace Corps?

Now answer Double Take's question.
I'm not sure the Dems can take all of the credit for the Peace Corps. In the post WWII era, the U.S. was on a "Save the World" binge. We were helping everyone everywhere. The Peace Corps came out of that. I won't say anything bad about the Peace Corps, but it is a shadow of what it once was. Part of the reason for that is that there are fewer and fewer places where you can send your young people and expect them to be safe for a long period of time.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
The civil rights movement? Clean air act? Social security? To name a few.
What exactly did the civil rights movement give anyone, that they did not already have? Preferential treatment. All you gotta do is apply for a job, and be the wrong color to find out what it did for you. Or better yet, try being a straight male, getting bullied. Now, if your gay, your have preferential treatment by the DOJ, or if your a certain skin color, you have preferential treatment by the DOJ. The means to correct the problems were already in place. Oh, and before you or anyone else starts flaming me.. look at the most recent example, voter intimidation, the black panthers did not get charged because they weren't white. Simple as that. Evidence was videotaped, and very clear on what was happening.

Social Security. Are you serious? :laughing: The biggest ponzi scheme in history, and that's a good thing? :lookinup:

What have conservatives done over that time frame which has had the opposite effect?
Ahh, now your seeing the light. Everything the federal government needs to do, and is authorized to do is spelled out in the constitution. Need it updated? The founders gave us the amendment process..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
769 Posts
I don't know anything about the Peace Corps. What does it have to do with the article ? More importantly... what does it have to do with the title of the article ?
It was in response to PredatorC6's question, and a follow-up to Double_Take's contribution.

Pay attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Since we are all paying attention... did you catch the part about "almost" ? Fine... we'll give you one. OK ? Anything else you can think of that the left has actually made a contribution to, after the fact, that is better for it ? -Now that we are all paying attention to what the article was actually espousing ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,516 Posts
I'm not sure the Dems can take all of the credit for the Peace Corps. In the post WWII era, the U.S. was on a "Save the World" binge. We were helping everyone everywhere. The Peace Corps came out of that. I won't say anything bad about the Peace Corps, but it is a shadow of what it once was. Part of the reason for that is that there are fewer and fewer places where you can send your young people and expect them to be safe for a long period of time.
Thats one thing I hate about The USA

They give too much time to Charity work around the world at Americans Expense


By doing this they take their attention off of the USA :WTF

Like they are doing now:nuts:

This is not serving the People of America At All !

This is serving Political agenda's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
All have good and bad points. Some started out good and took a wrong turn. Civil rights movement? It was necessary and accomplished a lot of good. But it went too far with Affirmative Action until the whole concept had a bad name. Clean air act? Probably the number one reason for America's loss of manufacturing. It took a scorched earth policy. Corporations were forced to spend billions that their foreign competitors didn't or go overseas. Don't blame Republicans for the lack of good manufacturing jobs here. Blame the environmentalists. Social Security? I won't try to list all of the problems because there are too many. Suffice it to say, it does do some good things, but it's biggest flaw is that it will not be able to support itself in the future, so many people will pay into the system and get nothing out when it's their turn to be on the receiving end.
In summary, the civil rights movement was a positive thing created by the left. Affirmative action was a bad idea. It is possible to have civil rights without affirmative action, therefore they are seperate ideas and should be treated as such.

The clean air act is more complicated. Without it you argue we would have more domestic jobs, but at what cost? Have you seen the major Chinese cities? Pollution and disease is terrible. Let me put it another way. What responsibility does the government have to protect me? Its illegal for my neighbor to walk into my house and shoot me. What if he had an asbestos tile fire every night to warm his house and all the fumes came into my house eventually causing serious health problems or death for my entire family? If someone or some company wants to work in the US they must be conscientious who they are harming. There is hard evidence that pollution causes diseases and death, so dont treat this as some global warming "unproven theory" counterargument. Why is it ok for the government to fight in foreign countries in the name of my safety when I am being harmed here at home? Free trade is a more direct cause of the export of jobs.

The only argument I have heard against social security is that Im paying into it now, but wont get anything in the future. We have 25 years until SS cant provide 100% coverage. You dont mention an actual current negative social or economic impact.

What exactly did the civil rights movement give anyone, that they did not already have? Preferential treatment. All you gotta do is apply for a job, and be the wrong color to find out what it did for you. Or better yet, try being a straight male, getting bullied. Now, if your gay, your have preferential treatment by the DOJ, or if your a certain skin color, you have preferential treatment by the DOJ. The means to correct the problems were already in place. Oh, and before you or anyone else starts flaming me.. look at the most recent example, voter intimidation, the black panthers did not get charged because they weren't white. Simple as that. Evidence was videotaped, and very clear on what was happening.

Social Security. Are you serious? :laughing: The biggest ponzi scheme in history, and that's a good thing? :lookinup:



Ahh, now your seeing the light. Everything the federal government needs to do, and is authorized to do is spelled out in the constitution. Need it updated? The founders gave us the amendment process..

The civil rights movement gave an entire group of people a chance. Not in the from of affirmative action, but in the form of an equal quality education and equal status as a citizen. If you dont understand those profound positive impacts then I dont know what to tell you. Go ahead and post some links discussing the pre vs post SS implimentation and the social/financial impacts. Yes it is a tax impossed by the government, but its impacts help the US immensly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
What positive reforms have conservatives done over the last 80 years?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
In summary, the civil rights movement was a positive thing created by the left. Affirmative action was a bad idea. It is possible to have civil rights without affirmative action, therefore they are seperate ideas and should be treated as such.
The civil rights act gave no one anything, they didn't already have under the constitution, except preferential treatment.

The civil rights movement gave an entire group of people a chance. Not in the from of affirmative action, but in the form of an equal quality education and equal status as a citizen. If you dont understand those profound positive impacts then I dont know what to tell you. Go ahead and post some links discussing the pre vs post SS implimentation and the social/financial impacts. Yes it is a tax impossed by the government, but its impacts help the US immensly.
The civil rights act gave no one anything, they didn't already have under the constitution, except preferential treatment.

SS is nothing but a ponzi scheme, people are in jail for smaller versions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Civil rights ? -since you seem to think that was a left "win"... look up who signed it in to law. Then, look up to see what the left did with the law once it was passed by a republican (as was virtually every major right concerning civil liberties).

It would be a lot easier to state what that right has ruined by there contributions, after the fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
The civil rights act gave no one anything, they didn't already have under the constitution, except preferential treatment.
This is what was meant by "contributions after the fact".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Civil rights ? -since you seem to think that was a left "win"... look up who signed it in to law. Then, look up to see what the left did with the law once it was passed by a republican (as was virtually every major right concerning civil liberties).

It would be a lot easier to state what that right has ruined by there contributions, after the fact.
You are getting your political leanings all messed up. The left, the more progressive side of the spectrum passed the law. A lot has changed with the parties since then. For example Strom Thurmond

Thurmond later represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and after 1964 as a Republican. He switched so he could support Goldwater's conservatism and because of their shared opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act
Conservatives opposed the Civil Rights act. The left fought for it. Lets not use R and D because at that time in history R and D ment different things.

The civil rights act gave no one anything, they didn't already have under the constitution, except preferential treatment.

The civil rights act gave no one anything, they didn't already have under the constitution, except preferential treatment.

SS is nothing but a ponzi scheme, people are in jail for smaller versions.
So what did MLK fight for?
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top