Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I dont have an issue with this. It installs actual products, someone had to be paid to do the install.
This type of "green" technology is actually useful. It reduces energy consumption, which even if you are skeptical of the whole global warming thing (I am) is a good thing.
I dont have an issue with this. It installs actual products, someone had to be paid to do the install.
This type of "green" technology is actually useful. It reduces energy consumption, which even if you are skeptical of the whole global warming thing (I am) is a good thing.
I have to agree, although I did not read the article. Someone had to install those lights and that someone had to buy those fixtures from someone else and that someone else employs people like you and me.
I'm sure the same thing can be said for other pork projects, but in this case, the money does actually filter out into the economy and hopefully it did not go through too many lobbyists hands before it got to the general public.
Immie
Pelosi is like an irritating case of the clap that just won't go away...
Not just Pelosi, although she is particularly obnoxious, but all politicians - both sides - are like an STD.
I like that the left think it's because she's a Democrat that I disapprove.I just laugh at their inability to stop spending money - any of them..... GOP, Dem.... all the fucking same. $140k while ordinary Americans are losing their homes.... charming.
Are LED lights similar in 'color' to fluorescent lights? I hate fluorescent lights and refuse to use those freakin swirly bulbs. We bought two for our basement (mixed in w/ two regular lights) and I had to take them out . . they drive me batty.
Absolutely not. LED lighting is the wave of the future. Much less power consumption. Longer life span, plus they give off "true" light as opposed to those "swirly bulbs".
No recession as far as the government is concerned... I mean why do they care care how much things cost, they will just raise taxes or borrow more money.... $140,000....WTF???????
I think their pay should be based on their approval ratings!
CNSNews.com - Pelosi Calls Press Conference to Unveil $140,000 Light Fixtures in House Cafeteria
I'd like to stuff a rag in Pelosi's mouth and then beat her senseless. This woman is a loon who should never be allowed anywhere near a reporter. And I LIKE Obama.
"Green the Capitol"? Did no one bother to point out to her this has two possible meanings?
Pelosi...she makes Palin look media-savvy......
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omxQuDtF1ZM&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Left-Wing Nut Pelosi Attacks American Families and their Babies[/ame]
One of my life's ambitions is to dance on that bitches grave. Being substantially younger than her - God Willing - I will be able to fulfill that ambition.
i hear people say it will save the us taxpayer money.... So how much this will save the us taxpayer??????? Anyone?
$140,000.01
Wrong
It saves us nothing in the next 10 years.. and puts us more into debt in a period of record wasteful government spending
I'd like to stuff a rag in Pelosi's mouth and then beat her senseless. This woman is a loon who should never be allowed anywhere near a reporter. And I LIKE Obama.
"Green the Capitol"? Did no one bother to point out to her this has two possible meanings?
Pelosi...she makes Palin look media-savvy......
YouTube - Left-Wing Nut Pelosi Attacks American Families and their Babies
One of my life's ambitions is to dance on that bitches grave. Being substantially younger than her - God Willing - I will be able to fulfill that ambition.
Do you actually expect to be able to get on it it?
Knowing her arrogance, I suspect it will dwarf Lincoln's tomb.
Lincoln Tomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Immie
$140,000.01
Wrong
It saves us nothing in the next 10 years.. and puts us more into debt in a period of record wasteful government spending
IF we knew the KW of the existing light fixtures, versus the KW ratings of the fixtures put in, as well as run times of the fixtures, KW consumption could be calculated. From there, you would need to know what rate scale this aprticular building is being charged by the local electrical company. From there, a savings calculation can be made. The beautiful thing about projects like this is that the government "probably" did not spend $140,000.00 up front as the savings in KW consumption pay for the installation over the 10 year period. And once the payback period is over, those savings can be used for other things.
Wrong
It saves us nothing in the next 10 years.. and puts us more into debt in a period of record wasteful government spending
IF we knew the KW of the existing light fixtures, versus the KW ratings of the fixtures put in, as well as run times of the fixtures, KW consumption could be calculated. From there, you would need to know what rate scale this aprticular building is being charged by the local electrical company. From there, a savings calculation can be made. The beautiful thing about projects like this is that the government "probably" did not spend $140,000.00 up front as the savings in KW consumption pay for the installation over the 10 year period. And once the payback period is over, those savings can be used for other things.
After that period they are only expenditures and the budget adjusted DOWNWARD accordingly....
Lest we not forget, as I said, that this is extra spending... and not being taken from a wasteful area... and not being taken from the existing upkeep and improvement budget that already exists for government buildings and properties... this is indeed wasteful spending for a political point to the environazis
I dont have an issue with this. It installs actual products, someone had to be paid to do the install.
This type of "green" technology is actually useful. It reduces energy consumption, which even if you are skeptical of the whole global warming thing (I am) is a good thing.
I have to agree, although I did not read the article. Someone had to install those lights and that someone had to buy those fixtures from someone else and that someone else employs people like you and me.
I'm sure the same thing can be said for other pork projects, but in this case, the money does actually filter out into the economy and hopefully it did not go through too many lobbyists hands before it got to the general public.
Immie
Of that there is no doubt.. would have been nice if it would be shown that money is being taken away from wasteful government spending (welfare entitlements, paying contractors that have not delivered, etc) so that his would not be additional spending but a better use of monies that would currently be wasted... or better yet, chopping the other wasteful spending all together and having this in the normal maintenance and upkeep budget which does exist for EVERY government building
IF we knew the KW of the existing light fixtures, versus the KW ratings of the fixtures put in, as well as run times of the fixtures, KW consumption could be calculated. From there, you would need to know what rate scale this aprticular building is being charged by the local electrical company. From there, a savings calculation can be made. The beautiful thing about projects like this is that the government "probably" did not spend $140,000.00 up front as the savings in KW consumption pay for the installation over the 10 year period. And once the payback period is over, those savings can be used for other things.
After that period they are only expenditures and the budget adjusted DOWNWARD accordingly....
Lest we not forget, as I said, that this is extra spending... and not being taken from a wasteful area... and not being taken from the existing upkeep and improvement budget that already exists for government buildings and properties... this is indeed wasteful spending for a political point to the environazis
It IS in fact wasteful spending. Just as in your home, if your furnace/air conditioning unit has less than a 14 SEER rating, you are wastinig electrical consumption dollars. Why do you see this investment as a bad thing, again?
After that period they are only expenditures and the budget adjusted DOWNWARD accordingly....
Lest we not forget, as I said, that this is extra spending... and not being taken from a wasteful area... and not being taken from the existing upkeep and improvement budget that already exists for government buildings and properties... this is indeed wasteful spending for a political point to the environazis
It IS in fact wasteful spending. Just as in your home, if your furnace/air conditioning unit has less than a 14 SEER rating, you are wastinig electrical consumption dollars. Why do you see this investment as a bad thing, again?
I am not against improving things when there is indeed a need for improvement, enough money actually in your cash flow to pay for such an expenditure, or when an alternative funding is found (as shown in the examples of taking back from other wasteful spending programs, etc), or for this case, when the existing budget for building maintenance and improvement is used to fund the project (not spending above and beyond that already budgeted expense)... I would not argue against this is they took $140MIL away from the federal department of education or some federal entitlement program or from payment due to a contractor who has not lived up to the contract, etc
It IS in fact wasteful spending. Just as in your home, if your furnace/air conditioning unit has less than a 14 SEER rating, you are wastinig electrical consumption dollars. Why do you see this investment as a bad thing, again?
I am not against improving things when there is indeed a need for improvement, enough money actually in your cash flow to pay for such an expenditure, or when an alternative funding is found (as shown in the examples of taking back from other wasteful spending programs, etc), or for this case, when the existing budget for building maintenance and improvement is used to fund the project (not spending above and beyond that already budgeted expense)... I would not argue against this is they took $140MIL away from the federal department of education or some federal entitlement program or from payment due to a contractor who has not lived up to the contract, etc
What part of "the project pays for itself" do you NOT understand?
I am not against improving things when there is indeed a need for improvement, enough money actually in your cash flow to pay for such an expenditure, or when an alternative funding is found (as shown in the examples of taking back from other wasteful spending programs, etc), or for this case, when the existing budget for building maintenance and improvement is used to fund the project (not spending above and beyond that already budgeted expense)... I would not argue against this is they took $140MIL away from the federal department of education or some federal entitlement program or from payment due to a contractor who has not lived up to the contract, etc
What part of "the project pays for itself" do you NOT understand?
What part of 'over time' do YOU not understand?? It does not pay for itself up front and it is indeed MORE money being shelled out in government spending when we already have overbloated spending
God... already said I would support it if it were funded by other government cuts or in the existing maintenance budget (which is where the money SHOULD be coming from)
More "eco" bullshit. I've been hearing this crap my entire adult life. These whackos are ALWAYS wrong. They just move on to the next scare.
It's all BULLSHIT.
What part of "the project pays for itself" do you NOT understand?
What part of 'over time' do YOU not understand?? It does not pay for itself up front and it is indeed MORE money being shelled out in government spending when we already have overbloated spending
God... already said I would support it if it were funded by other government cuts or in the existing maintenance budget (which is where the money SHOULD be coming from)
Are you SO short sighted that you cannot see this as a money saving measure long term? You want to bitch about $140,000.00? Do you have any idea how many bombs can be made for $140,000.00? NONE!
What part of 'over time' do YOU not understand?? It does not pay for itself up front and it is indeed MORE money being shelled out in government spending when we already have overbloated spending
God... already said I would support it if it were funded by other government cuts or in the existing maintenance budget (which is where the money SHOULD be coming from)
Are you SO short sighted that you cannot see this as a money saving measure long term? You want to bitch about $140,000.00? Do you have any idea how many bombs can be made for $140,000.00? NONE!
140K of additional initial spending is still 140K of additional spending when we are already overbudget and overbloated,... cut it out from somewhere else instead of adding MORE spending.. I don't care if it's $140, $140K, or $140MIL
Pelosi is like an irritating case of the clap that just won't go away...
