Why do I get the funny feeling that the biggest complainers about overspending and people who abuse social programs and get uneccesary government handouts are the same ones desperately trying to figure out how to abuse this program and get uneccesary government handouts?
Nothing says "I'm against the NDP wasting my money" like "I'm going to spend more money to pretend like I have upgradable products so the NDP uneccesarily wastes my own money on me."
The Following User Says Thank You to puckedoff For This Useful Post:
No, because that would save money and be way more efficient. The purpose of this program is to have government paid contractors go to each house and complete the highly technical task of changing lightbulbs
I think the effort to go to peoples houses is a good thing. Folks on fixed incomes will benefit
I deal with a large number of senior citizens. I could name 50 "little old ladies" who don't have the means to install a programmable thermostat or wouldn't consider trying LED bulbs because of the higher sticker price.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to para transit fellow For This Useful Post:
Why do I get the funny feeling that the biggest complainers about overspending and people who abuse social programs and get uneccesary government handouts are the same ones desperately trying to figure out how to abuse this program and get uneccesary government handouts?
Nothing says "I'm against the NDP wasting my money" like "I'm going to spend more money to pretend like I have upgradable products so the NDP uneccesarily wastes my own money on me."
More like...
"They are going to waste my tax dollars on this whether I participate or not so why not benefit from it. Even if its a waste of time."
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nufy For This Useful Post:
I think the effort to go to peoples houses is a good thing. Folks on fixed incomes will benefit
I deal with a large number of senior citizens. I could name 50 "little old ladies" who don't have the means to install a programmable thermostat or wouldn't consider trying LED bulbs because of the higher sticker price.
I totally agree, but I also don't think the little old ladies are going to be signing up for this, either. I wish this was a little more targeted towards the fixed income crowd. That is typically where the least efficient things are found.
The Following User Says Thank You to V For This Useful Post:
"They are going to waste my tax dollars on this whether I participate or not so why not benefit from it. Even if its a waste of time."
Right, if there's one thing I like more than the NDP using my tax dollars poorly, it's leeches who do their absolute best to make sure that money doesn't even go to it's intended benefit.
You might be interested: if you pop down to the Drop-In Center you can get a free meal. You'll have to pretend you actually need it, but it's free! And free is good!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Right, if there's one thing I like more than the NDP using my tax dollars poorly, it's leeches who do their absolute best to make sure that money doesn't even go to it's intended benefit.
You might be interested: if you pop down to the Drop-In Center you can get a free meal. You'll have to pretend you actually need it, but it's free! And free is good!
Ummm... totally different. Food is one of life's requirements whereas bulbs are not. So if you are getting free bulbs with our tax money, I will get free bulbs with our tax money.
Ummm... totally different. Food is one of life's requirements whereas bulbs are not. So if you are getting free bulbs with our tax money, I will get free bulbs with our tax money.
The purpose is not free bulbs, the purpose is lowered carbon emissions.
If you already have LEDs and a programmable thermostat, you already have lowered carbon emissions, thus you are a leech on the system and are wasting mine and everyone else's money (including your own) completely if you go out, buy new crappy lightbulbs and hide your energy efficient ones, just to get free stuff.
You may not agree with the money being spent for carbon emissions benefit, but when you eliminate that benefit, the money is spent on nothing except getting you some extra lightbulbs. You're then begging for government handouts that you don't need.
But hey, as I said, free meals at the drop-in center. Stick it to the system bro.
The purpose is not free bulbs, the purpose is lowered carbon emissions.
If you already have LEDs and a programmable thermostat, you already have lowered carbon emissions, thus you are a leech on the system and are wasting mine and everyone else's money (including your own) completely if you go out, buy new crappy lightbulbs and hide your energy efficient ones, just to get free stuff.
You may not agree with the money being spent for carbon emissions benefit, but when you eliminate that benefit, the money is spent on nothing except getting you some extra lightbulbs. You're then begging for government handouts that you don't need.
But hey, as I said, free meals at the drop-in center. Stick it to the system bro.
I don't believe the DIC is funded by tax money, but I'll for for sustaining life; by your logic I should get cancer so I can get chemo.
The carbon taxes however act as a punishment for me being proactive.
The Following User Says Thank You to Backlunds_socks For This Useful Post:
I don't get what the big deal is. Transitioning to energy efficient 'everything' is important as a society. If the government spends $50 million a year to do than in an effective manner, there is nothing wrong with that.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
I don't believe the DIC is funded by tax money, but I'll for for sustaining life; by your logic I should get cancer so I can get chemo.
The carbon taxes however act as a punishment for me being proactive.
Everyone pays them and you pay less than you would've because you already reduced your energy consumption so no, it's not a "punishment" for being proactive. I have LEDs, a programmable thermostat, an HE furnace and washer, etc. You know what my reward is? Paying less carbon tax than someone else in a similar sized place without those things because my energy bills are less overall.
But as I said, be the upstanding citizen who makes sure you get your money's worth. Every system has leeches, one more is fine I guess.
And sure, get that chemo. You don't even need cancer, in fact, you should fake a sickness so you get whatever free medicine you want. I hear morphine is a blast. It's your tax dollars paying for it, so might as well!
I don't get what the big deal is. Transitioning to energy efficient 'everything' is important as a society. If the government spends $50 million a year to do than in an effective manner, there is nothing wrong with that.
A lot of people think there are much better uses for the money.
The next issue is "effective manner". Not convinced this is effective.
And philosophically some people don't like being told in no uncertain terms that they are too stupid to spend their own money as they see fit.
Everyone pays them and you pay less than you would've because you already reduced your energy consumption so no, it's not a "punishment" for being proactive. I have LEDs, a programmable thermostat, an HE furnace and washer, etc. You know what my reward is? Paying less carbon tax than someone else in a similar sized place without those things because my energy bills are less overall.
But as I said, be the upstanding citizen who makes sure you get your money's worth. Every system has leeches, one more is fine I guess.
And sure, get that chemo. You don't even need cancer, in fact, you should fake a sickness so you get whatever free medicine you want. I hear morphine is a blast. It's your tax dollars paying for it, so might as well!
Did you get your "Social License" card in the mail yet ?
I don't know the purpose or reason for it but if it's paid for by tax dollars I need one. Scratch that. Sign me up for ten.
It's head scratching how much you are defending this program. Surely you can see it's a colossal waste of money? There are a thousand ways to incentivize people to become more energy efficient without actually sending in a GD tech to your home to install stuff plus literally give away free gear.
PS: I emailed them about the model of thermostat and power bar they are giving away. No response yet.
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
It's head scratching how much you are defending this program. Surely you can see it's a colossal waste of money? There are a thousand ways to incentivize people to become more energy efficient without actually sending in a GD tech to your home to install stuff plus literally give away free gear.
PS: I emailed them about the model of thermostat and power bar they are giving away. No response yet.
Oh, no, please don't confuse what I'm saying with defense of the program, it's not that at all.
My only issue is leeches who are going to abuse this expenditure to make it even more of a waste. It's bad enough that the NDP are doing it this way, making it even more of a useless waste by eliminating the ONE benefit (reduced carbon emissions) that the money spent results in is just more infuriating.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
This program is silly. Someone is going to come to my house and replace my lightbulbs, if I ask, paid for by everyone else.
I didn't even mind when we lost the child tax benefit. I recall my wife showing me a child tax credit cheque for something like a couple hundred dollars, and I was like, "we get that every month?". I had no idea and thought it was silly we even got a cheque.
Then the rules changed, I think based on income, and we don't get the cheque any more . I'm fine with that. Give the money to those who need it raising their children.
This lightbulb strategy however doesn't actually help anything. Light bulbs burn out. Eventually we'll all be on LEDs. There is no benefit to giving out free light bulbs even if they're more efficient. Its silly.
Who cares if old people get light bulbs that take less energy? It really should not be a policy objective. Para transit fellow suggests its good for little old ladies. It doesn't matter at all. Its a silly money sink, that's it. If you want to help little old ladies on fixed incomes, increase their cheques. Don't give them lightbulbs. And don't give me lightbulbs.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kjesse For This Useful Post:
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
My only issue is leeches who are going to abuse this expenditure to make it even more of a waste.
I'm not saying I'd do it, but I recently moved into a new house and replaced all the incandescent bulbs with my existing CFLs and new bulbs were LEDs. The LED bulbs were over $5 each, so I already spent a good chunk of change doing the right thing.
LEDs are now closer to $2-3 if you look around, and I have been buying some to replace my CFLs as they die out. What bugs me is that although I have bought only CFL and LED for the past 10 years, rather than the NDP taking our carbon money and putting it to subsidize LEDs, they offer this extra waste of money.
I get Photon's point that many people wouldn't bother. My mom is that way, and every time I go over I slowly replace bulbs for her. (She claims the light isn't right- unless she doesn't know I changed a bulb.) However if they put a tax on incandescents, and a credit on LEDs, people would buy them if they were cheaper. And people who had been doing the right thing all along would also benefit.
The Following User Says Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
Oh, no, please don't confuse what I'm saying with defense of the program, it's not that at all.
My only issue is leeches who are going to abuse this expenditure to make it even more of a waste. It's bad enough that the NDP are doing it this way, making it even more of a useless waste by eliminating the ONE benefit (reduced carbon emissions) that the money spent results in is just more infuriating.
Couldn't they just ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs in Alberta? I think a pack of 60W equivalent LED bulbs isn't bank-breaking ($15?) and they last significantly longer.
You'd probably have near 100% changeover within 5 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks
How is it leeching?
Because you're sucking government money intended to lower carbon emissions and robbing everyone of the (albeit small) benefit that money is supposed to have so you can have extra LED bulbs instead of replacing higher emission incandescents and more programmable thermostats than you can plug in.
It's parasitic.
Quote:
leech1
lēCH/Submit
noun
1.
an aquatic or terrestrial annelid worm with suckers at both ends. Many species are bloodsucking parasites, especially of vertebrates, and others are predators.
2. a person who extorts profit from or sponges on others.
"they are leeches feeding off the hardworking majority"
synonyms: parasite, bloodsucker; More
