Communist California to require Solar Panels on all new homes

[Flopper]

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The state is doing what vast majority of people want.

California is not like most other states in many ways. What is the right thing for California may well not be the right thing for other states.

Minimum wage is 35% higher than most states. The average price of a home is 48% higher than the national average. Per Capital Personal income is 6th highest in the nation. California ranks 4th highest in the nation for higher education and in the top 40% for K-12. The Median age is one of the lowest in the country.

A survey conducted in California about Global Warning and the state response revealed:
A majority of Californians say the effects of global warming are already occurring.
80% said global warming was a serious threat to the state.
67% supported the state efforts
Most Californians (56%), including majorities across all age and income groups, say they would be willing to pay more for electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming.

The state is not cramming renewable energy down the throats of citizens but rather responding to demand from Californians that government take actions. I'm sure this is not the situation in many other states and what California is doing would not be appropriate.
Californians' Views on Climate Change - Public Policy Institute of California

Well then why doesn't Cali produce this more expensive energy instead of forcing people to buy solar panels? Make half of the state windmills for all I care.

The cost of producing solar power has fallen by 73% since 2010. By 2020, it will be cheaper than generating power by fossil fuel. California is faced with increasing the production of electric power. The choice is spending many billions on additional power plants in the 21st century or to look to other alternatives.

Solar generation in the home or business makes a lot of sense.

• The cost of generating the power will be cheaper than fossil fuels in the 21st century.
• It puts the primary responsibility for generation at the place of consumption making public utilities a secondary source reducing the number of power plants needed as well as power transmission facilities.
• Solar generation not only reduces green house gases but reduces air and water pollution.
• Since power generation in the home or business distributes the production of power, electric power plants become less of a target for terrorist as well earthquakes and other natural and man made disasters.
• Since there is no fuel other than sunlight, outages caused by world fuel shortage and interruption in delivery of fuel has no effect on production.

It's still not an investment unless government pays for most of it. And like I stated earlier, if you ran the numbers, you would find much more money in your pocket after 20 years if you invested that 25K into a growth fund or perhaps some good real estate, so if your goal is to save money, buying solar panels is probably the worst way to accomplish that goal.

It's an investment but not the kind you're think of. It's an investment by the people and the dividends are not just saving on an electric bill. It's knowing you are doing something that will make life better for the community, your kids, and your grand kids. I know for someone like you that seems completely ridiculous but believe or not there are lots of people in this world that care about the environment and in California a lot more that in most places.

Well at least that would be honest. But people coming here saying how much money they are going to save in the next 25 years is ridiculous. First of all we don't know what electric rates will be in the next couple of decades. Secondly, even if you end up saving money, it won't be anything substantial. Third, you still risk losing money if the panels become defective, you need a roof repair, or again, electric rates decrease.

Now if somebody says they bought alternative power sources because of the environment and there are no real benefits other than that, then I can't argue with them. Good for you.

Of course it's about the environment. It's the primary reason to consider solar. Savings are all based on projections. However the likelihood of the cost of electric power in California not going up is pretty slim with the state importing more power every year. The Cost of solar panels have dramatically dropped in price and there's no reason to expect that the drop won't continue as volume continues to rise.

If the majority of the people in California see global warming as a clear danger to the state, then it is certainly reasonable that the state should take action. Government changes in new construction requirements to deal with future potential problems is nothing new. California has revised building codes several times to lessen damage from earthquakes. Years ago, Florida revised codes for new construction to include hurricane construction. Building codes in all states were revised in the 20th century to provide additional electrical capacity and grounding in new construction to deal with the anticipated growth in home appliances.

 

[Weatherman2020]

A lot of California envy going on…

For many years, more people have been leaving California for other states than have been moving here. According to data from the American Community Survey, from 2007 to 2016, about 5 million people moved to California from other states, while about 6 million left California. On net, the state lost 1 million residents to domestic migration

California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration [EconTax Blog]

Simply go to the U-Haul website and put in a California city and any city out of state and note the price. Then do a reverse trip into California. 3-4X higher cost leaving California.

 

[Flopper]

It was not 'communism' that required automakers to reduce pollution, just wise regulation. That's what government is for. Some things get done collectively, such as national defense. Difficult to see the difference between defending people from enemies and defending them from illness, for example.

Government is for pointing guns at people and making them do what the mob wants. There is nothing that government does that people can't do on their own without government. That is, if it's something they want. Government is the only way to make people accept what they don't want.

There is big difference in what people can do and what people will do. For example, I would like see how private businesses would allocate and enforce RF bandwidth for various uses, cell phones, TV, Radio, Military, Navigation, Microwave, Aircraft usage, Maritime Use, Satellites, Government, etc..

 

[kaz]

Actually, you were. In fact, you were pushed into it. The FCC mandated the conversion to HD and thus digital broadcasts. In order to receive over the air TV you had to buy a converter or buy a new digital TV. Today there are only a few analog stations left in the US and they are special purpose low power stations. Analog TV is now obsolete in the US. Government forced it on the people but in the end it was far better than the old system.

I've never used over-the-air HD tv. I've always had cable or satellite.

Your belief that government is required to set a standard is baseless. VHS became the standard video format without any government input whatsoever. ASCII is a standard. JPG is a standard.

HD wasn't a government standard either. Flooper's so dumb he actually believes that we only use it because government forced it. It would have happened anyway. In that narrow case more slowly. But far faster if government hadn't been sucking at corporate tits for centuries and they could invest more in serving their customers instead of feeding the dragon

No it wouldn't happen, probably not in my lifetime. You really think 1600 television stations and all networks would have willing switch to digital along with TV manufactures in a coordinated manner.

One of the main reasons for the switch was to eliminate UHF channels above 38 and reduce the range of broadcast so more stations across the country could share the same channel. This made additional bandwidth available for other uses such as cell phones. Had we not done the switch, we would have had serve limitations due to the lack of bandwidth.

Something like this is so complex with so many different entities involved it has to be coordinated by goverment. Since it required stations to change broadcast frequencies, it had to be coordinated with all other stations and once the frequencies were changed the TV receivers had to be changed or converted at same time.

Was it worth it?
A 42 in Non-HD plasma TV in 2004 sold for about $2400.
This weekend I saw and ad for a 49 inch flat LCD HD TV with wi-fi for $179 plus tax.

I bought a 55 inch HDTV for about $1500 in 2003 or 2004.

Government points to a barn and calls it the Taj Mahal, you see the Taj Mahal. But all hail government. If we don't have corrupt politicians managing corrupt bureaucrats, then you think evolution and progress will stop. You can't fix an ideologue. When the time comes, you'll cut in line to get your share of the kool-aid faster.

Here's a fun fact. Government didn't produce those TVs that dropped 90% in cost ...

When super HD came out, one of my coworkers was the first to get it. He paid something like $2,500 for a 40" set. At the time, I recently purchased a 80" HD big screen. So he asked the salesman what a ultra HD television like mine would cost? The guy looked it up and said probably about 35K.

It was only a couple of years later UHD became more popular, and a UHD set similar to mine is only like a hundred bucks more than I paid for my set five years ago. Now almost all sets sold today are UHD.

It's incredible how fast the prices drop.

That Flopper thinks that TV stations wouldn't have served that growing market is, well, I guess predictable since he's a government worshiping leftist who thinks if government doesn't do it, they get the credit for it anyway.

Hey guys, TV makers dropped the prices of TVs because of government!!! LOL. Yeah.

AT&T spent over a hundred years stifling phone innovation. It was universities then businesses that made the web what it is. Government is a leach, not a savior

 

[kaz]

Substantive difference being WHAT exactly?

I don't have to buy a stupid solar installation, I can buy useful things instead.

How the fuck is producing 100% of electricity I use from solar energy, not usefull? Stupid much?

And how come this is the very first time you got all concerned about WHAT tax-cut is spent on? Smells like straw grasping.

Two reasons idiot:

1. It is not cheaper than fossil fuel. Not when you look at all the cost, direct and indirect. If you think it is then you are confused Moon Bat.

2. You are getting welfare payments in the form of subsidies that somebody else has to pay for.

You Moon Bats are not too bight, are you?

Asshole you still didn’t answer how come you never before cared what people spend their Republican tax-cuts. Do hookers and blow self-finance better than solar power?

If it's that great a financial deal, then why does government need to use guns to force it's citizens to buy them?

1. Lets note that you are switching gears instead of directly responding to what you quoted.

2. Because it involves long term planning and greater social issues that people are usually bad at. It's the same reason why we "need to use guns to force" people to participate in (very popular) SS and Medicare programs.

1. You're delusional and a very poor reader. My follow up was in direct reference to my first post.

2. What a strange little man you are. But kaz, government is forcing people to put solar panels on their houses with guns, but a lot of people like social security. So there!

Um ... what? It's going to take serious boobies to make up for that one! Here we go ...

Many people like getting checks of other people's money. Gotcha. That is true. Has nothing to do with solar panels. That's why I invited the chicks to shake them ...

 

[OnePercenter]

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

Not only that, but take your money, and if you die before using it, not give one dime to your heirs.

What other public retirement program pays heirs?

None. That's the point.

Why would the government pay another person a retirement that isn't theirs?

 

[Flash]

[QUO

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

Liberals are too dumb and lazy to plan for their own lives so they want some stupid bureaucrat (whose boss is a corrupt politician elected by greedy special interest groups) to plan and manage their lives for them.

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

These stupid solar panels are another example. The Liberals wants the stupid government to subsidize something that wouldn't be economically viable in the free market. On top of that the dumbshits want to have the government to force you buy the idiot solar cells that don't really work very well.

Liberals are the dumbest assholes on the planet.

Why wouldn't one want to take advantage of a subsidy program you paid for with your taxes? Corporate America does.

You barking up the wrong tree there Sport.

I am against all welfare, subsidies, bailouts and entitlements.

Anything that takes money from the people that earned it and gives it to somebody that didn't earn it. Not only domestic but foreign.

Just because you can use the government for thievery doesn't make it right.

 

[kaz]

Two reasons idiot:

1. It is not cheaper than fossil fuel. Not when you look at all the cost, direct and indirect. If you think it is then you are confused Moon Bat.

2. You are getting welfare payments in the form of subsidies that somebody else has to pay for.

You Moon Bats are not too bight, are you?

Asshole you still didn’t answer how come you never before cared what people spend their Republican tax-cuts. Do hookers and blow self-finance better than solar power?

If it's that great a financial deal, then why does government need to use guns to force it's citizens to buy them?

1. Lets note that you are switching gears instead of directly responding to what you quoted.

2. Because it involves long term planning and greater social issues that people are usually bad at. It's the same reason why we "need to use guns to force" people to participate in (very popular) SS and Medicare programs.

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

SS and Medicare are working and popular.

Sorry that reality is not to your liking, but you are just going to have find some sane way to deal with it.

That people like getting checks of other people's money isn't a valid reason to continue a welfare program. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. That they don't is how we ended up with such a fucked up government. Once you start redistributing money, all hell breaks loose as the greedy hordes, you know, you, just want more and more of money you didn't earn. Unfortunately, someone else did earn it

 

[Flash]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

If the money you pay into Social Security was put into an IRA instead, we would all be millionaires when we retired - even if you include the effect of the stock market crash.

Just like the government workers in Galveston that were allowed to opt out of Social Security. They made tons more money with private investment than they would have got with that dumbass Social Security.

Stupid Liberal program that is all fucked up.

 

[Flash]

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

Not only that, but take your money, and if you die before using it, not give one dime to your heirs.

What other public retirement program pays heirs?

None. That's the point.

Why would the government pay another person a retirement that isn't theirs?

Social Security has a filthy ass entitlement for disability that is tremendous abused. A form of welfare from money that suppose to be used for your retirement..

When you pay into Social Security you are paying for somebody else disability.

If you die before you collect Social Security the money reverts to the fucking government and that is despicable.

Terrible Liberal idea to have the corrupt and screwed up government to manage your money for you.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

If the money you pay into Social Security was put into an IRA instead, we would all be millionaires when we retired - even if you include the effect of the stock market crash.

I'll use me for an example. I started my contributions in 1975. If I put my social security contributions in a private account such as 401k/IRA/Keogh I would have lost 80% of my investment. Retirement accounts in the United States lost $2 trillion in the 15 months preceding 11-8-2008.

Of course baby bush stole $650 billion from social security to pay for the invasion of Iraq and tax breaks for the wealthy.

 

[OnePercenter]

SS and Medicare are working and popular.

Sorry that reality is not to your liking, but you are just going to have find some sane way to deal with it.

What's your definition of "working" in this instance?

The snowflake definition of "success" is making millions of seniors dependent on it so they will vote Democrat.

Or is it the fact that in 2007 BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America effectively wiped out many Americans private retirement accounts.

No they didn't. If you stayed in the market, you would be in a much better position now than before the crash.

Except, except, except-----$6.9 trillion in investments wiped out. If you heeded my advise right here on the internet in August, 2007 you would have survived.

 

[OnePercenter]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

If the money you pay into Social Security was put into an IRA instead, we would all be millionaires when we retired - even if you include the effect of the stock market crash.

And actually, if you played your cards the right way, the crash would have been very beneficial.

The company that handles our IRA at work kept accepting contributions, but didn't invest it when the market was sinking. Once it showed signs of life and a positive trend, they dumped that money into the market. It was like a buy one get one free deal. They bought more shares for less money, and of course, the market recovered well past the point it was at when it started to fall apart.

BULLSHIT!!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

If the money you pay into Social Security was put into an IRA instead, we would all be millionaires when we retired - even if you include the effect of the stock market crash.

I'll use me for an example. I started my contributions in 1975. If I put my social security contributions in a private account such as 401k/IRA/Keogh I would have lost 80% of my investment. Retirement accounts in the United States lost $2 trillion in the 15 months preceding 11-8-2008.

Of course baby bush stole $650 billion from social security to pay for the invasion of Iraq and tax breaks for the wealthy.

From Commie Fact:

Our ruling

A Facebook posts says, "Bush ‘borrowed’ $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus revenue to pay for his tax cuts for the rich and his war in Iraq and never paid it back."

By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used by the Treasury to pay for government expenses. If we agree that this is "borrowing," every president since 1935 has done it, to fund all sorts of things. Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purposes.

As for not "paying back," the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020.

Overall, the claim is misleading and confuses many points. So we rate it Mostly False.

Did George W. Bush 'borrow' from Social Security to fund the war in Iraq and tax cuts?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

what about requiring all new residents to speak english and promise never to take a chit on the sidewalks?

 

[bripat9643]

SS and Medicare are working and popular.

Sorry that reality is not to your liking, but you are just going to have find some sane way to deal with it.

What's your definition of "working" in this instance?

The snowflake definition of "success" is making millions of seniors dependent on it so they will vote Democrat.

Or is it the fact that in 2007 BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America effectively wiped out many Americans private retirement accounts.

No they didn't. If you stayed in the market, you would be in a much better position now than before the crash.

Except, except, except-----$6.9 trillion in investments wiped out. If you heeded my advise right here on the internet in August, 2007 you would have survived.

No exceptions, douchebag. The stock market is a 1000 times better investment than SS.

 

[bripat9643]

Your belief that government is good at planning and solving social problems couldn't be more absurd. Government causes all the social issues that are humanly solvable. Social Security is how government prevents people from making long term plans by robbing them when they are young and turing the proceeds over to those who didn't plan for their retirement. There couldn't be a worse example of government "planning" than Social Security and Medicare.

And the overarching point there is that it's forced. I can't opt out of Social Security. Why? Because the concept is dead on arrival unless people who don't want to be in it are forced to be (and it still doesn't work anyway when they are forced into it).

Any system built on forcing unwilling participants to participate is doomed to failure.

Unlike private investment instruments your Social Security didn't lose value when BushCo/Republicans and Corporate America crashed the world economy in 2007.

If the money you pay into Social Security was put into an IRA instead, we would all be millionaires when we retired - even if you include the effect of the stock market crash.

I'll use me for an example. I started my contributions in 1975. If I put my social security contributions in a private account such as 401k/IRA/Keogh I would have lost 80% of my investment. Retirement accounts in the United States lost $2 trillion in the 15 months preceding 11-8-2008.

Of course baby bush stole $650 billion from social security to pay for the invasion of Iraq and tax breaks for the wealthy.

From Commie Fact:

Our ruling

A Facebook posts says, "Bush ‘borrowed’ $1.37 trillion of Social Security surplus revenue to pay for his tax cuts for the rich and his war in Iraq and never paid it back."

By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used by the Treasury to pay for government expenses. If we agree that this is "borrowing," every president since 1935 has done it, to fund all sorts of things. Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purposes.

As for not "paying back," the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020.

Overall, the claim is misleading and confuses many points. So we rate it Mostly False.

Did George W. Bush 'borrow' from Social Security to fund the war in Iraq and tax cuts?

The Dims like to attribute all spending in excess of revenue to Republicans, even though there isn't the slightest factual basis for doing so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

Not only that, but take your money, and if you die before using it, not give one dime to your heirs.

What other public retirement program pays heirs?

None. That's the point.

Why would the government pay another person a retirement that isn't theirs?

Because of who earned it.

So I turn 65, and my family throws me a retirement/ birthday party. As I inhale to blow out the candles, I have a heart attack and die.

Because I have no children and expect to outlive my older sister, I'm leaving everything to my niece and nephew.

My niece and nephew will get my houses. My niece and nephew will get my IRA account. My niece and nephew will get my car, all my personal belongings, my rare money collection, my bank accounts. My niece and nephew will reap the rewards of a lifetime of work. What they won't see is one red cent from Social Security. All the thousands me and my employers paid into SS, they won't get one dime.

That's why heirs should get retirement money that isn't theirs.

 

[Flash]

Social Security is a great example. Who in their right mind would want the government to forcefully take your money while you are working and then dole it out to you later, maybe, if they don't spend it on other things?

Not only that, but take your money, and if you die before using it, not give one dime to your heirs.

What other public retirement program pays heirs?

None. That's the point.

Why would the government pay another person a retirement that isn't theirs?

Because of who earned it.

So I turn 65, and my family throws me a retirement/ birthday party. As I inhale to blow out the candles, I have a heart attack and die.

Because I have no children and expect to outlive my older sister, I'm leaving everything to my niece and nephew.

My niece and nephew will get my houses. My niece and nephew will get my IRA account. My niece and nephew will get my car, all my personal belongings, my rare money collection, my bank accounts. My niece and nephew will reap the rewards of a lifetime of work. What they won't see is one red cent from Social Security. All the thousands me and my employers paid into SS, they won't get one dime.

That's why heirs should get retirement money that isn't theirs.

Every paycheck the asshole government took out 7.5% and your employer had to throw in 7.5%.

Only the welfare queens get the money that your earned.

A Liberal's wet dream.

Piss on FDR and his stupid idea.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I've never used over-the-air HD tv. I've always had cable or satellite.

Your belief that government is required to set a standard is baseless. VHS became the standard video format without any government input whatsoever. ASCII is a standard. JPG is a standard.

HD wasn't a government standard either. Flooper's so dumb he actually believes that we only use it because government forced it. It would have happened anyway. In that narrow case more slowly. But far faster if government hadn't been sucking at corporate tits for centuries and they could invest more in serving their customers instead of feeding the dragon

No it wouldn't happen, probably not in my lifetime. You really think 1600 television stations and all networks would have willing switch to digital along with TV manufactures in a coordinated manner.

One of the main reasons for the switch was to eliminate UHF channels above 38 and reduce the range of broadcast so more stations across the country could share the same channel. This made additional bandwidth available for other uses such as cell phones. Had we not done the switch, we would have had serve limitations due to the lack of bandwidth.

Something like this is so complex with so many different entities involved it has to be coordinated by goverment. Since it required stations to change broadcast frequencies, it had to be coordinated with all other stations and once the frequencies were changed the TV receivers had to be changed or converted at same time.

Was it worth it?
A 42 in Non-HD plasma TV in 2004 sold for about $2400.
This weekend I saw and ad for a 49 inch flat LCD HD TV with wi-fi for $179 plus tax.

I bought a 55 inch HDTV for about $1500 in 2003 or 2004.

Government points to a barn and calls it the Taj Mahal, you see the Taj Mahal. But all hail government. If we don't have corrupt politicians managing corrupt bureaucrats, then you think evolution and progress will stop. You can't fix an ideologue. When the time comes, you'll cut in line to get your share of the kool-aid faster.

Here's a fun fact. Government didn't produce those TVs that dropped 90% in cost ...

When super HD came out, one of my coworkers was the first to get it. He paid something like $2,500 for a 40" set. At the time, I recently purchased a 80" HD big screen. So he asked the salesman what a ultra HD television like mine would cost? The guy looked it up and said probably about 35K.

It was only a couple of years later UHD became more popular, and a UHD set similar to mine is only like a hundred bucks more than I paid for my set five years ago. Now almost all sets sold today are UHD.

It's incredible how fast the prices drop.

That Flopper thinks that TV stations wouldn't have served that growing market is, well, I guess predictable since he's a government worshiping leftist who thinks if government doesn't do it, they get the credit for it anyway.

Hey guys, TV makers dropped the prices of TVs because of government!!! LOL. Yeah.

AT&T spent over a hundred years stifling phone innovation. It was universities then businesses that made the web what it is. Government is a leach, not a savior

It's impossible to keep government out because government is involved in everything we buy.

Government regulates the banks, the stock market, the utility companies, our windows, our vacuum cleaners, our mattresses, our street signs, our furnaces, our cars, our computers, our internet and cable services, our lawnmowers and snowblowers............

If there is anything we have in our home today that doesn't have any government oversight, I would sure like to know what that item is. But just because government has their big nose in everything doesn't mean they get credit for everything.