Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Federal Permit Required To Sell Your Home Soon.

by James Denison / July 1, 2009 10:27 AM PDT

Also mandatory 3 minute showers to be imposed on all citizens. Sounds like a joke? No, it's in Rep. Henry Waxman's bill and already passed by the House, now goes to the Senate. Yes, those who brought you the 1.6 gal toilet that needs flushing twice, using even more water than before, now brings you the 3 minute mandatory shower. The most costly is the requirement to get a FEDERAL PERMIT for each home sold in the future. This is beyond politics, this is an attack upon every American Citizen.

"In addition, this bill forces all homeowners to pay for a government-rated test before selling a home. The test must
pass government regulations in order for the homeowner to sell its home. If the home does not pass the test, the
homeowner must fix any and all issues to comply with the test."

Seems the exertion to enslave us all has sent Waxman to the hospital.

fast-forward to June 2009 and the early stages of the Barack Obama presidency. The cap-and-trade bill just passed the
House and was on its way to the Senate when a 38-year EPA veteran, Senior Operations Research Analyst Alan Carlin, came
forward and said his 98-page study that questioned the theory of anthropogenic global warming had been quashed by the
Carlin appeared on the Fox News Channel?s June 30 ?Fox & Friends? and told of how his report was dismissed by the EPA
because his ?comments do not help the legal policy or case.? Those revelations caused Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., to call for a
congressional inquiry.
?He came out with the truth,? Inhofe said to Fox News on June 29. ?They don?t want the truth at the EPA. We?re going to expose

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Federal Permit Required To Sell Your Home Soon.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Federal Permit Required To Sell Your Home Soon.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
Just one thing I take issue with
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / July 1, 2009 9:53 PM PDT

in that Dakota Voice link;

"A lot of the showers in England (the few you could find) when I lived there in the 1980s". The few you could find? The cheek of it! I have had a shower unit installed for centuries, and use it at least, ohh, once a year!

I'll leave the rest of the discussion to you Americans.


Collapse -
I rise to defend English showers!
by Angeline Booher / July 1, 2009 11:40 PM PDT

They clean just fine,

Most people I know have what we call "lo-flo" shower heads. Lower water use=lower water bills=lower gas or electricity used to heat the water.

Speakeasy Moderator

Collapse -
Fine. If it's so good...
by EdHannigan / July 2, 2009 2:22 AM PDT

why do we need a government program to promote or enforce it?

Collapse -
Thank you or your support Angeline.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / July 2, 2009 6:28 AM PDT

Collapse -
Fortunately this hideous bill...
by EdHannigan / July 1, 2009 10:00 PM PDT

is almost certainly destined to die in the Senate.

I almost wish it would pass, so people could finally see what the "change" is all about.

Collapse -
(NT) Wonder if you can take a 20-minute shower once a week?
by Diana Forum moderator / July 1, 2009 10:23 PM PDT
Collapse -
What's the problem here?
by Kees Bakker / July 1, 2009 11:57 PM PDT

The government want to spend money to subsidize something that nobody will buy anyway, because it's clearly contrary to how the average American feels.

If nobody buys it, the costs will be zero.
If people do buy it, that might prove there is a need for it. Nobody buys something he hates only because he gets a partial refund, I think.


Collapse -
Are you replying to the original post?
by EdHannigan / July 2, 2009 12:45 AM PDT

Seems way off to me. Not sure what you're talking about. Does that have something to do with requiring permits, shower restrictions and so forth?

The article is about the horrible "energy" bill that some are trying to foist on the nation.

Collapse -
I was reflecting on the dakotavoice link.
by Kees Bakker / July 2, 2009 12:58 AM PDT

- attack of the shower nazi's [don't you think that's a little bit overdone?]
- waste still more of the taxpayer?s money on rebates, vouchers and other such nonsense to incentivize the American people to install water-saving devices in their homes
- What kind of idiot wants to deliberately subject himself to being covered in soap and shampoo when the water suddenly starts trickling out.

It's abundantly clear Americans don't want to waste TAXPAYER'S money. They want to waste their OWN money (on water, electricity and gas-slurping SUV's for example) and NATURE's reserves.


Collapse -
You may be beyond your depth...
by EdHannigan / July 2, 2009 1:53 AM PDT

Shower nazis may be over the top, but he explains that in the first paragraph.

Most Americans pay for their own water (I have a well, for instance) or it's part of their property tax or other taxes. What he's talking about is doling out taxpayer money to bribe people into buying certain "energy saving" devices.

This money ultimately comes out of federal income taxes, so basically people are paying a bribe to themselves. But there's always money lost in such a churn, so it's a waste whether you use it or not. And there is the danger of these things becoming requirements (if they HAVE to be there to sell your house for instance), so you really have no choice in the matter.

It's abundantly clear Americans don't want to waste TAXPAYER'S money. They want to waste their OWN money (on water, electricity and gas-slurping SUV's for example) and NATURE's reserves.

That statement makes little sense to me.

Collapse -
I'm wondering how you define "waste"....
by EdHannigan / July 2, 2009 2:20 AM PDT

Should someone be assigned to determine if my showers that are too long or if my use of gasoline is excessive? Maybe I am eating too much food, or the wrong kind, or breathing more than my fair share of air? Is this the kind of thing that we should find reasonable? Because that certainly seems to be where they are going.

Is the government the best judge of what is "wasteful"? Based on past performance?

Collapse -
Yep, good question.
by Kees Bakker / July 2, 2009 10:00 AM PDT
http://www.alternet.org/water/82378/ tells at 36 U.S. States face water shortage. Now think of the 'tragedy of the commons' by Garrett Hardin: shortage of a common good. It's in each individuals OWN interest to use more than his fair share. But if everybody does, that worsens the situation (maybe even beyond repair), so it's in the COLLECTIVE interest to do something about it. That's the tragedy of the situation.

So, for example, water shortage can lead to regulating or rationing the use or taxes on water use or subsidy on water-conserving or water-producing measures. That's clearly the task of the government, to care about our COLLECTIVE interests opposed to each individuals OWN interest.

An analogy you might agree with more. It's clearly not in the INDIVIDUAL interest of any boy to go to Iraq or Afghanistan and be killed or invalidated there. Some would even call it 'waste' of life. But it's in the COLLECTIVE interest of the US people (maybe even of the world) to go there and limit the power of the Taliban. Should we find that kind of things reasonable? It's surely limiting the freedom of the individual to do what he likes (be it showering or walking through New York). But it's certainly what mankind does since it exists.

Collapse -
How do you determine "fair share"?
by EdHannigan / July 2, 2009 10:39 AM PDT
In reply to: Yep, good question.

he solution to "shortages" is to acquire a better supply. I think that beats hysteria every time. I don't agree that that is the task of government to provide water. What if they are responsible for the "shortage" in the first place?

There were always lots of shortages of things in the Soviet Union, butter, meat,shoes, etc. That's because the government was in charge of providing butter, meat and shoes. There is never a shortage of those things in the US. Know why?

Collapse -
Re: increase the supply.
by Kees Bakker / July 2, 2009 5:05 PM PDT

Let it rain!

That's the only long-term water supply available (apart from distilling sea-water which needs a lot of energy and would make a shower rather expensive). Pumping up a limited supply deep underground is not sustainable.


Collapse -
There are other ways...
by EdHannigan / July 2, 2009 7:50 PM PDT

Better to focus on what's possible than what's not possible.

Collapse -
An example of what is possible.......
by lylesg / July 7, 2009 3:11 PM PDT

American ingenuity at it's best. Clayton County, Georgia, throughout one of the worst droughts in the past 50 years we maintained sustainable levels of water with never a concern of doing without.
Private engineers ran the show for us in the 70's - 80's and developed a very unique water reclamation/supply system that operates totally independent of tax any tax dollars. Our water system is studied by folks from all corners of the earth.

"2008 - The CCWA continued to garner industry accolades for its innovative use of constructed treatment wetlands,...... In May, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon even commended the CCWA for this innovation during a press conference with Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. Other milestones include:"

We do not welcome anybody wanting to tell us to limit our showers to 3 minutes and I certainly don't want the Fed's poking their noses into our water system because some way - some how they would screw it up. However, water conservation education is always good policy.


(did I mention that we glow at night?) Wink Actually, our water tests indicate top levels of purity.

Collapse -
The solution to "shortages" is to acquire a better supply
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / July 2, 2009 9:21 PM PDT

That's sensible of course, but how to do that?

Am I right in thinking that states like Nevada and California now have acute water shortages, and that in both states the water supply comes from reservoirs in the desert? How do those states supply more water for their citizens? These are capital projects and not easily solved in couple of years or so thru private enterprise; they are long-term design and building projects. In fact I also understand that the water level in one of the world's most famous water supply projects, the Hoover Dam reservoir, (Lake Mead?), is now at its lowest since construction finished. How does Las Vegas manage if the water levels continue to lower, and consumption continues to increase?

Such capital projects can only be put out to tender by local governements, and however these projects are paid for, either thru private water supply costs or taxable water-rates, the user pays.

Are you willing to pay more for your water if and when your local area needs it? If so, who to?

You may wish that US citizens had absolute freedom from central or local government control and influence, but my guess is that much of life in the US is controlled in some way or the other, and as resources exhaust, that control or influence will increase.


Collapse -
Pipeline from the Great Lakes

Plenty of fresh water there if they'd use it. Just think of how much flows daily across Niagra Falls. Just that amount would be more than enough to make the entire western desert bloom. There are other options, they just are too short sighted to see them.

Collapse -
Plenty of fresh water there if they'd use it.
by JP Bill / July 2, 2009 10:06 PM PDT

Hold on there Mister.

You want to start a war?

Collapse -
Who fired the first shots?
by James Denison / July 2, 2009 10:48 PM PDT

For decades the East part of US has now been telling the West part how to mine, how much to mine, and innumerable other restrictions on them in such regards, all while benefitting from the minerals, ores, metals which come from that region. Dig up the West, ship it to the East. Don't you think it's time the East provided some relief the other way?

Collapse -
RE: the East part of US has been telling the West part
by JP Bill / July 2, 2009 11:50 PM PDT

Where does the North (Canada) fit in your equation?

Is there going to be a wall down the center of the Great Lakes?

Collapse -
We'll just take our half of the water
by James Denison / July 3, 2009 1:54 AM PDT

You can keep your half. Wink

Collapse -
All the way across the US to Nevada and California?
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / July 2, 2009 10:10 PM PDT

To feed the needs of "How many millions" of citizens in those and surrounding states?

I wonder how many trillions that would cost.


Collapse -
(NT) You ever hear of the Alaska Pipeline?
by James Denison / July 2, 2009 10:45 PM PDT
Collapse -
But of course.
by MarkFlax Forum moderator / July 3, 2009 3:00 AM PDT

I bet that cost billions as well, but then it was the oil companies who paid for that.

Ohh, wait! No, gasolene users did.

Obviously the Great Lakes pipeline wouldn't be as expensive as I first thought. North to South, it's all downhill isn't it?


Collapse -
Ed would gladly pay taxes ...
by Kees Bakker / July 3, 2009 1:37 AM PDT

to build that pipeline. Anything better than having to shower one minute a day less.


Collapse -
(NT) so would my daughters, sigh.
by James Denison / July 3, 2009 1:55 AM PDT
Collapse -
Nope. You really don't understand do you?
by EdHannigan / July 3, 2009 3:26 AM PDT

I guess a lifetime of European socialism has wreaked its havoc.

If someone wants to build such a pipeline, let them...on their own dime, not mine. It would not benefit me any...I can take looong showers. We have plenty of water here. In fact, too much lately. Come on up and take some.

Collapse -
I really never voted socialist. ...
by Kees Bakker / July 3, 2009 3:43 AM PDT

in all my lifetime. No PSP, no PvdA, no SP (the 2 S's are for socialist, the A for Arbeider = blue-collar worker). No CPN either (the C for Communist).

As for The Netherlands in total, I just checked. From the 64 years since the end of World War 2 the socialistic party was part of the governemnt (our version of the word, the 'cabinet') for exactly 32 years = 50%. The only constant factor, present for 64 out of 64 years was the Catholic party (together with 2 Protestant parties they formed a Christian Democratic Party in 1977). So, if anything, it's European catholicism here, not socialism.
That's why we allow abortion, gay marriage and marihuana, you see.


Collapse -
RE: We have plenty of water here. In fact, too much lately.
by JP Bill / July 3, 2009 3:47 AM PDT
Still living "for the moment?"

"Avoid the 30 minute shower. Don't run the water while brushing your teeth. Every little bit helps. If everyone could contribute, it could mitigate a serious problem much like we experienced last year around this time when shallow wells quit producing."

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Your favorite shows are back!

Don’t miss your dramas, sitcoms and reality shows. Find out when and where they’re airing!