Sen. Rand Paul and others finally get it right

[John Galt?]

Not anymore. There used to be x/check fee for more than y# of checks.

It is apples and orange trees anyway. Should checks, which can bounce, require you to physically take them to the bank, and take 5-7 biz days to clear, have the same price as a system that gives you next day payment, almost guaranteed payment, and takes just seconds to process?

That's like saying computers should be the same price as an abacus.

It was a question, not a challenge ... I didn't know if there was any expense incurred by the retailer for accepting a check.

Right now, the merchant has 2 options. 1. accept the check and get DL info (time), fill out deposit slip (more time), drive to the bank (gas and time). 2. use a Check conversion service which costs @ 1%-1.5%+$0.25 which guarantees the check and deposits it electronically.

I worded that wrong when I said "expense incurred" when I really meant a fee charged by the bank .... and I had never heard of a check conversion service before. Are they utilized much?

Quite a bit. You get an imager that scans the check, the accnt# is checked against a "bad list" and the accnt is checked for sufficient funds. At the end of the day all the check images are uploaded to the service where they ACH the account. Merchant gets hsi money about 2 days sooner w/o all the driving and hassle. Very popular with auto repair and other large ticket businesses.

Walmart did an internal study of their various payments methods and the costs associated with them. Their highest costs were 1. Cash 2. CCs 3.checks 4. debit.. The larger the retailer, the more expensive cash and checks becomes.

Was cash #1 because more labor intensive plus security measures?

yes, cash is a very small expense for a mom&pop. But for Walmart, you are talking about managers to double count the drawers, armored car service, safes, security personnel to walk cash from the registers to the back, cameras (on the cashiers), etc. Plus employee theft and counterfeiting.

[Morgan]

Rand Paul brings up abortion while complaining about our country's energy policy...........


Paul said it was "appalling" and "hypocritical" for the Obama administration to "favor a woman's right to an abortion but you don't favor a woman or a man's right to choose what kind of light bulb, what kind of dishwasher, what kind of washing machine."

What an azz.

BTW......The new light bulb standards require manufacturers to produce bulbs that use 25%-30% less energy than standard incandescents, starting Jan. 1. They were signed into law by President George W. Bush.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/03/rand-paul-toilets-light-bulbs/1?loc=interstitialskip

[dbucfan]

Was your point that Paul rambled from the topic?

[Morgan]

no, that he'd use any given opportunity (lightbulbs and toilets) to grandstand and slam our country's abortion laws and the Obama administration.

[dbucfan]

Rand Paul surely disagrees with Obama's plans - that is why he was elected.  The topic of this thread however - is simply a slice of what is going on in the country - a topic - that doesn't include abortion laws, light bulbs, or the energy programs Obama seems so enamored with along with his redistribution theories

[The White Tiger]

Well, when the abortion laws are wrong, the lightbulbs he's pushing require a HAZMAT team to clean up if you break them in your house (no joke, they''re filled with MERCURY - read the back of ANY label of these lightbulbs), and the toilets he's promoting require you to flush them 3 times to build enough pressure to clear the lines - the moronic presidential administration NEEDS to be slammed - similar to the way lefty nutjobs (no offense) slammed Bush.

[Col. Klink]

Well, when the abortion laws are wrong, the lightbulbs he's pushing require a HAZMAT team to clean up if you break them in your house (no joke, they''re filled with MERCURY - read the back of ANY label of these lightbulbs), and the toilets he's promoting require you to flush them 3 times to build enough pressure to clear the lines - the moronic presidential administration NEEDS to be slammed - similar to the way lefty nutjobs (no offense) slammed Bush.

LOL .... were you just as incensed when the previous administration signed the bill into law? .... And Paul is a complete idiot if he has a toilet that requires 3 flushes ... but I'm betting that was just a little grandstanding.

[The White Tiger]

Yep, I shouted with the loudest voice I had - first, when the left-leaning congress pushed this bill thru - and again just before it was signed into law...and that moronic former VP that pushed this travesty should be indicted for his baseless claims that these MERCURY filled light bulbs would be safer for our environment while consuming less energy....except you have to turn them on 15 minutes before you need a level of light by which to navigate...because they don't work AND they literally require a HAZMAT team to clean up the amount of MERCURY contained in ONE light bulb.

LOL.

[dbucfan]

Well, when the abortion laws are wrong, the lightbulbs he's pushing require a HAZMAT team to clean up if you break them in your house (no joke, they''re filled with MERCURY - read the back of ANY label of these lightbulbs), and the toilets he's promoting require you to flush them 3 times to build enough pressure to clear the lines - the moronic presidential administration NEEDS to be slammed - similar to the way lefty nutjobs (no offense) slammed Bush.

LOL .... were you just as incensed when the previous administration signed the bill into law? .... And Paul is a complete idiot if he has a toilet that requires 3 flushes ... but I'm betting that was just a little grandstanding.

Dumb is dumb my friend, regardless of party.  Oh, and check out San Francisco's issues with the low flow toilets.  http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-28/bay-area/28638647_1_low-flow-toilets-drinking-water-city-drains   One hundred million spent trying to keep the sewer lines working - and they are losing the battle...

[Col. Klink]

Well, when the abortion laws are wrong, the lightbulbs he's pushing require a HAZMAT team to clean up if you break them in your house (no joke, they''re filled with MERCURY - read the back of ANY label of these lightbulbs), and the toilets he's promoting require you to flush them 3 times to build enough pressure to clear the lines - the moronic presidential administration NEEDS to be slammed - similar to the way lefty nutjobs (no offense) slammed Bush.

LOL .... were you just as incensed when the previous administration signed the bill into law? .... And Paul is a complete idiot if he has a toilet that requires 3 flushes ... but I'm betting that was just a little grandstanding.

Dumb is dumb my friend, regardless of party.

Sorry, really can't agree with calling something dumb that will save 25-30% on energy usage ... unless, of course, WT's HAZMAT scenario is that serious.

Oh, and check out San Francisco's issues with the low flow toilets.  http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-28/bay-area/28638647_1_low-flow-toilets-drinking-water-city-drains   One hundred million spent trying to keep the sewer lines working - and they are losing the battle...

Sounds like more of a SF sewer problem than a toilet problem ... Plus, nothing but good results for the bay area economy. 20 million gallons of water conserved, which will probably be more critical than oil in the not so distant future ...$100 million dollars worth of business generated over the five years, plus the $14 million for bleach ... all good.

[dbucfan]

Well, when the abortion laws are wrong, the lightbulbs he's pushing require a HAZMAT team to clean up if you break them in your house (no joke, they''re filled with MERCURY - read the back of ANY label of these lightbulbs), and the toilets he's promoting require you to flush them 3 times to build enough pressure to clear the lines - the moronic presidential administration NEEDS to be slammed - similar to the way lefty nutjobs (no offense) slammed Bush.

LOL .... were you just as incensed when the previous administration signed the bill into law? .... And Paul is a complete idiot if he has a toilet that requires 3 flushes ... but I'm betting that was just a little grandstanding.

Dumb is dumb my friend, regardless of party.

Sorry, really can't agree with calling something dumb that will save 25-30% on energy usage ... unless, of course, WT's HAZMAT scenario is that serious.

Oh, and check out San Francisco's issues with the low flow toilets.  http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-02-28/bay-area/28638647_1_low-flow-toilets-drinking-water-city-drains   One hundred million spent trying to keep the sewer lines working - and they are losing the battle...

Sounds like more of a SF sewer problem than a toilet problem ... Plus, nothing but good results for the bay area economy. 20 million gallons of water conserved, which will probably be more critical than oil in the not so distant future ...$100 million dollars worth of business generated over the five years, plus the $14 million for bleach ... all good.

It would be great - if 1. the damned things gave off light without waiting for them to warm up, 2. you could dispose of them, 3. that they weren't a health hazard if one breaks...

As to the sewers - yea, need to design them with greater drop per LF - because the water from the water saving toilets is inadequate to move the sludge from the lines, and the sludge is attacking the lift stations.  So one or the other needs to be improved - the entire sewer system or back to standard toilets.  As to the water savings, not so fast my friend, the sewer lines are being constantly flushed out and cleaned trying to preserve the mechanical elements - and what are they using to keep the solid waste - no not the constant air flow from Ms. Nancy's lying lips - you got it - the water they are/were conserving. 

As to the business generated - taxpayer dollars being spent due to another ill-conceived idea.  Just a second way of thinking about I guess. 

Where's Horshak - oooh, oooh oooh - almost forgot - SF tells residents in some areas to flush 2-3 times to try and get enough water to force the sh... errr, solids to flow properly.  Aint it grand.

[The White Tiger]

Well, never let the facts stand in the way of a good story!

Oh, and since you asked Klonk: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda&p=2

Excerpt:

"...As each CFL contains five milligrams of mercury, at the Maine "safety" standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to "safely" contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal..."

You don't seem to understand the assumed water savings is based on only flushing the toilet once...did you think I was kidding about having to flush it multiple times? It  actually will flush correctly the first time - the problem is - it doesn't have enough pressure to make to the end of the sewer lines. The "product" (including the, er.. paperwork) then sits there awaiting the next flush. The next time you flush you send it right down to...the barier created by the last "product" you flushed...making a bigger pile of..."product".

...after several more piles - your toilet backs up all over your floor.

I called a plumber - who said that the toilet has done a lot for his business - he actually raised his rates because he was SO busy.  He told me he used some of that extra money to remove his low-flow toilets and bought some older toilets from a salvage yard - because his wife got tired of cleaning up the messes! He told me that the old toilets are now selling for almost $100 because so many people are having the problem.

When I asked what I could do until I found an old toilet - he said - flush it a few times to ensure all the product gets deposited at the end of the line...

So - both items were created by well intentioned people with absolutely no thought given to what my happen to plumbing systems of homes whose engineering called for 5 gallons of water to be flushed from a toilet?

But why on Earth NO environmental agency leapt to the aid of the American people when the LEFTY'S started SHOVING the CFL (i.e., MERCURY-filled) bulb on us - culminating in a BAN of a perfectly safe (and cheap) option?

It's almost like someone stood to make a lot of money...?

You seem to learn a lot from folks you intially try to mock...maybe it's time you start question what you know?

I find you to be a smart guy - I just think you're refusing to accept that you're hardwired into the matrix.

[Morgan]

Mercury in lightbulbs....

Is there anything you rightwing nutjobs WON'T complain about?

[Morgan]

[dbucfan]

Mercury in lightbulbs....

Is there anything you rightwing nutjobs WON'T complain about?

It isn't a joke - try to legally dispose of one, or go on line and check out the Mercury in a CFL bulb - and what to do should you break one... the mercury content is dangerous