Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax
David S. Addington
November 8, 2011 at 6:15 pm
(715)
President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.
In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10).
To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52). And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees.
Acting Administrator Shipman had the temerity to say the 15-cent mandatory Christmas tree fee “is not a tax nor does it yield revenue for the Federal government” (76 CFR 69102). The Federal government mandates that the Christmas tree sellers pay the 15-cents per tree, whether they want to or not. The Federal government directs that the revenue generated by the 15-cent fee goes to the Board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out the Christmas tree program established by the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. President, that’s a new 15-cent tax to pay for a Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.
Nobody is saying President Obama doesn’t have authority to impose his new Christmas Tree Tax — his Administration cites the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996. Just because the Obama Administration has the legal power to impose its Christmas Tree Tax doesn’t mean it should do so.
The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs. Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President Obama can do?
And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government.
Yes we need a commission to market Christmas trees because not enough Christmas trees aren't cut down and sold. To administer this commission we will need five workers, an assistant, an assistant manager, office manager, and director. The adminstration salaries should only total $2.7MM. Whats the problem?
Only stick that on there along with all the other taxes.
State taxes.
County or municipality taxes.
Any other surcharges or fees with regard to any other way to wring money from the pockets of consumers such as tree disposal fees or "Environmental Impact Fees."
Kinda like how GW gets away with their price hikes:
Base cost of model plus:
GW Branding
Cost of Material Increase
The Mat Ward Reputation Defense Fund
Cost of Change to Making Finecast Increase
Cost of Change to Material for Material Finecase Increase
I know for me personally, its not the tax, I mean 15 cents on a tree, thats not a deal breaker, its more the fact that, they actually spent time and money to come up with this thing. And really, tax on xmas trees? Whats the point?
KingCracker wrote:I know for me personally, its not the tax, I mean 15 cents on a tree, thats not a deal breaker, its more the fact that, they actually spent time and money to come up with this thing. And really, tax on xmas trees? Whats the point?
It looks like this was conceived of by a private association of Christmas Tree producers and importers, and then submitted to the Department of Agriculture.
This proposed rule invites comments on the establishment of an industryfunded promotion, research, and information program for fresh cut Christmas trees. The proposed Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Proposed Order), was submitted to the Department of Agriculture (Department) by the Christmas Tree Checkoff Task Force (Task Force), an industry wide group of producers and importers that support this proposed program.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Why the feth is the government having to support an industry that is already thriving?
Idiocy.
According to the link I posted earlier they've been experiencing a drop in sales (6% over some period) while fake Christmas tree sales have surged over 600% since 1960! (er, what?)
The wife and I will be buying a brand new fake Christmas tree this year. Not because of the tax, but simply because we're damn tired of dealing with dead trees. If we want the pine smell in the house I've got plenty of models that need stripping (and a bottle of Pine Sol).
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Why the feth is the government having to support an industry that is already thriving?
Idiocy.
According to the link I posted earlier they've been experiencing a drop in sales (6% over some period) while fake Christmas tree sales have surged over 600% since 1960! (er, what?)
The wife and I will be buying a brand new fake Christmas tree this year. Not because of the tax, but simply because we're damn tired of dealing with dead trees. If we want the pine smell in the house I've got plenty of models that need stripping (and a bottle of Pine Sol).
Agreed. I hate live trees, or more precisely newly killed trees. Plastic trees in the house, real trees outside.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Why the feth is the government having to support an industry that is already thriving?
Idiocy.
According to the link I posted earlier they've been experiencing a drop in sales (6% over some period) while fake Christmas tree sales have surged over 600% since 1960! (er, what?)
The wife and I will be buying a brand new fake Christmas tree this year. Not because of the tax, but simply because we're damn tired of dealing with dead trees. If we want the pine smell in the house I've got plenty of models that need stripping (and a bottle of Pine Sol).
Agreed. I hate live trees, or more precisely newly killed trees. Plastic trees in the house, real trees outside.
Agreed. Live trees require watering, clean up of bristles and possibly sap(depending on freshness of purchase), and keeping the pets out of them.
Fake trees require putting up and tearing down. Also, the hippies won't complain if we're cutting down less trees.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:Why the feth is the government having to support an industry that is already thriving?
Idiocy.
According to the link I posted earlier they've been experiencing a drop in sales (6% over some period) while fake Christmas tree sales have surged over 600% since 1960! (er, what?)
The wife and I will be buying a brand new fake Christmas tree this year. Not because of the tax, but simply because we're damn tired of dealing with dead trees. If we want the pine smell in the house I've got plenty of models that need stripping (and a bottle of Pine Sol).
Agreed. I hate live trees, or more precisely newly killed trees. Plastic trees in the house, real trees outside.
Agreed. Live trees require watering, clean up of bristles and possibly sap(depending on freshness of purchase), and keeping the pets out of them.
Fake trees require putting up and tearing down. Also, the hippies won't complain if we're cutting down less trees.
I also have an issue with killing a tree for no reason.
ShumaGorath wrote:So is this pro or anti Christmas? Am I supposed to be outraged?
Pro-stupid. Generally a good position to take.
Frazzled wrote:I also have an issue with killing a tree for no reason.
Ain't logical. Hell, I'll kill a tree in a fair fight... or if I think it's gonna start a fair fight, or if it bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid.
ShumaGorath wrote:So is this pro or anti Christmas? Am I supposed to be outraged?
Pro-stupid. Generally a good position to take.
Frazzled wrote:I also have an issue with killing a tree for no reason.
Ain't logical. Hell, I'll kill a tree in a fair fight... or if I think it's gonna start a fair fight, or if it bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid.
I honestly don't get what the fuss is all about. Is it just a need for complaining? I can see how you might get agitated about how they might seem to throw away the money, but... 15 cents?
Try living in Denmark a couple of months. 50% income taxes - that's half your paycheck. After that, there's the value added taxes (25%).
a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.
Now thats...um...F'ing kidding me?
Thought Obama wanted to go green...means more real tree's growing in nature Of course the Xmas tree in the white house every year falls under similiar to Imminant Domain to so whatever tree they like they can take
Hehe, a Christmas Tree Tax? That's almost as bad as a 'Salt Tax'
Yes, salt. Harmless, innocuous salt.
Unlikely as it may seem, it turns out that taxing salt has been one of the most unthinkably problematic ideas in history. Salt taxes were partially responsible for the fall of the Chinese empire, the French salt tax (the gabelle) helped precipitate the French Revolution and Gandhi himself marched in an anti-salt tax protest in 1930. In doing so he galvanized a burgeoning Indian independence movement, and that specific march inspired the future philosophies of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.
If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.
Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.
If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.
Media Matters is my favorite website ever.
It's like the Onion, but they pretend to be serious.
I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.
Why the feth is the government having to support an industry that is already thriving?
That's exactly why most people want to end tax subsidies for oil companies, the most profitable and richest corporations on Earth. Obama and Democrats have repeatedly tried to end them, Republicans oppose it at every turn. Is anyone here actually more outraged by the 15 cent tax on trees? If so, that tells the rest of us a lot.
You guys act like this is the first time this has happened. In fact salmon, crab, halibut and generally all the fisheries have a marketing tax. Its pretty common actually. I mean if you've bought lumber for you more than likely paid a bit of a marketing tax.
Now they're doing it to Christmas trees...big deal.
PS the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
We go plastic tree. Worst of all, we prefer white, and its hard to get a good one, they are usually
Cheap white tree - looks like poop
gap
Really pricey tree - Looks fantastic but so is the price tag
You mean like yesterday when his AG said he bore no responsibility for the death of BrianT and wouldn't even apologize as the head of the organization?
How can we hold Obama responsible really for anything his administration does? 15c tax on trees, pah I heard Obama stole candy from a mother in an abortion clinic.
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.
If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.
Media Matters is my favorite website ever.
It's like the Onion, but they pretend to be serious.
I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.
Of course, you have no answer, just your typical slander.
Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.
If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.
Media Matters is my favorite website ever.
It's like the Onion, but they pretend to be serious.
I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.
Bush left a pretty good wake. He's like a really loud and violent speed boat.
Far from a tax initiated by the Obama administration, the proposal to create an assessment on tree growers to fund a research and promotion program through the USDA was begun by the industry during the Bush administration.
If any of you could explain what Obama has to do with this, that would be great.
Because its his adminstration that actually promulgated the rule.
nectarprime wrote:Of course, you have no answer, just your typical slander.
Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama. I'll grant Ghadaffi, but really the seeds of the Arab Spring were started when Bush took out Saddam Hussein.
Media Matters is a group whose sole mission is to advance left-wing talking points.
Also, that's not slander. Please don't falsely accuse me of crimes.
ShumaGorath wrote:
Bush left a pretty good wake. He's like a really loud and violent speed boat.
No it's all Obama's fault!!!!! Everything is!
Well I still am not a fan of Obama at all, but I will also admit, that Bush did leave him a nice steamer on the desk before leaving. BUT, you cant continue to blame Bush, if Obama doesnt shovel the gak up either
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
This is the basis of all administrative law.
I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
This is the basis of all administrative law.
I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
This is the basis of all administrative law.
I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.
Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.
As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.
Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama. I'll grant Ghadaffi, but really the seeds of the Arab Spring were started when Bush took out Saddam Hussein.
How? Most FP experts believe that the Tunisian coup dominoed into the Egyptian coup and that the global recession compacted previously existent antigovernment sentiment which lead to a massive international protest movement. How exactly the forceful removal of a dictator followed by a civil war in Iraq led to a series of peaceful anti government pro growth protests is beyond me. It certainly wouldn't have made it seem more safe to depose a dictator whose counts anti exremist activity as one of the pillars of his rule.
biccat wrote:I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.
Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".
So Frazzled, when are you going to edit your inaccurate troll-title? Or are we still claiming he couldn't wait to pass legislation that was actually passed nearly a year before he took office?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama.
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
This is the basis of all administrative law.
I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.
Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.
As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.
INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.
Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".
So Frazzled, when are you going to edit your inaccurate troll-title? Or are we still claiming he couldn't wait to pass legislation that was actually passed nearly a year before he took office?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Presumably you agree then that the deaths of Bin Laden and Awaki belong to Bush, not Obama.
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
This is the basis of all administrative law.
I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.
Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.
As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.
INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.
Wow then geesh that job I had in the department of revenue in Alaska must have just been a dream. I could have sworn I helped design a tax form for the salmon fishing industry to impose a Salmon Marketing Tax (SMT 04-568 as we called it. Of course they might have changed the name) whose funds were to be used only for the marketing and promotion of Alaskan salmon as decided by the Alaskan salmon industry. But now you're saying I can't have done that. Ill call Alaska's Republican government and let them know they're guilty of price fixing.
As to your style. I didn't really mean to comment on your style. Just that I'd rather you make an argument than a simple statement.
Ouze wrote:Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".
You appear to not have understood my post. However, given the vitriol and insults in your post, I'm going to just ignore the rest of it.
When you're willing to blame Obama for any of his major feth ups while in office, instead of simply blaming everything bad that happens on Bush, give me a call.
Dakkadan wrote:I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit.
Not really, the enabling law governs what the executive can regulate and how the rules are created. But it's really quite broad.
Dakkadan wrote:But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that.
In fact, that's not what I said. Feel free to go back and read my post if you're unclear on this point.
Dakkadan wrote:However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
Please read the link I posted on the first page of this thread. The industry had actually tried to have a self-financed (and self-regulated) marketing group. However, the efforts would tend to fall apart after a few years. If you read up on this issue, it's apparent why this happened: some growers supported the tax and others did not.
Therefore, the purpose of this (and every other) tax is to force others to pay what they will not pay willingly.
So please stop saying that this is imposed on an industry that wants to pay the tax.
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
This is the basis of all administrative law.
I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.
Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.
As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.
INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing. As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.
Wow then geesh that job I had in the department of revenue in Alaska must have just been a dream. I could have sworn I helped design a tax form for the salmon fishing industry to impose a Salmon Marketing Tax (SMT 04-568 as we called it. Of course they might have changed the name) whose funds were to be used only for the marketing and promotion of Alaskan salmon as decided by the Alaskan salmon industry. But now you're saying I can't have done that. Ill call Alaska's Republican government and let them know they're guilty of price fixing.
As to your style. I didn't really mean to comment on your style. Just that I'd rather you make an argument than a simple statement.
If you, as part of the Alaska government were designing the form, then it was a government tax. Else you wouldn't have ben involved.
There is no such thing as a "private" tax. There are assessments that members can make upon each othr as part of different organizations they are members of. They do not, however, have the force of the government behind them.
Ouze wrote:Yeah yeah, we get it, Obama is truly history's greatest monster. Stupid legislation passed under his watch, his fault. Stupid legislation turned out not to have passed under his watch, he's "ducking responsibility" and "pinning it on Bush".
You appear to not have understood my post. However, given the vitriol and insults in your post, I'm going to just ignore the rest of it.
When you're willing to blame Obama for any of his major feth ups while in office, instead of simply blaming everything bad that happens on Bush, give me a call.
I've blamed him for many of the stupid things he's done, and have several times said he doesn't deserve to get re-elected. Credit where credit's due, and fault where fault belongs. He deserves to be called out on the poor things he's done, just as you deserve to be called iout on what you did: you claimed Bush deserved credit, I posted a video showing 5 months after Osama killed 3,000 Americans Bush declaring he doesn't really think about Osama much, and you yelled "hey look, that dog has a fluffy tail" and ran away.
Dakkadan wrote:the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own.
The tax is promulgated as a rule, not as a law. The enabling law was passed by Congress and the authority to enact rules under the law was given to the Executive Branch, of which the President is the head.
If the President wanted to impose a tax, he could do so without (additional) approval from Congress, so long as he complied with the enabling law.
This is the basis of all administrative law.
I think you are glossing over the "Complied with the enabling law" bit. But if you want to think the president can just randomly add taxes where he wants you keep doing that. However once you consider that in practice they don't impose marketing taxes on industries that don't wish to have them. Heck the salmon fisheries in Alaska pay extra (read: more than is required) becuase marketing sells fish even bad ones as any Republican presidential nominee will tell you.
I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.
Hey frazmataz you should save up all these little gems you post roll them into a ball and when you have something worth saying THEN post. Random GET OFF MY LAWN comments don't really make your point for you. I'm thinking if you posted them all at once I might be able to find something in them to make a discussion out of.
As for your latest bleep filled gem. Ill simply say marketing tax had been around for a long time. They've been doing it for a long time now. Obama didn't invent it. Many industries self impose their own marketing tax anyway. Especially if the feds won't do one, and sometimes in addition to the federal one. It is a standard that has been around for a while... a long while. This wont change no matter how bad you want to take your country back.
INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
As to my stiyle of posting, hey when you're as old as I am you can post how you damn well please.
Wow then geesh that job I had in the department of revenue in Alaska must have just been a dream. I could have sworn I helped design a tax form for the salmon fishing industry to impose a Salmon Marketing Tax (SMT 04-568 as we called it. Of course they might have changed the name) whose funds were to be used only for the marketing and promotion of Alaskan salmon as decided by the Alaskan salmon industry. But now you're saying I can't have done that. Ill call Alaska's Republican government and let them know they're guilty of price fixing.
As to your style. I didn't really mean to comment on your style. Just that I'd rather you make an argument than a simple statement.
If you, as part of the Alaska government were designing the form, then it was a government tax. Else you wouldn't have ben involved.
There is no such thing as a "private" tax. There are assessments that members can make upon each othr as part of different organizations they are members of. They do not, however, have the force of the government behind them.
We colllected the salmon market TAX on BEHALF of the salmon fishing industry. In addition to assessments. Its all very complicated which is why I often take statements by people trying to tell me what the "law" is with a grain of salt. Even lawyers without the actual statutes in front of them are lost.
@bicatI'm not sure you're aware or not but that is what all taxes are. If we stopped all taxes based on the fact that some don't wont to pay we'd have no taxes. The point wasn't that every person in this industry wants the tax. But rather often industries want this tax because it increases sales directly instead of going to fix roads or something.
Also my point about Obama then seems to have had nothing to do with your original reply to it.
Also sorry for this reply style I'm typing this on my phone while in a car.
Dakkadan wrote:@bicat I'm not sure you're aware or not but that is what all taxes are. I we stopped all taxes based on that fact that some don't wont to pay we'd have no taxes. The point wasn't that every person in this industry wants the tax. But rather often industries want this tax because it increases sales directly instead of going to fix roads or something.
Yes, I know that's what taxes are. Taxes are means of transferring assets by force or threat of force to a governmental agency. Government involvement is necessary because people won't pay voluntarily.
You could say that the majority of the industry wants the tax, which would be closer to the truth (although is not true by necessity). Some growers want a Christmas Tree Advertising Board (or whatever the official name is), others do not. Those who want the Board should pay for it, not those who do not want it.
Dakkadan wrote:Also my point about Obama then seems to have had nothing to do with your original reply to it.
My response to you was based on this comment: "the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own."
Technically, he does, because that power was ceded to him by Congress.
Dakkadan wrote:@bicat I'm not sure you're aware or not but that is what all taxes are. I we stopped all taxes based on that fact that some don't wont to pay we'd have no taxes. The point wasn't that every person in this industry wants the tax. But rather often industries want this tax because it increases sales directly instead of going to fix roads or something.
Yes, I know that's what taxes are. Taxes are means of transferring assets by force or threat of force to a governmental agency. Government involvement is necessary because people won't pay voluntarily.
You could say that the majority of the industry wants the tax, which would be closer to the truth (although is not true by necessity). Some growers want a Christmas Tree Advertising Board (or whatever the official name is), others do not. Those who want the Board should pay for it, not those who do not want it
I completely agree with you. Those that want it should do it and those that don't absolutely shouldn't have to. Of course they will also benefit from this extra marketing which they wont be paying for while others in their industry will. How do you feel about that?
What I'm attacking is the idea that this is an Obama creation. These federal marketing taxes are and were supported by both corrupt parties.
Dakkadan wrote:Also my point about Obama then seems to have had nothing to do with your original reply to it.
My response to you was based on this comment: "the president doesn't have the power to impose any tax on his own."
Technically, he does, because that power was ceded to him by Congress.
And I said you glossed over a bit in that rule as evidenced by your use of the word "technically"
Dakkadan wrote:I completely agree with you. Those that want it should do it and those that don't absolutely shouldn't have to. Of course they will also benefit from this extra marketing which they wont be paying for while others in their industry will. How do you feel about that?
It's something that the people funding the advertising should consider when they pay, but I don't have a problem with it. RC Cola rarely advertises, the market for soft drinks is created almost wholly by Pepsi and Coke. I don't see a problem with RC Cola creating an alternative and benefitting from the advertising of those two.
Dakkadan wrote:What I'm attacking is the idea that this is an Obama creation. These federal marketing taxes are and were supported by both corrupt parties.
It's a tax passed during his administration, he gets responsibility for it. He is the official head of the Executive Branch and is responsible for the actions of all the administrative agencies. That's the way the system works.
Dakkadan wrote:And I said you glossed over a bit in that rule as evidenced by your use of the word "technically"
I'm not sure what you think I'm glossing over. The enabling act gives the president the power to tax Christmas Trees. So long as he's taxing Christmas Trees, he is free to tax or not. The act also requires a notice and comment period (and other formalities). So long as he performs those formalities, he can impose a tax or not. The fact that he has an administrative agency that takes these steps is irrelevant to having the legal power to do so.
There's no limit to the President's discretion to tax or not tax Christmas Trees.
Dakkadan wrote:I completely agree with you. Those that want it should do it and those that don't absolutely shouldn't have to. Of course they will also benefit from this extra marketing which they wont be paying for while others in their industry will. How do you feel about that?
It's something that the people funding the advertising should consider when they pay, but I don't have a problem with it. RC Cola rarely advertises, the market for soft drinks is created almost wholly by Pepsi and Coke. I don't see a problem with RC Cola creating an alternative and benefitting from the advertising of those two.
It doesn't really bother me either but that's not really a good analogy. Its more like some coke venders pay quarterly for advertising and then every other coke vender benefiting from the ever popular coke ads. And to be honest sometimes I don't feel that's very fair.
Dakkadan wrote:What I'm attacking is the idea that this is an Obama creation. These federal marketing taxes are and were supported by both corrupt parties.
It's a tax passed during his administration, he gets responsibility for it. He is the official head of the Executive Branch and is responsible for the actions of all the administrative agencies. That's the way the system works.
I'm not giving him a pass. What I'm saying is this idea of picking a bad Guy on the other side and yelling blaming them. When the system is so broken it doesn't actually matter who's in office the same business interests are the priority and not The people.
Dakkadan wrote:And I said you glossed over a bit in that rule as evidenced by your use of the word "technically"
I'm not sure what you think I'm glossing over. The enabling act gives the president the power to tax Christmas Trees. So long as he's taxing Christmas Trees, he is free to tax or not. The act also requires a notice and comment period (and other formalities). So long as he performs those formalities, he can impose a tax or not. The fact that he has an administrative agency that takes these steps is irrelevant to having the legal power to do so.
There's no limit to the President's discretion to tax or not tax Christmas Trees.
And as the old saying goes "there's many a slip twix a cup and a lip". I'm saying that with this tax like nearly all others obama didn't wake up and all, on his lonesome and push EZ tax button. Nor in reality could he impose any unrighteous tax. (In this case unrighteous means unremoveable.)
Dakkadan wrote:It doesn't really bother me either but that's not really a good analogy. Its more like some coke venders pay quarterly for advertising and then every other coke vender benefiting from the ever popular coke ads. And to be honest sometimes I don't feel that's very fair.
How is it not a good analogy? RC Cola wouldn't exist as a company without Coke and Pepsi paving the way for the industry. In fact, I think it's a darn good analogy, it clearly shows that one company (RC) is benefitting from the money paid by another (Coke). Why shouldn't RC pay a portion of Coke's advertising budget if they reap some benefit from it?
As for some Coke vendors paying for advertising that others benefit from...yes, this happens. Particularly at sporting events. The markups on those products are much higher and create a market for retail Coke stores. Companies that operate vending machines pay more for advertising than people who sell Coke in restaurants.
Fairness is irrelevant to the issue.
Dakkadan wrote:I'm not giving him a pass. What I'm saying is this idea of picking a bad Guy on the other side and yelling blaming them. When the system is so broken it doesn't actually matter who's in office the same business interests are the priority and not The people.
OK.
But it seems to me that every time there's a political complaint about a Republican the argument is that Republicans are bad. When there's a complaint about a Democrat, the argument is that Political Parties are bad. I think that argument is bunk.
Dakkadan wrote:And as the old saying goes "there's many a slip twix a cup and a lip". I'm saying that with this tax like nearly all others obama didn't wake up and all, on his lonesome and push EZ tax button. Nor in reality could he impose any unrighteous tax. (In this case unrighteous means unremoveable.)
I suppose I should ask one more time before putting this to rest. What part do you think I "glossed over"? The President's authority to tax is unfettered by Congressional action (who traditionally holds the power to tax).
And there's no such thing as an unremovable tax. No tax (or any action in the US form of government) can be enacted that requires a higher threshold for repeal (although the Democrats tried to do so with Obamacare).
Which is something that is often overlooked when people discuss his approval rating: liberals are often very disapproving of him too, but are unlikely to vote for a challenger.
Most people that voted for him expected to get a fresh voice that was untainted by the sordid nature of the system. Instead, we got a guy that's just as knee deep in the political muck as anybody, but doesn't have the political skills to get anything done.
He's not as bad as the right wants to make him out to be (just like W wasn't as bad as the left painted him), but he's not a very effective president.
Which is something that is often overlooked when people discuss his approval rating: liberals are often very disapproving of him too, but are unlikely to vote for a challenger.
Most people that voted for him expected to get a fresh voice that was untainted by the sordid nature of the system. Instead, we got a guy that's just as knee deep in the political muck as anybody, but doesn't have the political skills to get anything done.
He's not as bad as the right wants to make him out to be (just like W wasn't as bad as the left painted him), but he's not a very effective president.
I think thats the best appraisal I've seen in a long, long time.
Which is something that is often overlooked when people discuss his approval rating: liberals are often very disapproving of him too, but are unlikely to vote for a challenger.
Most people that voted for him expected to get a fresh voice that was untainted by the sordid nature of the system. Instead, we got a guy that's just as knee deep in the political muck as anybody, but doesn't have the political skills to get anything done.
He's not as bad as the right wants to make him out to be (just like W wasn't as bad as the left painted him), but he's not a very effective president.
I think thats the best appraisal I've seen in a long, long time.
I believe he's at least trying, even if I agree he's not being very effectual right now.
The sad thing is, the republicans won't offer an alternative. They hate romney and the others aside from romney are made of fail. Even romney isn't likely to do much when the party he's aligned with hates him so much (Despite him being the most electable member of the current candidates), so even if he DOES get elected he'll probably be as rejected by the republicans as Obama is-- really, any sane, logical person is going to be rejected by the current republican powers that be.
Our country property is pasture for horses, so we can't plant too many trees (frankly there's too many horses as it is anyway, but they wont' listen to me and sell a few)...
streamdragon wrote:Meh, I buy live trees anyway. Of course, I live on 5 acres, so I have a place to plant them afterwards.
If I find the person who topped my favorite D. fir last year returns he/she will find that "Posted" also means "Will prosecute ballsy gaks that walk 10 acres onto my property to murder my favorite tree, but should also hope I don't feel my life is threatened." that seems clumsy, "violators will be shot"
streamdragon wrote:Meh, I buy live trees anyway. Of course, I live on 5 acres, so I have a place to plant them afterwards.
Now that I can get behind. On the positive this discussion has reinvigorated my desire to put even more lights up on our outdoor trees.
Strangely, we barely decorate the trees. Originally the plan was to plant them in a line along the driveway to the house, so you'd be able to see the trees getting progressively taller. Unfortunately, that would block too much of the sight line :(
AustonT wrote:
streamdragon wrote:Meh, I buy live trees anyway. Of course, I live on 5 acres, so I have a place to plant them afterwards.
If I find the person who topped my favorite D. fir last year returns he/she will find that "Posted" also means "Will prosecute ballsy gaks that walk 10 acres onto my property to murder my favorite tree, but should also hope I don't feel my life is threatened." that seems clumsy, "violators will be shot"
That sucks that someone chopped one of your trees. We had to fence a couple of ours off as the animals were doing some serious damage to the lower branches.
Our HOA collapsed in the 90's...
There's some old Vietnam Vet up there whose land is properly posted, but also has a sharpie sign that says something like "eggs for sale 75c/dzn call ahead first, no trespassing violators will be shot and buried next to Hoffa" come to think about it I don't even know if that guy is still alive, I should check.
AustonT wrote:Our HOA collapsed in the 90's...
There's some old Vietnam Vet up there whose land is properly posted, but also has a sharpie sign that says something like "eggs for sale 75c/dzn call ahead first, no trespassing violators will be shot and buried next to Hoffa" come to think about it I don't even know if that guy is still alive, I should check.
That guy sounds awesome, and that is a hell of a deal on eggs!
Which is something that is often overlooked when people discuss his approval rating: liberals are often very disapproving of him too, but are unlikely to vote for a challenger.
Most people that voted for him expected to get a fresh voice that was untainted by the sordid nature of the system. Instead, we got a guy that's just as knee deep in the political muck as anybody, but doesn't have the political skills to get anything done.
He's not as bad as the right wants to make him out to be (just like W wasn't as bad as the left painted him), but he's not a very effective president.
Ineffective by what measure? The decisive nature of congress and being handed several drawdown situations in the mideast might make him seem like he's not a big mover and shaker but he's accomplished a good deal of what he promised in campaign and he's managed to avoid the spectacle of incompetence that W showed. Was he the across aisle jesus that people wanted? God no. But given that he wandered into the least cooperative congress in history by most measures and that the global crisis keeps snowballing beyond our borders (and thus within) it shouldn't surprising that major changes weren't coming with speed.
ShumaGorath wrote:given that he wandered into the least cooperative congress in history by most measures
There are ways to measure the cooperation of Congress? And there are people who keep track of these things? I'm genuinely curious to see some of this data.
Do the metrics show that Congress in January 2009 was more or less cooperative than Congress in say...1861?
ShumaGorath wrote:given that he wandered into the least cooperative congress in history by most measures
There are ways to measure the cooperation of Congress? And there are people who keep track of these things? I'm genuinely curious to see some of this data.
Do the metrics show that Congress in January 2009 was more or less cooperative than Congress in say...1861?
Yeah, they're generally based on how the congress moves through legislation. The number of fillibusters used or the number of procedural blocking mechanisms utilized as compared to the number of issues brought before congress in the many ways that is done. The measures are pretty salt grain worthy as those mechanisms do change over time, though the trend is usually towards the creation of newer and more mechanisms historically.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:So, are they going to form a commission to save the DVD industry? Or perhaps buggy whips?
Idiocy. If an industry is failing there's a REASON it's failing. Typical "let's throw money down this new hole" bs.
Umm, it's a committee requested by the industry, to be fully funded by customers of that industry.
Your outrage is utterly bizarre.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:15 cents for a useless government agency to promote something almost as common as oxygen.
Requested by the industry itself. Are you going to claim that you and your plucky common sense right wing logic know better than the industry itself how they should develop their business?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I'm glad that they were able to pin this one on Bush, because man, that was close. Obama almost had some responsibility.
No, it's pinned on industry. The Christmas tree industry that wants this committee to help them expand sales.
We appear to have reached a point where 'Obama socialist government be bad' has reached such a peak of nonsense that people will complain about industry initiated programs, in order to complain about Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Because its his adminstration that actually promulgated the rule.
The Christmas tree sellers wanted the tax. Are you saying Obama should turn them back? Are you saying Obama should declare he knows better than the Christmas tree sellers how they ought to market their product?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:I'll grant Ghadaffi, but really the seeds of the Arab Spring were started when Bush took out Saddam Hussein.
Yeah, loads of people in Tunisia were talking about how great it was when America arbitrarily picked Iraq and bombed hell out of it, and that's exactly what started the protests against their American backed regime.
You have a moral obligation to be more honest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I don't give a flying if the industry wants it.
Uh huh. So now we can throw away that whole idea that industry, motivated by their own profit, was far better using scarce resources than government or any other group.
So I guess that means you don't really give a gak about capitalism.
At which point you're pretty much left with 'boo Obama' as the beginning and end of your political philosophy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:INdustries can't impose their own tax. thats something called price fixing.
That's complete nonsense. Price fixing involves companies agreeing to set prices at the same levels.
But if they enter a private arrangement for a fixed amount of percentage of every sale to go towards some group effort like a marketing board, that's their own business.
Ity is accurate. The rule came from his administration. It could have been stopped at any time. Its his baby. Obama why do you hate Christmas?
Frazzled, why are you trying to tell industry how to organise their own affairs?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:When you're willing to blame Obama for any of his major feth ups while in office, instead of simply blaming everything bad that happens on Bush, give me a call.
If agreeing to an industry request to have a 15c tax on christmas trees is among Obama's major feth ups, I guess we must be looking at the greatest president of the modern era.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:Yes, I know that's what taxes are. Taxes are means of transferring assets by force or threat of force to a governmental agency. Government involvement is necessary because people won't pay voluntarily.
You could say that the majority of the industry wants the tax, which would be closer to the truth (although is not true by necessity). Some growers want a Christmas Tree Advertising Board (or whatever the official name is), others do not. Those who want the Board should pay for it, not those who do not want it.
Oh look, biccat doesn't understand the tragedy of the commons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:How is it not a good analogy? RC Cola wouldn't exist as a company without Coke and Pepsi paving the way for the industry. In fact, I think it's a darn good analogy, it clearly shows that one company (RC) is benefitting from the money paid by another (Coke). Why shouldn't RC pay a portion of Coke's advertising budget if they reap some benefit from it?
Because the actual deal would involve Coke and RC handing their advertising dollars over to a seperate third party, who would then advertise on behalf of all cola drinks. It would be Coke that'd be primarily resistant to such a deal.
Polonius wrote:
Most people that voted for him expected to get a fresh voice that was untainted by the sordid nature of the system. Instead, we got a guy that's just as knee deep in the political muck as anybody, but doesn't have the political skills to get anything done.
He's not as bad as the right wants to make him out to be (just like W wasn't as bad as the left painted him), but he's not a very effective president
The comparison to Carter is apt (a comparison to Bush 1 would also be appropriate), though often overly loaded given the undue scorn Carter receives.
Amid an uproar from conservative critics, the Obama administration has decided to delay implementation of a fee that would have allowed the Christmas tree industry to create a promotional campaign to encourage people to buy fresh-cut pine trees, the White House said Wednesday.
The United States Department of Agriculture "is going to delay implementation and revisit this action," White House Assistant Press Secretary Matt Lehrich told CBS News over email.
The fee, nicknamed the "Christmas tree tax" by its opponents, would have implemented a 15-cent-per-tree charge on Christmas tree suppliers who sold or imported over 500 trees a year, according to USA Today.
The White House was adamant that the White House was not seeking to impose a tax on Christmas trees.
"I can tell you unequivocally that the Obama Administration is not taxing Christmas trees," said Lehrich. "What's being talked about here is an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself to fund a promotional campaign, similar to how the dairy producers have created the 'Got Milk?' campaign."
The USDA said most growers are in favor of the fee because it would ultimately help their bottom line. Agriculture Department spokesman Michael T. Jarvis told FOXNews.com that there are over 20 similar promotional campaigns supported by the department, which have helped their respective industry grow.
"We have good reason to believe it [would] be successful for our industry," Betty Malone, an Oregon tree farmer and president of Christmas Tree Promotion Now, told the Miami Herald Tuesday. "We looked at what other industries have done, and how successful they've been."
PICTURES: Christmas trees from around the world
Rockefeller Center Christmas Tree coming from Pa.
Christmas tree for US Capitol on way from Calif.
But some conservative pundits claimed that the fee was a Grinch-inspired move. Heritage Foundation Vice President David Addington, who wrote about the fee on his blog on Tuesday, claimed President Obama was killing the spirit of Christmas by "taxing" a time-honored tradition, and warned that the fee could potentially raise the prices of trees - even though the National Christmas Tree Association insisted that the fee would not be passed on to consumers.
Criticisms of the fee swept across the conservative media landscape Tuesday night, landing the lead spot on the influential "Drudge Report" and prompting outrage from numerous conservative-leaning blogs.
According to Addington, one of the largest concerns was that the "Christmas tree tax" proved just how much Big Brother was controlling our lives. By allowing the Christmas tree industry to promote their own products, he argued, the government was creating an unfair market advantage against plastic tree resellers.
"If it's one thing I think the free market could handle, it's letting people decide what kind of tree they want to buy for Christmas," Addington told FoxNews.com.
Cue conservatives attacking Obama for being wishy-washy and/or not doing enough to protect Christmas in 5, 4, 3...
KingCracker wrote:
Well I still am not a fan of Obama at all, but I will also admit, that Bush did leave him a nice steamer on the desk before leaving. BUT, you cant continue to blame Bush, if Obama doesnt shovel the gak up either
It takes me about 5 minutes to make our lounge look like a gak hole, it takes hours to clean it up again.
Obama has been totally hamstrung by a House full of Republicans who seem to see opposing him at any cost being of a higher priority to them than repairing the nation's economy, because they and their buddies are all still enjoying the brandy and cigars.
Amid an uproar from conservative critics, the Obama administration has decided to delay implementation of a fee that would have allowed the Christmas tree industry to create a promotional campaign to encourage people to buy fresh-cut pine trees, the White House said Wednesday.
So now we've actually got conservatives complaining so much about how an industry chooses to go about its own business, that it gets them to change their preferred course of action.
Exactly what is the philosophical core of movement conservatism these days?
Amid an uproar from conservative critics, the Obama administration has decided to delay implementation of a fee that would have allowed the Christmas tree industry to create a promotional campaign to encourage people to buy fresh-cut pine trees, the White House said Wednesday.
So now we've actually got conservatives complaining so much about how an industry chooses to go about its own business, that it gets them to change their preferred course of action.
Exactly what is the philosophical core of movement conservatism these days?
Pandering to the wealthy and promoting revisionist history?
Amid an uproar from conservative critics, the Obama administration has decided to delay implementation of a fee that would have allowed the Christmas tree industry to create a promotional campaign to encourage people to buy fresh-cut pine trees, the White House said Wednesday.
So now we've actually got conservatives complaining so much about how an industry chooses to go about its own business, that it gets them to change their preferred course of action.
Exactly what is the philosophical core of movement conservatism these days?
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:I heard about this earlier today. What a shock. Yet another tax hike on the people making less than 250k that was promised not to happen.
It's 15 cents.
It is requested by industry, for them to fund a board that will help them sell trees.
But more importantly, it's 15 cents.
I mean, for feth's sake.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:I think it's irony.
The more I think about that, the more reasonable it gets.
sebster wrote:No, it's pinned on industry. The Christmas tree industry that wants this committee to help them expand sales.
No, it's not. Your failure to read up on the issue in the links that I've posted is glaring. It's like you never even read the thread but instead picked out specific posters to respond to in an aggressive and insulting manner...
Oh wait, that's what you always do.
sebster wrote:You have a moral obligation to be more honest.
First: why do I have a moral obligation to be more honest? Are you suggesting that I am being less than honest? From where does the moral obligation arise?
Second:
reds8n wrote:Please don't call other posters liars BTW.
sebster wrote:If agreeing to an industry request to have a 15c tax on christmas trees is among Obama's major feth ups, I guess we must be looking at the greatest president of the modern era.
It's like you don't even understand context. When posters aren't even willing to acknowledge major feth-ups by the administration it's pointless to try to discuss with them the minor feth-ups of the administration.
I'm honesly shocked that I had to explain this to you.
sebster wrote:Oh look, biccat doesn't understand the tragedy of the commons.
If you think that this is in any way related to the tragedy of the commons, you don't understand the tragedy of the commons.
sebster wrote:Because the actual deal would involve Coke and RC handing their advertising dollars over to a seperate third party, who would then advertise on behalf of all cola drinks. It would be Coke that'd be primarily resistant to such a deal.
Again, you've completely missed the context and discussion that we were having. Please go back and re-read the exchange again so that you can respond in an intelligent manner.
You have a moral obligation to read the thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:Fee was dropped today
Love the bias in the CBS story, but I'm glad to hear that the fee was dropped.
sebster wrote:No, it's pinned on industry. The Christmas tree industry that wants this committee to help them expand sales.
No, it's not. Your failure to read up on the issue in the links that I've posted is glaring. It's like you never even read the thread but instead picked out specific posters to respond to in an aggressive and insulting manner...
Oh wait, that's what you always do.
You posted three links. One was the tree fee itself, one was a repost of the tree fee, and one was about kiwi fruits. From the text of the fee:
http://www.thefederalregister.com/d.p/2010-11-08-2010-28038 wrote:The Christmas tree industry has tried three different times to conduct promotional programs based on voluntary contributions. Each time, after about three years, the revenue declined to a point where the programs were ineffective. The decline in revenue is attributable to the voluntary nature of these programs. Therefore, the proponents have determined that they need a mechanism that would be sustainable over time. They believe that a national Christmas tree research and promotion program would accomplish this goal.
That definitely reads like the industry wants this measure. Perhaps you need to read the links you posted?
biccat wrote:First: why do I have a moral obligation to be more honest? Are you suggesting that I am being less than honest? From where does the moral obligation arise?
In America (and other western nations, I'd assume), dishonesty is generally seen as immoral, so you're morally obligated to be honest. Where this obligation comes from is a tricky one. You could certainly make an argument that it's from religion, but I like to think that it's merely the best way to run a society.
biccat wrote: When posters aren't even willing to acknowledge major feth-ups by the administration it's pointless to try to discuss with them the minor feth-ups of the administration.
How so? It is easier to get someone to admit to jaywalking than murder. Wouldn't the opposite of your statement actually hold true?
biccat wrote:If you think that this is in any way related to the tragedy of the commons, you don't understand the tragedy of the commons.
Christmas tree industry has voluntary ad campaign. Most tree vendors pull out (bow chicka) thinking their own contribution isn't necessary. Noone left to pay for ad campaign.
RustyKnight wrote:You posted three links. One was the tree fee itself, one was a repost of the tree fee, and one was about kiwi fruits.
Is this about the Kiwis? Are you a secret kiwi supporter?
RustyKnight wrote:That definitely reads like the industry wants this measure. Perhaps you need to read the links you posted?
Actually, it says that some of the industry wanted the measure. Not everyone (as evidenced by the link to the news article) wanted to contribute. Making others pay for something you want is unethical.
RustyKnight wrote:In America (and other western nations, I'd assume), dishonesty is generally seen as immoral, so you're morally obligated to be honest. Where this obligation comes from is a tricky one. You could certainly make an argument that it's from religion, but I like to think that it's merely the best way to run a society.
Fortunately for me, I am ethical and I am honest. I'm not saying that the two are linked, but I've satisfied both independently.
RustyKnight wrote:How so? It is easier to get someone to admit to jaywalking than murder. Wouldn't the opposite of your statement actually hold true?
It's also easier to recognize murder than it is jaywalking. Ask 100 people who witnessed a murder and you'll get the same response from all of them. Ask 100 people who witnessed a jaywalker and most will look at you funny.
We're not talking about admitting personal guilt (the President says he's made all the right choices while in office), we're talking about recognizing a fault. Major faults are easier to recognize than minor ones.
RustyKnight wrote:Christmas tree industry has voluntary ad campaign. Most tree vendors pull out (bow chicka) thinking their own contribution isn't necessary. Noone left to pay for ad campaign.
Sure sounds like a tragedy of the commons to me.
Tragedy of the Commons deals with overexploitation of a finite resource when there is no incentive to maintain that resource. None of the vendors are exploiting the ad campaign. The ad campaign is not overexploited, and cannot be. There is an incentive to maintain the resource because this only applies to large growers whose contributions do have a direct impact on the funding.
I think we're pretty much done here now anyway, we can all happily rejoice in the knowledge that Xmas has been saved, and whatever diabolical scheme was behind this has been thwarted.
For now anyway ! Thankfully we can all rest easy knowing that THE INTERNET IS WATCHING.
if the industry wants it.
We had to fence a couple of ours off as the animals were doing some serious damage to the lower branches.