Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

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.

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.

I think we all know that as a Muslim socialist, the opportunity to help destroy both christmas and capatilism was too good for Obama to pass up.

As a tree hugger I am happy at this news.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:As a tree hugger I am happy at this news.

About time the gumment get's a cut of your December "shenanigans".

biccat wrote:

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).

Does everyone hate Obama now?

rodgers37 wrote:Does everyone hate Obama now?

Hate is strong word.
Need to be given the oppportunity to explore alternate employment opportunities...you betcha!

rodgers37 wrote:Does everyone hate Obama now?

Pretty much.

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.

Polonius wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:Does everyone hate Obama now?

Pretty much.

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.

halonachos wrote:

AustonT wrote:15c tax on trees, pah I heard Obama stole candy from a mother in an abortion clinic.

Well its not like he could steal the candy from the baby.


By the way, you aren't a mom if you don't have kids.

Wouldn't it depend what stage of the clinic she was at? Consultation, Waiting, operation, post-op?

Frazzled wrote:

Polonius wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:Does everyone hate Obama now?

Pretty much.

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.

Meh, I buy live trees anyway. Of course, I live on 5 acres, so I have a place to plant them afterwards.

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.

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"

Be sure to add "Survivors will be shot again" afterwards.

Melissia wrote:Be sure to add "Survivors will be eaten" afterwards.

Corrected your typo.

It was probably the gubbermint redistributing your fir top to a needy family.
God damn socialists!

No, that's the neighborhood/homeowner's association.

Frazzled 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.

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!

You ever had a pink egg brother?

Ma55ter_fett wrote:As a tree hugger I am happy at this news.

I'm a tree humpper. Giving wood, wood is showing you care.

Polonius wrote:

rodgers37 wrote:Does everyone hate Obama now?

Pretty much.

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?

biccat wrote:

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.