Obama Couldn’t Wait: His New Christmas Tree Tax

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.

**dogma**

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.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Fee was dropped today

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57321664-503544/christmas-tree-tax-sidelined-after-uproar/

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...

**ShumaGorath**

I think the war on christmas is making me hate christmas.

**MeanGreenStompa**

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.

**sebster**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

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?

**ShumaGorath**

sebster wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:

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?

**sebster**

ShumaGorath wrote:Pandering to the wealthy and promoting revisionist history?

Anything else they claim to believe, they seem to contradict almost immediately.

**Shadowseer_Kim**

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.

The federal government also increased the tax on phone bills and internet access this year and last.

Awesome. Way to keep a major campaign promise. *looks around* Oh wait. Club Gitmo is still open and we still have forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

**ShumaGorath**

sebster wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:

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?

I think it's irony.

**sebster**

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.

**Melissia**

sebster wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Pandering to the wealthy and promoting revisionist history?
Anything else they claim to believe, they seem to contradict almost immediately.

Pretty much. Republicans aren't consistent unless it opposes Obama.

**biccat**

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.

**RustyKnight**

biccat wrote:
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.

Sure sounds like a tragedy of the commons to me.

**biccat**

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.

It's not a tragedy of the commons.

**reds8n**

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.