Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-10-2011, 07:35 PM   #1
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Really? I would think most here would want the promotion of American grown Christmas trees over artificial trees which are pretty much entirely made in China out of oil. That actually isn't what is happening, because all ag. commodities can request this, but still. The rest already had promotion boards for years Most of the boards are major supporters to conservative candidates, too.
Yes, really. If a business needs government to promote it, its staying power is questionable--not to mention that there is no Constitutional provision for the Federal Government to help one legal business over or against another. There are retail outlets, employees, transportation agencies in this country that are involved with the artificial trees as well as the natural. If American tree growers want to promote their product over the artificial competitor's, let them do it on their own. Nothing is stopping them from informing us where the artificial trees are made. They can hire ad agencies to promote their product as traditional, home-grown, better for America. Going to the government to do so solidifies that corrupt nexus between government and business that "most" object to. Isn't it the traditional American way to keep government out of business. Shouldn't we the people decide what type of Christmas tree we'll buy? Isn't it the traditional American way that we decide what pleases us, what we buy, not the government? I suspect that "most" buy the artificial trees because they are more convenient, less messy, and less costly because they can be used over and over. Those that prefer natural don't need Aunt Sam to promote them. Auntie Sam really has no business here--not legally, morally, spiritually, traditionally. And the artificial trees were made here years ago. The rising costs of manufacturing here is our problem, one that we don't, or can't, seem to be able to solve.
detbuch is offline  
Old 11-11-2011, 09:36 AM   #2
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Auntie Sam really has no business here--not legally
Read the freakin law. It has been in effect for 15 years The exact same thing has happened for practically every agriculture product for 15 YEARS. Not only is it legal, it has more than a decade of precedent

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 11-11-2011, 05:53 PM   #3
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
Read the freakin law. It has been in effect for 15 years The exact same thing has happened for practically every agriculture product for 15 YEARS. Not only is it legal, it has more than a decade of precedent
My reference to legality was "there is no Constitutional provision for the Federal Government to help one legal business over or against another." I wasn't referring to any of the many "laws" that Congress has passed that subvert the Constitution and have been validated by social activist judges that prefer their vision to that of the Founders.

As for the Department of Agriculture, it has grown to behemoth proportions since the basic statistical function it originally served. And its original mission to assist the growth of U.S. agrilculture has expanded in ways that distort the production, marketing, and cost of agricultural commodities, not always in positive, but in negative ways. Subsidies, for instance, are a transfer of billions of dollars from general taxpayers to farmers, and 75% of that transfer is to the large, corporate farms--the corporate welfare that "most" despise. These subsidies are a distortion of free markets and a loss of the innovations those markets could provide. They distort world food prices and discourage agriculture in developing countries, exacerbating their poverty levels.

As for the Beef promotion and research act of 1985, its purpose was to aid in the promotion of "beef and beef products" which are "basic foods that are a valuable part of human diet," and to aid in beef's production because of its "significant role in the nation's economy." There was a provision "By law, checkoff funds cannot be used to promote particular breeds nor can they be used to influence government policy or action, including lobbying."

The Christmas Tree Promotion Board's mission was to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry in the U.S. Comparing this to the beef act which could not be used to promote paricular breeds, the tree board mission promotes natural trees over artificial. Nor are Christmas trees a basic food in the human diet, nor a basic, necessary commodity for human life or consumption. Nor do they play a significant role in the nation's economy.

Last edited by detbuch; 11-11-2011 at 06:22 PM..
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com