O'bama is the GRINCH that stole Christmas!

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is all about the war between those who sell natural Christmas trees and those who sell artificial trees. The artificial trees have been winning, so the naturals petitioned the Ag Dept for help, and, presto, another case of the Federal Govt. taking sides, picking winners and losers, sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong.

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.

[basswipe]

ANY tax increase is total BS.Love watching the Obama ball lickers defend this guy.

Taxing christmas trees is targeting a very specific segment of our society...christians.In case all of you Obama worshippers have forgotten christmas is a religious holiday,specifically a christian holiday.These trees are grown and sold for one reason and one reason only...the christian holiday known as christmas.Taxing them is unconstitutional and if you think I'm BSing then go to your local christian church and then follow the paper trail and find out if the palm fronds you get on palm Sunday are taxed......from their point of origin to your church they are not taxed.Christmas trees and palm fronds are one in the same.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Added: Bold edited by me...

Originally Posted by basswipe

:Taxing christmas trees is targeting a very specific segment of our society...Farmers who grow Christmas trees, who want more sales and cried to a lobbiest, because more people are buying fake trees

Originally Posted by basswipe

:Christmas trees and palm fronds are one in the same.

Except that the Palm fronds are handed out as part of a religious service... are pine trees in the bible as a Christmas symbol? Or given out like communion? My very lapsed catholicism is a bit rusty...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Except that the Palm fronds are handed out as part of a religious service... are pine trees in the bible as a Christmas symbol? Or given out like communion? My very lapsed catholicism is a bit rusty...

I think that despite modern commercialization, most would agree that Christmas is a Christian concept or at least one that has developed through the practices of the Christian faith however you want to trace the origins....without Christ or Christmas, we likely would not be decorating trees for December 25th

if you put up a Christmas tree in your home and wake up up on the 25th and rip open presents absent the religeous meaning of Christmas....what exactly are you celebrating and why? because Walmart and Kay Jewellers told you to?




further...

Martin Luther admired the custom of Eastern Orthodox Christians, in which they displayed a fruit tree in the early part of December to commemorate the “Feast of Adam and Eve.” He wanted to do something similar in the Protestant Church of Germany. So he brought a fir tree into the chapel and decorated it with candles, placing a nativity beneath it. The candles were designed to represent the star of Bethlehem and the choir of angles that sang “Glory to God in the highest...” Eventually the Eastern Orthodox custom, and the Protestant Lutheran custom, merged together resulting in the decoration of the tree with round ornaments to represent the Orthodox fruit tree, stars and angels to represent the Lutheran concept.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by basswipe

ANY tax increase is total BS.Love watching the Obama ball lickers defend this guy.
Taxing them is unconstitutional

Apparently, you don't know the constitution. Selling Christmas trees for profit has nothing to do with tax exemption, unless the farm is a 501c3 organization. However, it is nice to know that there is a lot of support from you tea party types for ending all of these ag subsidies/taxes. That is a dramatic change from the conservative platform for over half a century.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.