O'bama is the GRINCH that stole Christmas!

[zimmy]

Not surprised Detbuch at how quick you were to defend the beef board. I am sure you would do the same for sugar cane, cotton, soy, corn, pork, chicken, dairy, etc. All those ag. commodities in which small farmers have been crushed by the Republican driven farm bills. Then you try to change it from "legal basis" to constitutional. Even that is ridiculous, since, I am sure you know, that the constitution gives congress the legal authority to create laws.

I'll leave it with this... $1.3 billion in sales in 2007 and 100,000 jobs in Christmas trees makes it hard to argue that its role in the economy is insignificant. All that is beside the fact that the spirit of the thread in relation to the president is complete and utter horse manure. This thread was not about the department of agriculture. You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it. However, I am very critical of the department of Ag. Funny thing is this Christmas tree tax is the kind of stuff that is historically very well supported by the conservatives and the "pro-business" Republican party. The only reason many of you care is because of the word tax and your chance to take a shot at Obama.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not surprised Detbuch at how quick you were to defend the beef board. I am sure you would do the same for sugar cane, cotton, soy, corn, pork, chicken, dairy, etc. All those ag. commodities in which small farmers have been crushed by the Republican driven farm bills. Then you try to change it from "legal basis" to constitutional. Even that is ridiculous, since, I am sure you know, that the constitution gives congress the legal authority to create laws.

I didn't defend the beef board. You brought up the Beef Promotion and Research Act as the basis for the Christmas tree tax. I just pointed out the comparison is flimsy at best. Christmas trees are not a basic necessity as is food and clothing. And in the competition between artificial and natural trees, the Federal Government has no Constitutional basis for supporting one over the other. Sure, if you find the right judge anything can be found "Constitutional." But that is phony, corrupt "constitutionality," and we have evolved a current mode of centralized government based on such phoniness. And Constitutional basis is legal basis. And the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to create any laws it wants. It is authorized to create only laws that fall within its enumerated powers, which are limited. The vast lawmaking authority is left to the states and localities.

I'll leave it with this... $1.3 billion in sales in 2007 and 100,000 jobs in Christmas trees makes it hard to argue that its role in the economy is insignificant.

Actually you can update that to last year which grossed about $2 billion in sales of Christmas trees--but that figure includes artificial trees as well as natural. And when you break down the numbers about $1.25 billion of that is artificial tree sales leaving about $750 milliion for natural trees. That is gross, not net. Small potatoes in comparison to GDP. As far as the 100,000 jobs, at least half, probably more, are temporary immigrant farm laborers. And breaking down the gross sales to pay 100,000 workers averages out to about $7500/year per worker. Of course, much of the gross is other expenses and profits, so the $7500 average is more than the actual average yearly pay. The gross sales of artifical trees has more significance and the average annual pay for workers is probably much more than that of the natural tree average. Plus, though most of the artificial trees are made in China, there are American made trees. Three companies that make artificial trees in America are Mountain King, Hudson Valley Tree Co., and Holiday Tree and Trim Co. There may be others. This sector can expand if people who prefer artificial trees grows. Again, it's not the Federal Government's business to aid one against the other, nor to influence what kind of trees we should buy.

All that is beside the fact that the spirit of the thread in relation to the president is complete and utter horse manure. This thread was not about the department of agriculture.

You brought up the Ag Dept, not me. I never mentioned Obama.

You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it. However, I am very critical of the department of Ag.

Start the debate in another thread if you're hot and ready.

Funny thing is this Christmas tree tax is the kind of stuff that is historically very well supported by the conservatives and the "pro-business" Republican party. The only reason many of you care is because of the word tax and your chance to take a shot at Obama.

I did not mention conservatives, or Republicans, or the Tea Party, or Obama. You have mentioned these a few times. It seems to interest you far more than I care about it. I don't support any of the above when they act unconstitutionally.

[UserRemoved1]

And I'm betting $5 right now that just like 95% of the people in the fishing lure business that it's the same in the xmas tree business....under the table...so exactly what does that do for you now with 100,000 jobs. You could say the same thing about fishing lures. There's a guy literally on every street corner nowadays. Most already have a job...it's all cash money for them just like xmas tree sellers.

So exactly what does that do for the jobs numbers and the economy.....ZILCH

I'm betting this has hurt the xmas tree business as much as it's hurt the lure business...I can fully see it being worked the same way....whose going to prove you dropped 300 trees off that truck or 25 when it's all green going in your pocket and the govt knows nothing.... These guys are gone overnight.

Detbuch and zimmy in 2012

Originally Posted by zimmy

Not surprised Detbuch at how quick you were to defend the beef board. I am sure you would do the same for sugar cane, cotton, soy, corn, pork, chicken, dairy, etc. All those ag. commodities in which small farmers have been crushed by the Republican driven farm bills. Then you try to change it from "legal basis" to constitutional. Even that is ridiculous, since, I am sure you know, that the constitution gives congress the legal authority to create laws.

I'll leave it with this... $1.3 billion in sales in 2007 and 100,000 jobs in Christmas trees makes it hard to argue that its role in the economy is insignificant. All that is beside the fact that the spirit of the thread in relation to the president is complete and utter horse manure. This thread was not about the department of agriculture. You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it. However, I am very critical of the department of Ag. Funny thing is this Christmas tree tax is the kind of stuff that is historically very well supported by the conservatives and the "pro-business" Republican party. The only reason many of you care is because of the word tax and your chance to take a shot at Obama.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You wanna have that debate, I am well prepared for it.

overstatement

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I never mentioned Obama.

He is the subject of the title of the thread

The "Obama...stole Christmas" article is misleading and unfortunately that kind of bs that feeds hatred of the president. It implies he chose to tax Christmas. Some here have even stated that it is an attack on Christianity and implied the attack was by Obama.

The industry requested it, which is legal under current law established long ago.

All other discussion is an aside.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

He is the subject of the title of the thread

The "Obama...stole Christmas" article is misleading and unfortunately that kind of bs that feeds hatred of the president. It implies he chose to tax Christmas. Some here have even stated that it is an attack on Christianity and implied the attack was by Obama.

The industry requested it, which is legal under current law established long ago.

All other discussion is an aside.

Obama is part of the title of the thread. The thread starts wilth an article about the Christmas tree tax and the Agriculture Dept. involvement. I pointed out later that the "tax" was about the war between artificial and natural trees, WHICH IT IS, so that should help your exoneration of Obama and you should appreciate since that seems to be what's important to you in this thread. But discussing what the tax is about, Ag Dept. involvement, Constitutional principles, are not off topic or asides, they are germane to the topic of the so-called tax. That the industry requested help from the Ag. Dept. is "legal" under current law doesn't mean the law is Constitutional in the strict sense. Nor does it mean the request fits, entirely, the process. The process of agricultural commodity societies requesting help to promote their product should not do so when it is at the detriment of another, especially a competing, product. This was implied in the caveat in the beef promotion act--"By law, checkoff funds cannot be used to promote particular breeds nor can they be used to influence government policy or action, including lobbying." Nor does the Constitution provide Congress the ability to leglislate in favor of one legal business over another. The Ag. Dept. involvement with other commodity promotions was not about competition between commodities, but aid strictly to a specific one NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF ANOTHER, however Constitutional or not. This Christmas tree tax is specifically about the competition between natural and artificial trees and the government is not Constitutionally authorized to favor or help one over the other.

[scottw]

not only that..this is a government agency promoting "CHRISTMAS" trees....whatever happened to separation of church and state?

where's the ACLU when you need them...oh, they have their hands full defending the OCCUPY folks

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"By law, checkoff funds cannot be used to promote particular breeds nor can they be used to influence government policy or action, including lobbying."

Right, they can't be used for Herefords vs Angus. Just like the Christmas tree money can't be used for Spruce vs. Balsam. Just because the competition is Chinese made artificial trees does not prohibit Christmas tree promotion board from participating in the program as an ag commodity. Artificial trees are not an ag commodity. Just because you don't like it has nothing to do with the legality.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Just like the Christmas tree money can't be used for Spruce vs. Balsam. Just because the competition is Chinese made artificial trees does not prohibit Christmas tree promotion board ..........

you continue to reinforce the stupidity of this...

I wonder what the Chinese Artificial Christmas Tree Board will have to say about all of this?

"Just like the Chinese Artificial Christmas tree money can't be used for green vs. white...."

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Right, they can't be used for Herefords vs Angus. Just like the Christmas tree money can't be used for Spruce vs. Balsam. Just because the competition is Chinese made artificial trees does not prohibit Christmas tree promotion board from participating in the program as an ag commodity. Artificial trees are not an ag commodity. Just because you don't like it has nothing to do with the legality.

For the third time, my reference to legality was "there is no Constitutional provision for the Federal Gvt. to help one legal business over or against another." If there is not Constitutional power to do so, doing so is Constitutionally illegal (unconstitutional). The beef act caveat did not specify that the commodity had to be an ag commodity. You might assume that, but with the competition with artificial trees, you have a rather unique situation. None of the other agricultural commodities have an artificial counterpart that is used for and serves the same purpose. None of the other commodity acts, as far as I know, were about competition with non-agricultural commodities, but simply to promote their generic commodity. The Christmas tree act is unique in that direct competition with another commodity is the reason for its promotion, which is fine if the natural tree association does it on its own, but not fine if the government is involved. By the way, they had hired an ad agency on their own in 2004 to rejuvinate larger sales of natural trees, but that didn't work so well, so now they think government help might do the job. What can government sponsorship do to convince people to by natural over artificial? It's not like they can improve or upgrade their product. Price doesn't seem to be a factor since on average, the price of artificial trees sold is almost twice that of natural. Of course, in the long run, you save by not having to buy new trees every year. And the designs and styles of artificial trees have been changed to newer, better, and more attractive models every year. The variety of artificials is far greater, etc., etc. Economic factors both for customers and the "economy" are better with artificials, etc., etc. etc. The government may have backed off for good reasons.

You are right, in itself, this is minor. My objection is the larger picture of government intervention where it is neither warranted, nor Constitutionally appropriate.

[scottw]

this will explain everything.....

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.

http://www.federalregister.gov/artic...ion-order#p-26


if you want to shake more money out of people, you create a new governement program complete with a task force, board, mandatory fees(I guess on just the "rich" Christmas tree producers) etc...etc...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

My objection is the larger picture of government intervention where it is neither warranted, nor Constitutionally appropriate.

No problem with that at all. My objections were to the spirit of the title of the article and the fact that this program has been going on for a long time. Nobody paid attention or cared until a few loud mouths got people riled up, more for the benefit of their agenda than because this topic warranted it.