OMG Obama taxing Christmas trees!!1

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The USDA sponsors stuff like this for lots of industry groups at their request. They all pitch in for an advertising campaign. Milk. Beef. Pork. On and on.

Put the way they like it, the outrage junkies get their fix, and the rest of us get to giggle & scratch our heads...

Oh, and that's "TREE-DUMB!", UberNeuman- Get it right, OK?
 
sportage

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
Want something to worry about.. really.... Consider the republicans on the super panel. They have a great tax plan. Lower rates for everyone, the rich down to 28%. But there is more...wait... wait for it... plus... kill off those pesky home mortgage interest tax deductions as well as those pesky property tax deductions.
So.. guess which "class" would get hit head on by their super duper plan?

The top 1%, if they have not already simply paid off their home mortgage, will simply pay off their home mortgage. And the rest of us..... well... just make sure they are wearing a condom while giving you the business.

So, if you are just plain sick and tired of your pesky home mortgage interest deduction, and your pesky property deduction, Go AHEAD. Keep voting republican. Keep it up. Go for it!!! And keep several condoms handy. :D
 
G

Gonad the Barbarian

Lifer
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
UberNeuman said:
Obama hates the baby Jeebus and his holy pine trees!:mad:

treedom.jpg

"You may take our lives - but you'll never take our TREE-DOM!!!!"
Click to expand...

WE THE PEOPLE do not find this amusing!
 
M

matt0611

Golden Member
Oct 22, 2010
1,879
0
0
The federal government was not formed to collect advertisement revenue for private organizations. If this organization wants to collect money to create some ads they should fuck off and do it themselves.

Glad this got canned. As all other schemes like it should also.
 
dainthomas

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,592
3,427
136
How did Obama get dragged into this when it was something the industry was asking for and has been SOP with other industries since forever? Is he really doing so great a job that they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find stuff like this?
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
dainthomas said:
How did Obama get dragged into this when it was something the industry was asking for and has been SOP with other industries since forever? Is he really doing so great a job that they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find stuff like this?
Click to expand...

It wasn't the industry asking for it, it was a collection of members that saw a great opportunity to force other members of the industry to pay into a fund where they had control. They could then hire, promote, advertise etc. all with money brought in by this "tax". It was a win/win for the members, but a really stupid idea by the USDA to support it.
 
G

Gonad the Barbarian

Lifer
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Exactly! How dare the federal government try to control what Christmas decorations we put up, or for that matter what we keep in our refrigerators or what material our clothing is made from? Socialism, it's what's for dinner!
 
Macamus Prime

Macamus Prime

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2011
3,108
0
0
Title should be changed to represent the TRUE story; Terrorist Kenyan who invaded the White House is now holding little baby Jesus as a hostage. He already shot and killed the virgin Mary!! All three wise men were beaten near death. Joseph is still being tortured. And, he will probably sell little baby Jesus into slavery!!

WHY WON'T AMERICANS DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE TERRORIST's WAR ON CHRISTMAS!?!??!!?
 
C

ciba

Senior member
Apr 27, 2004
812
0
71
I'm curious: How exactly is a mandatory charge imposed by government not a tax?

Calling it something else doesn't change what it is.
 
G

Gonad the Barbarian

Lifer
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
Yes! Just because it was voluntarily suggested by the tree growers themselves doesn't mean it's not a mandatory charge imposed by the government! Damn government overreach!
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Yes! Just because it was voluntarily suggested by the tree growers themselves doesn't mean it's not a mandatory charge imposed by the government! Damn government overreach!
Click to expand...

It was suggested by some, a relatively small number of growers, don't make it sound as if it was an industry wide request. The local grower where I buy my trees didn't know anything about it till the story came out.
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Gonad the Barbarian said:
No, you're absolutely right, it was a relatively small number of growers supporting this issue.

http://www.christmastree.org/11_PR7.pdf

There's no excuse for such tyranny!
Click to expand...

The guy i get my trees from didn't know about it. If you check your own link:

"This program was requested by the industry in 2009 and has gone through two industrywide
comment periods during which 565 comments were submitted from interested parties."

wow, they got a total of 565 comments in 2 years and 2 comment periods..... 565 comments! It doesn't even say if the same people commented in each of the comment periods. Of the 565 whole people that commented....

"More than 70% of the growers posting comments, and nearly 90% of the state and multi-state
associations that posted comments indicated that they were in favor of the program."

Notice that at least 30% of the growers by their own figures opposed this fee. It gives no information on how many growers don't belong to the association. They say they represent over 5,000 growers, but only got 565 (maybe 1/2 that) comments on a fee of this size?
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
monovillage said:
The guy i get my trees from didn't know about it. If you check your own link:

"This program was requested by the industry in 2009 and has gone through two industrywide
comment periods during which 565 comments were submitted from interested parties."

wow, they got a total of 565 comments in 2 years and 2 comment periods..... 565 comments! It doesn't even say if the same people commented in each of the comment periods. Of the 565 whole people that commented....

"More than 70% of the growers posting comments, and nearly 90% of the state and multi-state
associations that posted comments indicated that they were in favor of the program."

Notice that at least 30% of the growers by their own figures opposed this fee. It gives no information on how many growers don't belong to the association. They say they represent over 5,000 growers, but only got 565 (maybe 1/2 that) comments on a fee of this size?
Click to expand...

That's some truly lame spin in pursuit of obfuscation. It's 15 cents per tree. A grower selling 10,000 trees would pay $1500. The fee is so low that most growers probably wouldn't bother to comment, seeing it as really, really cheap advertising.
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Jhhnn said:
That's some truly lame spin in pursuit of obfuscation. It's 15 cents per tree. A grower selling 10,000 trees would pay $1500. The fee is so low that most growers probably wouldn't bother to comment, seeing it as really, really cheap advertising.
Click to expand...

Crap, from their own site they let you know that less then 10% of the growers in the association approved of this idea. 10%, but hey it's only someone else's money to you! Am I right?
 
MomentsofSanity

MomentsofSanity

Lifer
Jan 25, 2011
16,591
8,674
146
monovillage said:
Crap, from their own site they let you know that less then 10% of the growers in the association approved of this idea. 10%, but hey it's only someone else's money to you! Am I right?
Click to expand...

So what percentage came out against it? You have an election and less than a majority decide to vote does that mean the winner isn't legitimate?
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
MomentsofSanity said:
So what percentage came out against it? You have an election and less than a majority decide to vote does that mean the winner isn't legitimate?
Click to expand...

Hell, he misrepresented the 30% of respondents who were not actually in favor as being opposed, which we have no way of knowing to be true or not. Some of them might have wanted higher fees for more advertising... some might well have said they weren't sure if they liked the idea or not....

It's all Obama's fault, all the time, in his universe. He'll say anything, no matter how preposterous, to support that contention. Nor is it like any actual growers are up in arms, just the usual ravers...

Organizing growers to promote their product is obviously just another insidious part of the War on Christmas...
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Jhhnn said:
Hell, he misrepresented the 30% of respondents who were not actually in favor as being opposed, which we have no way of knowing to be true or not. Some of them might have wanted higher fees for more advertising... some might well have said they weren't sure if they liked the idea or not....

It's all Obama's fault, all the time, in his universe. He'll say anything, no matter how preposterous, to support that contention. Nor is it like any actual growers are up in arms, just the usual ravers...

Organizing growers to promote their product is obviously just another insidious part of the War on Christmas...
Click to expand...

Bullshit if i misrepresented anything. Of 535 responders at 2 different times only 70% of the responding growers agreed. They have over 5,000 growers in the association. I have no idea how many of the growers would or would not agree if it was put to a vote, and neither does the association or you. I didn't say a damn word about President Obama or anything other then it's obvious to me that the leaders of this association saw a chance to profit from running it and were helped by the USDA. I find it difficult to believe that the same people that smack talk about lobbyists want to kiss these lobbyists asses.
 
monovillage

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
MomentsofSanity said:
So what percentage came out against it? You have an election and less than a majority decide to vote does that mean the winner isn't legitimate?
Click to expand...

30% of the responders came out against it...... according to the association. It wasn't a vote, there was no election.

EDIT : You know I may have gotten it wrong, the association says

"This program was requested by the industry in 2009 and has gone through two industrywide
comment periods during which 565 comments were submitted from interested parties.

Those 565 comments may not have been from growers, but maybe from advertising firms ? Sounds fair.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom