The joke is that the federal government is involved in all aspects of agriculture and this is what gets the attention. It actually demonstrates a bit about lack of awareness of agriculture in this country. Take a few minutes and look into it. I read the Farming News weekly (Lancaster Farming: The Mid-Atlantic's Source for Farming News and Equipment) and this is about the least compelling story that could possibly come out, except for the titillating title.

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 :smash: Most of the boards are major supporters to conservative candidates, too.

:lurk:

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.

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.

Added: Bold edited by me...


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...

Read the freakin law. It has been in effect for 15 years :smash: 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 :rotf2:

Damx! that liberal REAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Cattlemen's Beef Promotion And Research Board, or CBB, was established as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. CBB currently consists of 106 members who are nominated by certified nominating organizations and appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to serve a three-year term.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :love:

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.

overstatement :uhuh:

He is the subject of the title of the thread :smash:

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.

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

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.

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...."

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.

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...

nice.

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.

funny, because you didn't mention the "spirit of the title" until about your 12th post...your reaction along with others was to try to try to justify this....beyond the title of the thread..which I think was a play on "THE GINGRICH WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS"... I don't see much blame being thrown directly at Obama but rather an argument as to whether this is the proper role of government and the imposition of taxes and fees under any guise....which is one of the most important issues at hand in many areas...for some, issues of Constitutionality and the proper role of government take a back seat to what they "think" should be done to fix this or that...see "Let's Talk Health Care"