[Rant] This is not why we have a government.
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
But not at $0.15 a tree...
Added at: 18:10
Be sure to only buy 499 trees to sell this year.
M
makare
Wouldnt this just be a move for people who sell the trees to sell more trees planned by the reps of the states where there is a lot of christmas tree production?
like an unadorned, aluminum pole?
M
makare
I guess I don't get the outrage. So there is going to be an additional 15 cent tax on the christmas trees that directly benefits the producers of christmas trees?
I don't want to be too Rehnquistian here but wtf who cares? It's 15 cents.
I don't want to be too Rehnquistian here but wtf who cares? It's 15 cents.
It can really add up when you look at the big picture. Besides, the focus is on whether or not the government should be spending resources on making people feel good about Christmas trees.
It doesn't actually benefit them. It's circular bullshit--you should be familiar with it from law school. If they sell enough trees, they can promote trees. This is true in a normal business model, but 1. it's not usually decided by the government and 2. as said, it's not like Christmas trees need paid advertisements or anything.
M
makare
Well maybe stimulating various low producing markets will encourage job production? Yeah that is a legitimate government interest. Milk, Egg, Pork producers have all been doing stuff like this for years.
Pork it's the other white meat.
Beef it's what's for dinner
THE EGG IT'S INCREDIBLE AND EDIBLE
now go buy a goddamn christmas tree and cover it in menorahs!
Pork it's the other white meat.
Beef it's what's for dinner
THE EGG IT'S INCREDIBLE AND EDIBLE
now go buy a goddamn christmas tree and cover it in menorahs!
I think the point is that the christmas tree producers should market their own product, not the government.
Now the Dept. of Ag. is saying they're delaying the tax and "revisiting" it.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...tion-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...tion-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/
B
Biannoshufu
then why post???
GasBandit
Staff member
/facepalm.
Added at: 16:31
So that it is on record that I have noted this thread. Otherwise, you just know somebody would pipe up with "where's GasBandit? I'd have thought he'd be all over this."
But even with all that aside, what I said still was commentary. It was different from "I have nothing to say," it was "you all are quite aware of the 9 pages of invective I would normally write about this malarkey, so I'll spare you."
Remember, even "No Comment" is a comment.
GasBandit
Staff member
More like it goes into a slump.Not really. The politics forum doesn't go into a tither when you don't post.
I don't believe the government should be in the advertising business. Worse, though, is the government is forcing consumers to be in the advertising business.
If the producers want to advertise their junk, they can raise their prices themselves. They couldn't convince all the tree suppliers to pay into the big pot though, so what they did was force the suppliers to pay into the pot by asking the government to support this Christmas tree advertising association. The government decided that rather than letting business owners choose whether to advertise in this way or not, they were going to force them to do so. They can raise their prices and pass it along to customers, or they can reduce their profits, but either way they are now required to buy advertising at 15 cents a tree from this national christmas tree advertising organization. This organization is a business - they are not part of the government. It's a way to get other companies to pay this company through government regulation.
Let's put it another way. Let's say that Google decided that not enough people were buying its advertising. So it goes and lobbies the government and convinces them to create a new regulation - for every christmas tree sold, 15 cents would be taken from the sale and placed in google's coffers so they could advertise christmas trees.
Would you accept that?
It benefits an advertising agency. It doesn't matter whether it's Google, or some newly formed national christmas tree association.
Not only do consumers end up footing the bill, but now christmas tree suppliers have to track and pay these fees which ultimately go into a company that they didn't want to buy advertising from in the first place.
It's simply another form of corporate greed - only the money (about 5 million a year) will go towards this association and they might use 5-10% of that for actual advertising, the rest fattening the wallets of those involved as administrative fees.
It's not a business the gov't should be sticking its fingers into.
GasBandit
Staff member
Heh, if you have to hope, you obviously aren't.
Your parents are dead! Due to lupus!
For those that are curious, the National Christmas Tree Association is managed by http://www.amrms.com/content/about-us . The association itself has no employees. The management company has 65+ employees and is privately owned and operated.
That management company is in the business of creating associations and getting companies to join the association, pay dues, while the management company holds industry events, advertises, and lobbies for their membership. All this, of course, for a not insubstantial management fee. Of course, since the associations have no employees, the management company pays consultants to do the lobbying - consultants that also happen to work for the management association. They nickel and dime the associations in many, many ways.
Essentially this regulation is a method to force companies to give money to a company whose sole purpose is to create associations and get people to join. Getting a regulation that forces people to join the association is icing on the cake - cake, incidently, that consumers will be forced to choke down at a mere 15 cents per person, but $5 million dollars of consumer money that might have been used elsewhere instead goes to this privately owned and operated company that also happens to manage 20 other similar associations in other industries.
The question should be: why isn't everyone outraged?
That management company is in the business of creating associations and getting companies to join the association, pay dues, while the management company holds industry events, advertises, and lobbies for their membership. All this, of course, for a not insubstantial management fee. Of course, since the associations have no employees, the management company pays consultants to do the lobbying - consultants that also happen to work for the management association. They nickel and dime the associations in many, many ways.
Essentially this regulation is a method to force companies to give money to a company whose sole purpose is to create associations and get people to join. Getting a regulation that forces people to join the association is icing on the cake - cake, incidently, that consumers will be forced to choke down at a mere 15 cents per person, but $5 million dollars of consumer money that might have been used elsewhere instead goes to this privately owned and operated company that also happens to manage 20 other similar associations in other industries.
The question should be: why isn't everyone outraged?
::looks at his signature:: Ayeah, a little.
I turned signatures off in the Great Signature War of 2008.
Oh, we've re-enacted scenes from Ghost several times. I just figured she was unattached.
So it's a scam.
I showed her your post and she's not sure what you're getting at.
- Status