Search forums

Forums

Export thread

This is not why we have a government.

Nov 9, 2011#1

strawman

This week, the Department of Agriculture announced a new 15-cent fee/tax on the sales of fresh-cut Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (the plan has been in the works since last year). The idea is to raise money to support a new federal program to – wait for it – improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees. Apparently, we don’t think about Christmas trees as positively as the feds – and the lobbyists – would like for us to. So, government did what government likes to do: created a committee and raised fees/taxes to pay for it.

...

I popped on over to the federal regulations to see what else we’re in the business of promoting these days. We also have marketing programs on the books for cotton (7 CFR 1205), mangoes (7 CFR 1206), potatoes (7 CFR 1207), raspberries (7 CFR 1208), mushrooms (7 CFR 1209), watermelons (7 CFR 1210), honey (7 CFR 1212), popcorn (7 CFR 1215), peanuts (7 CFR 1216), blueberries (7 CFR 1218), hass avocadoes (7 CFR 1219), soybeans (7 CFR 1220), sorghum (7 CFR 1221), pork (7 CFR 1230), honey (7 CFR 1245), eggs (7 CFR 1250), beef (7 CFR 1260), wool & mohair (7 CFR 1270) and lamb (7 CFR 1280). Whew.

We love our regulations, huh? And promotion. And marketing.

Which makes me wonder whether the feds should actually be in the business of well, promoting business. It feels like we have enough on our collective plate. Like our giant debt. And a potential government shutdown.

I guess the great Christmas tree program shortage was an easier fix.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyph...omes-early-this-year-with-christmas-tree-tax/

Nov 9, 2011#2

Tress

If you were involved in the business of selling Christmas trees, do you think you would support this program?

Nov 9, 2011#3

sixpackshaker

Tress said:
If you were involved in the business of selling Christmas trees, do you think you would support this program?

But not at $0.15 a tree...
Added at: 18:10
Be sure to only buy 499 trees to sell this year.

Nov 9, 2011#4

Adammon

Is "improving the image and marketing of Christmas trees" really necessary?

Was there a mass murdering Christmas tree rampage I am unaware of? Did a Christmas tree burn down a orphanage? Have people forgotten to put up a Christmas tree over the past couple years?

Nov 9, 2011#5

GasBandit

I don't even need to say.

Nov 9, 2011#6

Covar

Won't someone think of the Christmas trees?!

Nov 9, 2011#7

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?

Nov 9, 2011#8

blotsfan

It could be a plan to tap into the non-christian potential christmas tree market.

Nov 9, 2011#9

sixpackshaker

blotsfan said:
It could be a plan to tap into the non-christian potential christmas tree market.

like an unadorned, aluminum pole?

Nov 9, 2011#10

Krisken

See, there is good regulation, and then there is this. What a bunch of pointless nonsense.

Nov 9, 2011#11

Dave

This reminds me of the movie "Dave" when they were going over the budget and started talking about exactly this sort of thing but about used cars. It was stupid in the movie and it's stupid in real life.

Nov 9, 2011#12

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.

Nov 9, 2011#13

Tress

makare said:
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.

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.

Nov 9, 2011#14

Hailey Knight

makare said:
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.

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.

Nov 9, 2011#15

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!

Nov 9, 2011#16

Snuffleupagus

I think the point is that the christmas tree producers should market their own product, not the government.

Nov 9, 2011#17

Cheesy1

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/

Nov 9, 2011#18

Biannoshufu

GasBandit said:
I don't even need to say.

then why post???

Nov 9, 2011#19

GasBandit

makare said:
Yeah that is a legitimate government interest.

/facepalm.
Added at: 16:31

Biannoshufu said:
then why post???

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.

Nov 9, 2011#20

Krisken

Not really. The politics forum doesn't go into a tither when you don't post.

Nov 9, 2011#21

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Not really. The politics forum doesn't go into a tither when you don't post.

More like it goes into a slump.

Nov 9, 2011#22

Krisken

That's because we don't post every nonsensical thing we read on Fark.

Nov 9, 2011#23

strawman

makare said:
I guess I don't get the outrage.

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.

Nov 9, 2011#24

Adammon

I hate when mom and dad fight. :oops:

Nov 9, 2011#25

Krisken

I hope I'm dad.

Nov 9, 2011#26

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I hope I'm dad.

Heh, if you have to hope, you obviously aren't.

Nov 9, 2011#27

strawman

Krisken said:
I hope I'm dad.

Your parents are dead! Due to lupus!

Nov 9, 2011#28

Adammon

Weird. I thought Krisken was a chick this entire time. Well...that's embarassing.

Nov 9, 2011#29

strawman

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?

Nov 9, 2011#30

Krisken

Adammon said:
Weird. I thought Krisken was a chick this entire time. Well...that's embarassing.

::looks at his signature:: Ayeah, a little.

Nov 9, 2011#31

Adammon

Krisken said:
::looks at his signature:: Ayeah, a little.

I turned signatures off in the Great Signature War of 2008.

Nov 9, 2011#32

Krisken

Then you don't know my wife makes awesome pottery. You poor bastard.

Nov 9, 2011#33

Adammon

Krisken said:
Then you don't know my wife makes awesome pottery. You poor bastard.

Oh, we've re-enacted scenes from Ghost several times. I just figured she was unattached.

Nov 9, 2011#34

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
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?

So it's a scam.

Nov 9, 2011#35

Krisken

Adammon said:
Oh, we've re-enacted scenes from Ghost several times. I just figured she was unattached.

I showed her your post and she's not sure what you're getting at.

Nov 9, 2011#36

drifter

You mean Adammon dressed up as Whoopi Goldberg for nothing?

Nov 9, 2011#37

Hailey Knight

It means his wife hasn't seen Ghost, or the pottery episode from Community.

Nov 9, 2011#38

Krisken

Quotemander Prime said:
It means his wife hasn't seen Ghost, or the pottery episode from Community.

While she didn't see either of those, she did say she thought it was a pretty lame joke. Sorry Adammon.

Nov 9, 2011#39

Adammon

Krisken said:
While she didn't see either of those, she did say she thought it was a pretty lame joke. Sorry Adammon.

Nov 9, 2011#40

Krisken

Adammon said:

Hey cheer up, you learned my gender.

The female 40k player is still rare as hell.

Nov 10, 2011#41

Necronic

stienman said:
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?

It's like they've outsourced bueracracy.

Nov 10, 2011#42

sixpackshaker

Necronic said:
It's like they've outsourced bueracracy.

I wonder if Gas would agree that the private sector does bureaucracy better that the Government...

Nov 10, 2011#43

Necronic

That's like trying to figure out who makes the best poop sandwich.

Nov 10, 2011#44

strawman

Necronic said:
That's like trying to figure out who makes the best poop sandwich.

That sounds like another quiznos vs subway flame war.

Nov 10, 2011#45

Chibibar

Dave said:
This reminds me of the movie "Dave" when they were going over the budget and started talking about exactly this sort of thing but about used cars. It was stupid in the movie and it's stupid in real life.

That is exactly what I was thinking. making American feel good about the car they already bought.

Nov 10, 2011#46

Necronic

stienman said:
That sounds like another quiznos vs subway flame war.

How is there a flame war? Quiznos toasts there subs with actual flames. Subway just uses a microwave.

Nov 10, 2011#47

sixpackshaker

hmmm... microwaves don't toast...

Nov 10, 2011#48

Tress

sixpackshaker said:
hmmm... microwaves don't toast...

Neither does Subway. At least the one around here doesn't.

Nov 10, 2011#49

Chibibar

Necronic said:
How is there a flame war? Quiznos toasts there subs with actual flames. Subway just uses a microwave.

super duper microwave that cooks a raw pizza under 3 minutes. It is awesome

Edit: the one we have around here toast (nice and crispy) it does pizza well too as if it was in the oven.

Nov 10, 2011#50

Necronic

sixpackshaker said:
hmmm... microwaves don't toast...

I guess it's not a microwave, it's some kind of convection oven. But still. Radiant/resistive heating is not the same thing as fire. Therefore Quiznos wins the flame war as Subway brought a lightbulb instead of a flamethrower.

Also their sandwiches are crap.

Nov 10, 2011#51

GasBandit

The sauces quiznos use on their subs are 37% green pus.

Nov 10, 2011#52

Necronic

Yeah but it taste good.

Nov 10, 2011#53

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Yeah but it taste good.

Dude, I'm practically a bile demon, and even I can't stand the taste of it.

Nov 10, 2011#54

Necronic

Actually I don't even know which sandwich you are talking about to be honest. The only one I eat there is the Chicken Carbonara or whatever it is.

Nov 10, 2011#55

sixpackshaker

We need a government commission to come in here and end the Subway Quiznozo's war...

And Subway still wins.

Nov 10, 2011#56

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Actually I don't even know which sandwich you are talking about to be honest. The only one I eat there is the Chicken Carbonara or whatever it is.

It had roast beef on it... and putrescence.

Nov 10, 2011#57

Necronic

That sounds like Courtney Love on date night.

Nov 10, 2011#58

strawman

Task: re-ignite SvQ war: DONE

Nov 11, 2011#59

Eriol

stienman said:
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?

Good research. I'd be against it even if it was a bunch of volunteers or whatever, but this just seals it.

And on the broader issue of this type of thing, just because government can do something to benefit an industry doesn't mean it should. Most of the time it should only do what others can't do very well. That leaves a lot up to debate as to what falls in or out, but promoting any industry (or worse yet, propping it up) is bad IMO.

Nov 19, 2011#60

AshburnerX

Maybe we can turn this thread into a general "Government doing stuff that no one cares about" thread?

My Contribution? Congress rules that Pizza is a vegetable... as long as it contains 2 tbs of pizza sauce.

What utter bullshit... if a half cup of Ragu only counts as a single serving of vegetables, 2 tbs of sauce would only be 1/8th a serving.

Nov 19, 2011#61

AshburnerX

No, it's so schools can keep serving it. Schools serve LOTS of frozen pizza because it's one of the few things they can get kids to eat consistently, plus it's also cheap and easy to prepare in mass quantities.

Nov 19, 2011#62

Tress

They were prepared to adopt new, stricter nutritional requirements for school lunch as part of President Obama's plan to improve children's health. It was all set to pass until lobbyists for potato farmers and pizza suppliers got their hooks into some members of Congress. The bill was gutted as a result, and now pizza is a vegetable.

Your taxpayers dollars at work.

Nov 19, 2011#63

Frankie Williamson

AshburnerX said:
Maybe we can turn this thread into a general "Government doing stuff that no one cares about" thread?

My Contribution? Congress rules that Pizza is a vegetable... as long as it contains 2 tbs of pizza sauce.

What utter bullshit... if a half cup of Ragu only counts as a single serving of vegetables, 2 tbs of sauce would only be 1/8th a serving.

That's not even the worst part, the amount of sodium in that low cost bullshit pizza sauce. Heart attack in your early '30s? Your government says yes.

Nov 19, 2011#64

AshburnerX

It's not even that I BLAME the schools for serving frozen pizza... they have to make enough food for a large percentage of their school, 5 days a week, with only a few hours prep time and on a razor thing budget. More to the point, they need to make sure the kids EAT the food they prepare. I know at my mother's school, it's the case that a vast majority of the students are from homes below the poverty line and that this might be the only meal they get every day.

Sometimes getting cheap, mass produced crap is the only way they can make this possible, especially if you live in a district like mine where you haven't had a levy pass in more than 10 years (unless it's to save after school sports... *sigh*).

Nov 19, 2011#65

Hailey Knight

Does the law make things difficult? Then have the law redefine reality!

Nov 19, 2011#66

strawman

Tress said:
and now pizza is a vegetable.

No, pizza sauce has always been a vegetable, and the new guidelines were an attempt to remove that concession.

I'd say there's a balance to be maintained. It can be hard to get kids to eat nutritious foods, especially if they're used to fast food at home. Kids who don't eat enough at lunch do worse in school and retain less, one of the reasons many schools have breakfast programs for younger children, especially in impoverished areas where the kids might not get breakfast before school.

Further, nutritious food that kids enjoy is more expensive, takes longer to prepare and serve, and goes bad more quickly. The school budgets are terrible, and even though kids are supposed to pay for their own lunch I would be surprised if the money they paid actually covered the cost of the food, the staff, and kitchen maintenance, nevermind the teachers that have to monitor lunch, etc.

Tomato sauce isn't a bad food, nor a bad vegetable. It's not as good as broccoli, perhaps, but I think people are picking at nits here. I'd rather see them figure out a way to lower the fat and salt before worrying about whether the vegetable is vegetably enough for them.

Forums