you and ten oF youR buddies get together and want to throw a party, so you charge everyone 10 bucks to buy the keg and advertise

NO YOU CANT DO THAT, ITS SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 10:24 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2011 10:24:31 PM

Quote :

"someone please explain to me why the government needs to be involved here."

It's easier to coordinate agricultural producers, traditionally a pretty insular lot, on a national scale through USDA (an agency designed pretty much solely to promote private-sector agricultural sales) than to make them all do it themselves? There aren't any government funds involved so I don't even know what principle it is that people are getting mad about. They just agreed to raise prices by 15 cents to advertise and research trees or whatever price increase/commodity it is, and a board of people in the particular industry manage the funds through USDA. That's it.


[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 10:30 PM. Reason : cents, not percent]

11/29/2011 10:28:43 PM

Quote :

"find something real to gripe about"

Like how Obama didn't mention God in his Thanksgiving address

11/29/2011 10:35:06 PM

Quote :

"It's easier to coordinate agricultural producers, traditionally a pretty insular lot, on a national scale through USDA (an agency designed pretty much solely to promote private-sector agricultural sales) than to make them all do it themselves? There aren't any government funds involved so I don't even know what principle it is that people are getting mad about. They just agreed to raise prices by 15 cents to advertise and research trees or whatever price increase/commodity it is, and a board of people in the particular industry manage the funds through USDA. That's it."

Thank you for responding intelligently.

My point is that your average farmer with 5,000 Christmas trees is not going to pay an extra $750 tax. They're going to raise their prices by .001%. So essentially this is just a subsidy.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 10:37 PM. Reason : math lol]

11/29/2011 10:35:22 PM

So what you're saying is that nobody should be allowed to advertise anything ever because they increase their costs to cover their marketing campaign, thus the consumers are subsidizing their advertising. Gotcha.

11/29/2011 10:37:40 PM

I mean, it's a subsidy in the sense that Apple is subsidizing themselves when they decide they want the new iPhone to cost $300 instead of $295.

11/29/2011 10:38:01 PM

Quote :

"So what you're saying is that nobody should be allowed to advertise anything ever because they increase their costs to cover their marketing campaign, thus the consumers are subsidizing their advertising. Gotcha. "

...no? I'm saying that there is no reason for the government to be involved. Surely you can see the difference?

11/29/2011 10:39:37 PM

Sorry, tell me again exactly what you think the government itself is doing here.

11/29/2011 10:44:58 PM

Quote :

"My point is that your average farmer with 5,000 Christmas trees is not going to pay an extra $750 tax."

ITS NOT A FUCKING TAX.

All it really is, is all of the christmas tree producers going in together to do advertisement for their industry as a whole instead of/in addition to their individual businesses.

This has nothing to do with subsidies or taxes.

11/29/2011 10:46:13 PM

From what I gather, they're pretty much acting as the arm of a lobbyist group who would like to force farmers to pay into an ad campaign.

11/29/2011 10:47:53 PM

I'm not sure you understand what the word self-imposed means.

11/29/2011 10:49:27 PM

^^except the farmers want to do it.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 10:50 PM. Reason : CARET TAX]

11/29/2011 10:50:04 PM

The farmers have to vote on whether they want to do the ad campaign or not, there's no lobbying group involved. This is 100% farmers, except that the program is administrated indirectly by USDA.

11/29/2011 10:50:49 PM

Quote :

"The farmers have to vote on whether they want to do the ad campaign or not"

If this is true, I have no problem with it. I was just concerned with a group of farmers using the government to impose a tax on all farmers.

Also I'm laughing pretty hard at the insinuations that I'm anti-socialist. I'm probably one of the most left-leaning people on TWW

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 10:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2011 10:52:18 PM

I'm raging.

11/29/2011 10:52:19 PM

Quote :

"If this is true, I have no problem with it. "

hence SELF IMPOSED

11/29/2011 11:02:59 PM

Haha, holy fuck, do you not realize how lobbying works?

Example: One large company wants funding for an ad campaign. It can accomplish this by lobbying for a tax on the industry as a whole. Hundreds of small businesses do not want the tax. Large company can lobby for the tax itself and have it imposed on the hundreds of small businesses.

Honestly, I'm still on the fence on whether or not I support this. Maybe a majority of farmers wanted the tax, but should the rest be forced to pay for it? It's basically the government being used as a collection agency for a private industry.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 11:17 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2011 11:07:18 PM

Here's a letter from a Christmas tree farmer:

http://realtreetalk.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-checkoff-means-to-me.html

Quote :

"Some people have asked why we don’t just pool our resources and keep USDA out of it. In the last 20 years, there have two very strong voluntary programs initiated by the industry that raised nearly a million dollars each. We have found, as every industry we studied found, that voluntary programs have a life of about three years. The volunteers running the program and paying into the program burn out. Everyone in the industry benefits, but only a few carry the burden. These two programs had great impact on our industry's ability to promote our product. We know promotion and research work. We have to do it as an industry to survive. A checkoff is fair, equitable and can supply sustainable monies. Betty Malone, Sunrise Tree Farm"

11/29/2011 11:18:52 PM

She sounds like a communist who likes paying unfair taxes.

11/29/2011 11:22:05 PM

^^
There are stories on both sides, though:

Quote :

"Sutherland said he would be passing on the extra fee to his customers and doesn't think it's right that he would have to contribute to the fund. He said he doesn't need any help promoting his product, as he's been getting the same volume of people coming to his farm for the last 10 years and his sales have remained relatively unchanged during that same period."

http://agalert.com/story/?id=3599

Quote :

"She sounds like a communist who likes paying unfair taxes."

You sound like a person who prefers simple-minded sarcasm to meaningful arguments.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 11:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/29/2011 11:24:06 PM

Hey Obama, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind

11/29/2011 11:33:16 PM

I think those guys probably get more benefit than they realize though. They'll still enjoy the benefit of a national ad campaign whether they want it or not, and in the future they might be selling trees with genetics developed with checkoff money. These things have proven to be good for other industries in general; I really don't think it's an issue of Big Christmas Tree working against the little guys.

11/29/2011 11:36:02 PM

Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I guess I just lean toward the side of personal freedom in cases like this.

11/29/2011 11:41:33 PM

Yeah, but the issue is that the voluntary programs don't really work like the one lady said. It creates a free-rider problem.

11/30/2011 12:47:46 AM

so are you against the "Got Milk?" campaign?

11/30/2011 1:02:53 AM

If it's similar to this campaign, then yeah. Why would I be inconsistent?

Quote :

"Yeah, but the issue is that the voluntary programs don't really work like the one lady said. It creates a free-rider problem."

If some Christmas tree farmers want to band together and create an ad, they're welcome to, and it seems like they've done so in the past. Other farmers claim they don't need one, and so shouldn't be forced to participate.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 1:11 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2011 1:08:31 AM

1800 tree farmers voted and while nothing is ever unanimous, the fact is a majority of them supported this idea. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 1:39 AM. Reason : 90% support rate is pretty good though http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/tree_farmer]

11/30/2011 1:35:12 AM

GODDAMN OBAMA

11/30/2011 1:43:49 AM

Quote :

"From what I gather,"

Quote :

"If this is true, I have no problem with it. I was just concerned with a group of farmers using the government to impose a tax on all farmers."

Quote :

"Honestly, I'm still on the fence on whether or not I support this."

So you either a)were just being a troll and/or b)just shaking your dick in the thread without doing any research for yourself.

In either case, saps852 wins this thread

11/30/2011 8:00:43 AM

Quote :

"just shaking your dick in the thread without doing any research for yourself. "

this one. also i was drunk.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 8:08 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2011 8:05:08 AM

Quote :

"1800 tree farmers voted and while nothing is ever unanimous, the fact is a majority of them supported this idea. I see nothing wrong with that."

If a majority of gas refineries in the US felt that the image of gas was being damaged and therefore they needed a 10 cent rate hike on each gallon to mount an image improvement campaign, would that be justified as well, then?

Tobacco is getting a pretty bad rap these days. Could the Tobacco companies get together and imposed a $1.00/carton fee to produce ads that help them to improve their image?

I just want to make sure I understand who is and is not allowed to increase their rates, endorsed and supported by the federal government, in order to improve their industry. If a majority of tree farmers feel they need to band together to form a group that helps improve them image, what's to stop them from doing this sans the government? So you have a group of individuals in an industry that vote to organize and it forces the rest of the industry to follow suit, majority or not. Sounds an aweful lot like 'Right To Work State' laws.

11/30/2011 8:40:17 AM

Quote :

"If a majority of gas refineries in the US felt that the image of gas was being damaged and therefore they needed a 10 cent rate hike on each gallon to mount an image improvement campaign, would that be justified as well, then? Tobacco is getting a pretty bad rap these days. Could the Tobacco companies get together and imposed a $1.00/carton fee to produce ads that help them to improve their image?"

Yes, and companies do this all the time. I really don't understand why this is such an alien concept for people. ActionPants explained succinctly why these agricultural campaigns operate via the USDA. If there were just one or two major producers of Christmas trees in the US then I'm sure they would just hire their own marketing team and not deal with the rabble of people who don't bother to actually research how USDA marketing campaigns work.

11/30/2011 9:57:38 AM

rabble rabble rabble i hate democracy rabble rabble rabble [/adultswim]

11/30/2011 10:29:37 AM

I didnt make that post

11/30/2011 10:33:05 AM

Show me anywhere that gas and/or tobacco companies have voted together to raise prices because they needed to conduct a PR compaign and the government provided management and oversight over the project. I don't have a problem with Christmas tree growers getting together, organizing, and fighting for their interests, but that doesn't require the federal government to get involved and start telling growers who are not in their organization that they must also pay the per-tree fee.

------------

As far as the USDA thing, you're missing my argument. I don't deny it happens or that it is even necessary for some groups. What I don't like is this: You have an existing organization of individuals who grow Christmas trees. They are already organized. Great. So what is stopping them, as a private, organized group, from imposing a requirement on THEIR members that they must raise prices by a few cents so that the organization can hire a marketting firm rather than voting to make the government force ALL growers (within their organization and otherwise) to charge a fee?

If the government (i.e., an office set-up and paid for by the tax payers) is to get involved, it would be nice to see a projection of how "the image of the Christmas tree" has been damaged to the point that it is going to lead to serious reprecussions on the public. That's the one thing anyone defending this still hasn't been able to explain. Where is the opinion polling to canvas people's opinions of Christmas Trees and their likelihood to purchase a live tree this year? Without any of that, it's a group of private individuals who are voting to get the government involved in the free market based on their opinion of a situation. This isn't cattle ranchers, potato farmers, or even an essential agricultural product to national sustainment... it's Christmas Trees.

11/30/2011 10:38:48 AM

face sure tip-toed the fuck out of here, didn't he?

11/30/2011 10:43:25 AM

It's not the government telling farmers they have to pay. It's the other farmers.

See, they voted. A majority wanted this to happen, so now all the farmers pay into this program. That's how democracy works. If they don't like it, guess what? They can vote again and get rid of it!

11/30/2011 10:47:12 AM

The farmers voted that they wanted the government to require everyone to pay this fee. Is that not correct? If it's not correct, then what's to stop a tree producer in the mountains for saying "fuck that, I'm not paying the fee?"

As far as the "that's democracy" stuff, I don't buy that for a second. It's only a few cents per person, but "the consumers" are still a part of this decision. Also, if a government office is being set up, even though it is being directly funded through the $2 million, I promise you there is a management, oversight, and HR structure that is taxpayer funded to manage this government board responsible for improving the "image" of the Christmas tree. That means that the tax payers are a part of this, too. Did we get to vote on it (via representatives)?

This isn't democracy, it's a subset of an industry making decisions of government involvement. As I was trying to show with my oil and tobacco examples, if this were any other industry, we'd be up in arms.

11/30/2011 11:02:22 AM

Quote :

"Show me anywhere that gas and/or tobacco companies have voted together to raise prices because they needed to conduct a PR compaign and the government provided management and oversight over the project."

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/agcomm/magazine/winter04/tobaccogrowers.htm

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/advancement/09TobaccoReferendum.htm

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/30/2011 11:37:25 AM

11/30/2011 11:38:04 AM

^^So a foundation approved a measure that went for a vote before the people within a local (state) jurisdiction and was democratically approved through referrendum brought forth to the consumers. Not quite the same thing as a private group of producers voting for the federal government to assume authority to begin collecting additional fees on a consumable product.

As I said in my previous post...

Quote :

" [...]the tax payers are a part of this, too. Did we get to vote on it (via representatives)? This isn't democracy, it's a subset of an industry making decisions of government involvement. As I was trying to show with my oil and tobacco examples, if this were any other industry, we'd be up in arms. "

...and...

Quote :

"I don't have a problem with Christmas tree growers getting together, organizing, and fighting for their interests, but that doesn't require the federal government to get involved and start telling growers who are not in their organization that they must also pay the per-tree fee. "

Do you really not see the night-and-day difference between the links you posted and the topic at hand?

11/30/2011 11:54:55 AM

What? Consumers didn't vote on that. It's functionally the same as any national checkoff.

Quote :

"Any person eligible to vote on the self-assessment must share in the risk of the costs of production for flue-cured or burley tobacco."

What of the 8% of growers who didn't vote for it?!?!

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2011 12:00:29 PM

I misunderstood the referendum vote. Hey, I'm willing to admit I learned something new.
....

Still, I'm sticking to my initial point that this Christmas tree thing isn't synonymous. NC State is the landgrant university of North Carolina meaning that it's original purpose is to support the advancements of agriculture and the sciences within the state of North Carolina. Therefore, if tobacco farmers want to raise funds for the purpose of aiding the research into new applications of tobacco (pharma, chemical, et al), then it seems like money is being apprioriately attained (by the industry) and given to an organization for the purpose of which it was founded (research).

To me, that is apples-to-oranges from a private group of tree growers voting to place a fee on their products to fund a federal government entity that is doing PR.

(State government looking after an agricultural staple) vs (Federal government being asked for assistance)

(Money doing directly to research efforts to an institution long-since established to perform research for the industry) vs (Federal government establishing a new office)

(Tobacco is a key staple to NC agriculture, now and historically) vs (Christmas trees are not a key staple of our national agricultural industry)

Even if any of that isn't important to you, I specifically was curious if anyone had an example of an industry voting to collect fees to fund the government for PR. Research is measurable and it's effects are quantifiable. PR.... not so much. That's why before your response I said,

Quote :

"If the government (i.e., an office set-up and paid for by the tax payers) is to get involved, it would be nice to see a projection of how "the image of the Christmas tree" has been damaged to the point that it is going to lead to serious reprecussions on the public."

11/30/2011 12:19:10 PM

I just noticed something else that *might* set your example apart from the Christmas Tree "tax"/fee...

Quote :

""Any person eligible to vote on the self-assessment must share in the risk of the costs of production for flue-cured or burley tobacco.""

Let me know if this is misinformation, but from that first part of that statement, it appears that participation in the North Carolina Tobacco Foundation Inc is not government mandated and some growers may opt out of the organization. If this is true, I would argue that a big difference between your example and the Christmas Tree "tax" is that someone who is not a part of this group that voted to impose this rate hike simply don't have to comply with it. My understand of the Christmas Tree "tax" is that you could not opt out of it if you were producing Christmas trees.

--------

Also, when I re-read your article from the Winter magezine, I didn't see anywhere where the state government was going to manage anything other than collecting the funds at central locations. That is a very different level of government involvement from the Christmas Tree "tax" being used to set up a new federal office.

11/30/2011 12:26:43 PM

Checkoff funds go to research and PR. The first paragraph of the first article I linked about tobacco says that part of the money will fund tobacco education programs ("Educational programs that have analyzed and helped producers and policymakers understand the impact of proposed tobacco quota buy-out proposals have also been funded."). This is pretty much direct lobbying, and no one has gotten up in arms about it.

None of the money funds a government entity. It funds research and advertising for whatever commodity it is. The group at USDA in this Christmas tree case is comprised of Christmas tree growers. There are checkoffs for limes (7 U.S.C. §§ 6201-6212), watermelons (7 U.S.C. §§ 4901-4916), mushrooms (7 U.S.C. §§ 6101-6112), popcorn (7 U.S.C. §§ 7481-7491), and many other "non-Agricultural staple" commodities. The growers in those industries have to vote to institute a checkoff, and if they don't, there's not one. The government doesn't just create groups to promote avocados or whatever all willy-nilly. This has been going on for ages.

I don't know what else to tell you, man. As far as government involvement goes, this is seriously about as minimal as it gets. Everything is conducted, as far as I know, through the USDA agricultural marketing service. There are no new federal offices.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 12:31 PM. Reason : ]

11/30/2011 12:30:49 PM

Ok, let me say this first and foremost: just because "this has been going on for decades and no one is up in arms about it" doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean that now that people are aware of it that it's silly to disagree. I have sitting on my desk a stack of doctrines that were all writen in the past 6 months that I'm pretty sure almost no one on this site knows exist and probably few people that it effects even realize it exists. If higher ups are acting on this doctrine but lower-level people never see them for the next 10 years, that doesn't mean that when they realize what is in them that they don't have a legitimate beef with them.

If you're trying to say "these things have been around a long time, so what's the problem", then yep... I guess you got me. I didn't know that an industry, a private organization of growers in a non-essential industry could get together and decide that they want to impose a fund on their product and use it to fund a federal entity*** that could act as a marketing group for their products. Similar to your sentiments, "I don't know what else to tell you, man." It may have been going on for 1000s of years, but that doesn't make it right.

Still, I think my reasons for why the Christmas Tree tax are completely unlike your tobacco example is perfectly valid. The article that you provided only mentions the government's involvement as "collect[ing] check-off funds at North Carolina tobacco warehouse and receiving stations." Period. It appears that everything else is handled by North Carolina State University, which as I already explained is already chartered with a mission to assist our state's industries. The Christmas Tree tax was something proposed in 2009 and only in fall of 2011 was it going to be acted on by the Department of Agriculture who would set up the board to decide how to use the money. This isn't something where the federal government was acting as merely a routing agent between the industry and the receiver of funds, as in your example.

Completely different circumstances. I can see how your tobacco situation would be beneficial and the ability of the growers to advocate for themselves is important, especially if people are allowed to not be a part of this tobacco organization and therefore opt out of the fee. However, if these 'completely different circumstances' are still common place, then I still assert that they seem wrong.

---

***(I know you said there is no federal entity, but the articles I read... not the Heritage Foundation blog, mind you... specifically mentioned that the $2 million would form the funding for a committee that would determine how best to promote Christmas Trees.)

11/30/2011 1:24:17 PM

that's why I'm buying a Festivus pole

11/30/2011 2:53:23 PM

Quote :

"***(I know you said there is no federal entity, but the articles I read... not the Heritage Foundation blog, mind you... specifically mentioned that the $2 million would form the funding for a committee that would determine how best to promote Christmas Trees.)"

You know who is on that committee? CHRISTMAS TREE GROWERS.

11/30/2011 3:57:43 PM

I need to stop clicking on this thread. It makes me sad for the state of politics these days

11/30/2011 8:52:18 PM

Quote :

"It appears that everything else is handled by North Carolina State University, which as I already explained is already chartered with a mission to assist our state's industries."

And nc state isn't funded by the gov't? Get off your high horse and smell the daisies.

11/30/2011 10:05:40 PM