PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Christmas Tree Tax



OnePimpTiger
11-09-2011, 11:04 AM
Obama's Christmas Tree Tax <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First off, really? Seriously? I thought this was a mock story at first... <br />
<br />
Secondly, I had just read this story earlier: <br />
<br />
Atheists Angry After Wis. Gov. Changes...

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 11:16 AM
This is really a non issue. The gov't finding new ways to tax people. Regardles of who's in office where is the surprise in that? Also getting bent out of shape over someone calling a holiday tree a christmas tree? Really? C'mon everyone and their mama knows why the tree is being put up in the first place regardless if it is called a christmas tree or not. That's like crying over not putting down the toilet seat. People should worry about religious bigotry, hatred and intollerance and not silly things like trees. SMH.

tutall
11-09-2011, 11:25 AM
This is really a non issue. The gov't finding new ways to tax people. Regardles of who's in office where is the surprise in that? Also getting bent out of shape over someone calling a holiday tree a christmas tree? Really? C'mon everyone and their mama knows why the tree is being put up in the first place regardless if it is called a christmas tree or not. That's like crying over not putting down the toilet seat. People should worry about religious bigotry, hatred and intollerance and not silly things like trees. SMH.

Didnt Obama promise lower or no raises in taxes to the middle class? Or is the economy really bad enough only the uber wealthy can afford christmas... AHEM... Holiday trees this year

texansrangerfan73
11-09-2011, 11:29 AM
TAX em & put that money back into growing more Christmas trees & trees in general afterall we ALL use the oxygen they produce right?

sanfran22
11-09-2011, 11:56 AM
Didnt Obama promise lower or no raises in taxes to the middle class? Or is the economy really bad enough only the uber wealthy can afford christmas... AHEM... Holiday trees this year

lol, for sure...:party0048:

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 11:59 AM
Didnt Obama promise lower or no raises in taxes to the middle class? Or is the economy really bad enough only the uber wealthy can afford christmas... AHEM... Holiday trees this year


I'm sure that he did but every politician including the beloved bushes have promised not to raise taxes then go back and raise taxes after getting elected. Regardless of who the politician is as soon as he/she promises not to raise or possibly even lower taxes I tune them out because we all know that is one thing that no politician can guarantee.

sanfran22
11-09-2011, 12:04 PM
I'm sure that he did but every politician including the beloved bushes have promised not to raise taxes then go back and raise taxes after getting elected. Regardless of who the politician is as soon as he/she promises not to raise or possibly even lower taxes I tune them out because we all know that is one thing that no politician can guarantee.

I guess that makes it ok.....

duane1969
11-09-2011, 12:35 PM
Didnt Obama promise lower or no raises in taxes to the middle class? Or is the economy really bad enough only the uber wealthy can afford christmas... AHEM... Holiday trees this year

Yes he did promise that (along with alot of other lies and double-talk), and he will do his best to stick to not directly raising taxes on the middle class, but he and his cronies are smart enough to realize that their constituents have drank so much of the Kool-Aid that everything but their income can be taxed and they will not complain.

The reality of the matter is that a liberal controlled government will tax everything that they can before one red cent is cut from the budget and their pet entitlement programs. History proves that liberals often talk about cutting taxes, but rarely do they do anything but raise them or create new ones.

Star_Cards
11-09-2011, 12:37 PM
this does sound like an onion story. I'll say that I wasn't aware that the christmas tree industry needed any help in promotion. Christmas seems to be doing just fine from what I can tell and that tends to sell trees. This won't effect me as I don't put up a christmas tree and if I did it wouldn't be a real tree more than likely.

This tax seems pretty absurd to me. Christmas is the dominant religious holiday or the year by far. People either set one up or not. I guess it could maybe sway people to buy real as opposed to fake, but then what about the fake tree industry? Is the thinking that fresh trees are all american grown and the fake trees are probably produced on foreign soil and that in return would help american jobs if more fresh trees where sold?

Star_Cards
11-09-2011, 12:40 PM
on the other article, as an atheist, I'm not offended if they call a tree christmas or holiday. I'm also not offended that they would put one up with everyone knowing that the tree, whatever it is called, is rooted in the celebration of a christian holiday. That said I wouldn't have an issue if anyone else would want any other sort of religious symbol for a major holiday placed in the same area. I see that differently than how I mostly see religion in politics because it's more of an observance of a culture rather than trying to legislate with religion laws or codes.

tutall
11-09-2011, 01:36 PM
I'm sure that he did but every politician including the beloved bushes have promised not to raise taxes then go back and raise taxes after getting elected. Regardless of who the politician is as soon as he/she promises not to raise or possibly even lower taxes I tune them out because we all know that is one thing that no politician can guarantee.

I dont care what anyone else did... Obama said he wouldnt and he repeatedly has raised all kinds of taxes on everyone and noone has a problem with it.

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 02:07 PM
Why do you all keep calling it a tax? It is a fee on BIG sellers (500 trees or more) to be used to create an organization whose intent is to help the industry. With the average cost of a tree somewhere around $36 (according to the NCTA) a 15 cent cost to the seller is not going to be passed on to the consumer. And in an industry that has close to a billion in annual sales, a few million being taken for the betterment of the industry shouldn't be a hardship.

I can see it now; Consumer: "How much are the trees?" Seller: "Depends, if you want a Douglas Fir, it will be $40.15. If you want a scraggly old pine, $25.15."

To think, all this coming from a CANADIAN, who should be hoping the US Xmas tree industry declines and makes even more room for canadian exports.

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 03:47 PM
I dont care what anyone else did... Obama said he wouldnt and he repeatedly has raised all kinds of taxes on everyone and noone has a problem with it.


I have a problem with any politician weather it be obama, regan, bush, clinton or any one else raising taxes especially after they said that they were not going to? However what can be done? Until we either eliminate taxation or actually make politicians accountable for what they promise during elections this will continue to happen no matter who the politician is or what their political party is.

sanfran22
11-09-2011, 03:59 PM
I have a problem with any politician weather it be obama, regan, bush, clinton or any one else raising taxes especially after they said that they were not going to? However what can be done? Until we either eliminate taxation or actually make politicians accountable for what they promise during elections this will continue to happen no matter who the politician is or what their political party is.

You gonna hold Obama accountable??:winking0071:

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 04:03 PM
You gonna hold Obama accountable??:winking0071:


Everyone must be held accountable regardless of political affiliation. Remember I'm not the one who is the political fanboy. :winking0071:

sanfran22
11-09-2011, 04:16 PM
Everyone must be held accountable regardless of political affiliation. Remember I'm not the one who is the political fanboy. :winking0071:

No, you are worse......:winking0071:

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 04:24 PM
No, you are worse......:winking0071:


Not as bad as you my good friend. :winking0071:

sanfran22
11-09-2011, 04:25 PM
Not as bad as you my good friend. :winking0071:

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better...:kiss:

ensbergcollector
11-09-2011, 04:33 PM
Everyone must be held accountable regardless of political affiliation. Remember I'm not the one who is the political fanboy. :winking0071:

not to interrupt the amazing dialogue that is going on here (joke) but you do defend obama pretty much as hard core as anyone defends the right. I don't think obama has been accused of anything that hasn't led to you responding with a "so did bush" or something along those lines

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 04:40 PM
not to interrupt the amazing dialogue that is going on here (joke) but you do defend obama pretty much as hard core as anyone defends the right. I don't think obama has been accused of anything that hasn't led to you responding with a "so did bush" or something along those lines


Yes I am going to defend our president from baseless and irrelevant accucations such as he was not born in the united states (already proven that he was) and that he is a muslim (even if he is that is his legal right and it has absolutely no bearing on how he runs this country), however if he promises not to raise taxes and turns around and does I will call him or any other politician out.

ensbergcollector
11-09-2011, 04:55 PM
Yes I am going to defend our president from baseless and irrelevant accucations such as he was not born in the united states (already proven that he was) and that he is a muslim (even if he is that is his legal right and it has absolutely no bearing on how he runs this country), however if he promises not to raise taxes and turns around and does I will call him or any other politician out.

do me a favor and reel back in the crazy. you know full well that isn't the stuff I am talking about. anytime anyone says something about the economy, his dealing with the war,etc. that can be seen as criticism, you pull the "so did bush" card. you say you will call him out and yet in the year plus that you have been on here, i have never seen a single post that could be viewed as anything but defending him.

tutall
11-09-2011, 04:56 PM
Yes I am going to defend our president from baseless and irrelevant accucations such as he was not born in the united states (already proven that he was) and that he is a muslim (even if he is that is his legal right and it has absolutely no bearing on how he runs this country), however if he promises not to raise taxes and turns around and does I will call him or any other politician out.

You "called him out"by reminding me Bush did it too.... Honestly I could care less about this tax... My animals have tore up enough christmas trees I am done buying them... Just merely pointing out this is yet another campaign promise busted....

mrveggieman
11-09-2011, 05:00 PM
You "called him out"by reminding me Bush did it too.... Honestly I could care less about this tax... My animals have tore up enough christmas trees I am done buying them... Just merely pointing out this is yet another campaign promise busted....


I was merely saying he did it and he was wrong for doing that but don't throw our president under the bus because this it not the the first nor is it the only time a politician ever lied about raising taxes. Believe it or not that is not the worst thing that a politician has ever lied about. :winking0071:

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 05:01 PM
Hmmmm..... maybe I am on ignore?? No, that can't be it. They love my comments. ;)

tutall
11-09-2011, 06:13 PM
I was merely saying he did it and he was wrong for doing that but don't throw our president under the bus because this it not the the first nor is it the only time a politician ever lied about raising taxes. Believe it or not that is not the worst thing that a politician has ever lied about. :winking0071:

Remember Obama's campaign slogan? Hope and Change.... That was the whole thing that gothim elected in the first place.... Yet the longer this goes on the more we find out it is politics as usual yet people like you dont hold him accountable for it... Just point at past presidents... Nothing is more transparent now than 6 years ago.... Gitmo is still open, we have troops overseas fighting in the countries Obama said he would get them out of, and a healthcare bill that was PROMISED to be debated in the open, that no one knows or can comprehend and decifer, that was not debated in open but closed behind doors by a select few. Say what you want but if you look at it from a non-partisan perspective he has really failed those who believed in him as well. It is no easier to make your house payment today as it was the day he took office which he made many people believe. It is no easier to find a job today than it was when he took office. I payat least as much ifnot more in taxes than when he took office... I am the middle class... He hasnt done anything for me.

tutall
11-09-2011, 06:17 PM
Why do you all keep calling it a tax? It is a fee on BIG sellers (500 trees or more) to be used to create an organization whose intent is to help the industry. With the average cost of a tree somewhere around $36 (according to the NCTA) a 15 cent cost to the seller is not going to be passed on to the consumer. And in an industry that has close to a billion in annual sales, a few million being taken for the betterment of the industry shouldn't be a hardship.

I can see it now; Consumer: "How much are the trees?" Seller: "Depends, if you want a Douglas Fir, it will be $40.15. If you want a scraggly old pine, $25.15."

To think, all this coming from a CANADIAN, who should be hoping the US Xmas tree industry declines and makes even more room for canadian exports.

What exactly are they using this money for? It looks like to me to set up a board to discover what the benefits could be.... Which to me sounds like R&D that any profitable business more than likely already has. I dont really think the government needs to make itself the experts in the christmas tree business also... They are already the experts in the banking industry, the stock market, and the car business.... This also will be money funneled to a board, which is all appointed by someone, who will be able to direct money as they see fit.

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 07:52 PM
What exactly are they using this money for? It looks like to me to set up a board to discover what the benefits could be.... Which to me sounds like R&D that any profitable business more than likely already has. I dont really think the government needs to make itself the experts in the christmas tree business also... They are already the experts in the banking industry, the stock market, and the car business.... This also will be money funneled to a board, which is all appointed by someone, who will be able to direct money as they see fit.

Have you ever considered the possibility that this initiative may be needed? What makes you think the government will become "experts" in the business? Someone with an open mind, not many here in this thread, would assume experienced industry people would make up the board. People with a vested interest in growing the industry.

All the closed minds just repeat the "more taxes", "more unneeded government intervention" mantras. No one bothers to take a minute and consider it just might make a little sense.

texansrangerfan73
11-09-2011, 07:57 PM
I bet a 1/3 of the posters in this thread don't even buy a REAL Xmas tree including myself!!

ensbergcollector
11-09-2011, 08:11 PM
Have you ever considered the possibility that this initiative may be needed? What makes you think the government will become "experts" in the business? Someone with an open mind, not many here in this thread, would assume experienced industry people would make up the board. People with a vested interest in growing the industry.

All the closed minds just repeat the "more taxes", "more unneeded government intervention" mantras. No one bothers to take a minute and consider it just might make a little sense.

then let's put a small tax on everything and create boards of experts to figure out how to grow every industry there is. Christmas trees are a multi-million dollar business. If they want to figure out how to grow, they can do what ever other business in the world does, figure it out themselves. Why should the government step in and help them with this?

tutall
11-09-2011, 09:21 PM
Have you ever considered the possibility that this initiative may be needed? What makes you think the government will become "experts" in the business? Someone with an open mind, not many here in this thread, would assume experienced industry people would make up the board. People with a vested interest in growing the industry.

All the closed minds just repeat the "more taxes", "more unneeded government intervention" mantras. No one bothers to take a minute and consider it just might make a little sense.

Im sure if there is a way to improve the industry someone in the private sector will figure it out. I dont think we need public money going to a government board to try and figure it out.

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 09:32 PM
Im sure if there is a way to improve the industry someone in the private sector will figure it out. I dont think we need public money going to a government board to try and figure it out.

I must have missed that part. How is "public" money involved?

OnePimpTiger
11-09-2011, 10:02 PM
I must have missed that part. How is "public" money involved?

Seriously?

to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees.

What pays for federal programs?


Anyway, while I should have known it would cause comment, the tax itself wasn't the reason for my post. I was wondering how people who are offended by the term Christmas tree would feel about our liberal President starting a program to promote Christmas trees. Apparently no one on here is offended by that, but I would imagine there are some who are...or should be at least, if they stand by their beliefs over their President.

As to the tax (and yes, it is a tax...it's the government taking a cut of revenue, how is that not a tax?), I feel it should be the Christmas tree growers and sellers funding any promotional programs to help their business rather than the government. I didn't realize advertising was one of our government's functions.

MadMan1978
11-09-2011, 10:11 PM
hey wait now

this tax is on all Xmas tress...just not the middle class....and its a flat tax as well

is this what want ?

Hilfiger1975
11-09-2011, 10:11 PM
i bet a 1/3 of the posters in this thread don't even buy a real xmas tree including myself!!
bingo! :):

tutall
11-09-2011, 10:11 PM
I must have missed that part. How is "public" money involved?

Federal money as in... The government collects it and uses it to fund a board of appointed people....

tutall
11-09-2011, 10:12 PM
hey wait now

this tax is on all Xmas tress...just not the middle class....and its a flat tax as well

is this what want ?

Actually... A flat tax is exactly what I want... just simply pointing out once again after promising not to raise taxes on the middle class, Obama does it once again and once again all his supporters are cool with it.

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 10:15 PM
Seriously?


What pays for federal programs?


Anyway, while I should have known it would cause comment, the tax itself wasn't the reason for my post. I was wondering how people who are offended by the term Christmas tree would feel about our liberal President starting a program to promote Christmas trees. Apparently no one on here is offended by that, but I would imagine there are some who are...or should be at least, if they stand by their beliefs over their President.

As to the tax (and yes, it is a tax...it's the government taking a cut of revenue, how is that not a tax?), I feel it should be the Christmas tree growers and sellers funding any promotional programs to help their business rather than the government. I didn't realize advertising was one of our government's functions.

Did you even bother to read the link you posted? Seriously! It is the sellers paying for the program. That's the whole point!

How can we manage to have a discussion when NO ONE, including the OP, reads the darn thing?

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 10:17 PM
Federal money as in... The government collects it and uses it to fund a board of appointed people....

Nice stretch!!! Keep up the good work.

tutall
11-09-2011, 10:38 PM
Nice stretch!!! Keep up the good work.

So... who takes in the money from the sellers?

OnePimpTiger
11-09-2011, 10:39 PM
Did you even bother to read the link you posted? Seriously! It is the sellers paying for the program. That's the whole point!

How can we manage to have a discussion when NO ONE, including the OP, reads the darn thing?

In that case, the government doesn't fund roads, the drivers do. The government doesn't fund the schools, the parents of school children do. The government doesn't fund the military, the citizens requiring protection do.

Semantics. The government does not need to be running advertising campaigns for any private industry, the private industry that needs the advertising should be doing that. There is no logical, justifiable reason the government should be involved in this.

Hilfiger1975
11-09-2011, 10:40 PM
In that case, the government doesn't fund roads, the drivers do. The government doesn't fund the schools, the parents of school children do. The government doesn't fund the military, the citizens requiring protection do.

Semantics. The government does not need to be running advertising campaigns for any private industry, the private industry that needs the advertising should be doing that. There is no logical, justifiable reason the government should be involved in this.
Since when has the government ever cared about that?!?! :winking0071:

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 11:02 PM
So... who takes in the money from the sellers?

It doesn't matter who takes the money in. "Public" money comes from the taxpayer. This money is coming from "private" companies.

INTIMADATOR2007
11-09-2011, 11:02 PM
Just like the tanning bed tax that was a tax on WHITE people , This is a tax on CHRISTIAN people . I thought it was supposed to be equal for all ?

habsheaven
11-09-2011, 11:12 PM
In that case, the government doesn't fund roads, the drivers do. The government doesn't fund the schools, the parents of school children do. The government doesn't fund the military, the citizens requiring protection do.

Semantics. The government does not need to be running advertising campaigns for any private industry, the private industry that needs the advertising should be doing that. There is no logical, justifiable reason the government should be involved in this.

You may find the reasoning here: Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.

tutall
11-09-2011, 11:21 PM
It doesn't matter who takes the money in. "Public" money comes from the taxpayer. This money is coming from "private" companies.

and who gives that money to private companies through buying the christmas trees that are being taxed? Baby steps here......

Hilfiger1975
11-09-2011, 11:22 PM
Just like the tanning bed tax that was a tax on WHITE people , This is a tax on CHRISTIAN people . I thought it was supposed to be equal for all ?
OMG, post of the year...i spit water all over my keyboard and monitor...trufax...:sign0020:

Has anyone ever done a poll on post of the year? Seriously?

tutall
11-09-2011, 11:24 PM
You may find the reasoning here: Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996.

Thats stretching it... And I believe the only way Christmas trees would qualify is if you labeled them under forestry.... Ill have to read up on this one a little more to give more of an answer

OnePimpTiger
11-09-2011, 11:29 PM
It doesn't matter who takes the money in. "Public" money comes from the taxpayer. This money is coming from "private" companies.

So corporate taxes aren't public money? None of the taxes collected from the sell of cigarettes, gas, alcohol, firearms, etc are public money? I forgot, those are favorable for Obama, so yes, they are public money. This one isn't favorable for The One, so it's not. I know logic goes out the window when defending your boy, but c'mon...


Anyway, it didn't last very long:

Obama Administration to Delay New 15-Cent Christmas Tree Tax (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-administration-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/)


The U.S. Department of Agriculture is going to delay implementation and revisit a proposed new 15 cent fee on fresh-cut Christmas trees, sources tell ABC News. The fee, requested by the National Christmas Tree Association in 2009, was first announced in the Federal Registry yesterday and has generated criticism of President Obama from conservative media outlets.

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 08:53 AM
Thats stretching it... And I believe the only way Christmas trees would qualify is if you labeled them under forestry.... Ill have to read up on this one a little more to give more of an answer

I'm not trying to stretch anything. Just taking that from the article and suggesting it might offer some insight. I know nothing about the Act itself either.

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 08:55 AM
So corporate taxes aren't public money? None of the taxes collected from the sell of cigarettes, gas, alcohol, firearms, etc are public money? I forgot, those are favorable for Obama, so yes, they are public money. This one isn't favorable for The One, so it's not. I know logic goes out the window when defending your boy, but c'mon...


Anyway, it didn't last very long:

Obama Administration to Delay New 15-Cent Christmas Tree Tax (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-administration-to-delay-new-15-cent-christmas-tree-fee/)

You're mixing "apples" and "oranges". These fees (see the line in your link) were requested by the NCTA in 2009.

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 08:58 AM
and who gives that money to private companies through buying the christmas trees that are being taxed? Baby steps here......

Again, see my first post on the subject. The sellers are not going to be passing this fee on to the buying public.

sanfran22
11-10-2011, 10:44 AM
Again, see my first post on the subject. The sellers are not going to be passing this fee on to the buying public.

So you're positive on that?

Star_Cards
11-10-2011, 10:47 AM
I heard today that the tree growers want this to help stimulate the tree industry which is pretty much american grown. thus taking from fake tree sales which are typically produced overseas. I also heard that it's not a tax.

habsheaven
11-10-2011, 11:52 AM
So you're positive on that?

Yes, quite certain. Do you think the trees they have been selling for $35 for the past 5 years will all of a sudden go up to $35.15?

sanfran22
11-10-2011, 11:53 AM
Yes, quite certain. Do you think the trees they have been selling for $35 for the past 5 years will all of a sudden go up to $35.15?

Maybe 35.95.....

Hilfiger1975
11-10-2011, 11:56 AM
Yes, quite certain. Do you think the trees they have been selling for $35 for the past 5 years will all of a sudden go up to $35.15?


Maybe 35.95.....
LOL, funny stuff!

tutall
11-10-2011, 11:34 PM
regardless of is it a tax or not or whether it will be passed onto consumers.... It is still money going into the government that needs to be kept in the private sector

Star_Cards
11-11-2011, 11:38 AM
I didn't think it was going into the government. Maybe the government is running the program. If that's the case maybe that shouldn't be the case. Sounds like if the christmas tree industry wants to market their product they should do it on their own. They'd probably get way more bang for their buck than having the government have a hand in it.

sanfran22
11-11-2011, 11:43 AM
I didn't think it was going into the government. Maybe the government is running the program. If that's the case maybe that shouldn't be the case. Sounds like if the christmas tree industry wants to market their product they should do it on their own. They'd probably get way more bang for their buck than having the government have a hand in it.

That's the way I'd go as well. I wonder what's behind the gov't getting involved....

tutall
11-11-2011, 12:35 PM
I didn't think it was going into the government. Maybe the government is running the program. If that's the case maybe that shouldn't be the case. Sounds like if the christmas tree industry wants to market their product they should do it on their own. They'd probably get way more bang for their buck than having the government have a hand in it.

Thank you... That is exactly what I was trying to say

tylermckinzie
11-11-2011, 01:45 PM
As neither a staunch supporter of Obama nor a decided enemy of him, I have to snicker when I see him receive both way too much credit on things he nary has a hand in and too much blame for something he doesn't really have a part in. Here is another example.

President Obama’s Agriculture Department

The acting secretary imposed the 15 cent tax. It wasn't Obama signing legislation. And before anyone says "Well, he could have voided it or basically vetoed it", then again, you are giving him too much power credit. The president doesn't oversee every decision made by the departments, nor do I even believe that he or she should. Department heads should be more knowledgeable in specific areas than a President should. If you want to make the argument the government as a whole is making another bad decision, fine, I won't argue that, but to just say this is Obama's tax? Nice use of rational thought.

In a sports analogy, it's like blaming the top person for every decision made by the people below them even if they had no control over it.

Did you read an article "Arthur Blank's quarterback involved in dogfighting ring"?

How about "Tom Coughlin's Quarterback throws two fourth quarter touchdowns to beat Bob Kraft's employees?"

Like I said, don't get me wrong, it works both ways because I believe he gets too much credit for some things and too much blame for others.

Hilfiger1975
11-11-2011, 01:53 PM
as neither a staunch supporter of obama nor a decided enemy of him, i have to snicker when i see him receive both way too much credit on things he nary has a hand in and too much blame for something he doesn't really have a part in. Here is another example.

president obama’s agriculture department

the acting secretary imposed the 15 cent tax. It wasn't obama signing legislation. And before anyone says "well, he could have voided it or basically vetoed it", then again, you are giving him too much power credit. The president doesn't oversee every decision made by the departments, nor do i even believe that he or she should. Department heads should be more knowledgeable in specific areas than a president should. If you want to make the argument the government as a whole is making another bad decision, fine, i won't argue that, but to just say this is obama's tax? Nice use of rational thought.

In a sports analogy, it's like blaming the top person for every decision made by the people below them even if they had no control over it.

Did you read an article "arthur blank's quarterback involved in dogfighting ring"?

How about "tom coughlin's quarterback throws two fourth quarter touchdowns to beat bob kraft's employees?"

like i said, don't get me wrong, it works both ways because i believe he gets too much credit for some things and too much blame for others.
+1

Star_Cards
11-11-2011, 02:20 PM
As neither a staunch supporter of Obama nor a decided enemy of him, I have to snicker when I see him receive both way too much credit on things he nary has a hand in and too much blame for something he doesn't really have a part in. Here is another example.

President Obama’s Agriculture Department

The acting secretary imposed the 15 cent tax. It wasn't Obama signing legislation. And before anyone says "Well, he could have voided it or basically vetoed it", then again, you are giving him too much power credit. The president doesn't oversee every decision made by the departments, nor do I even believe that he or she should. Department heads should be more knowledgeable in specific areas than a President should. If you want to make the argument the government as a whole is making another bad decision, fine, I won't argue that, but to just say this is Obama's tax? Nice use of rational thought.

In a sports analogy, it's like blaming the top person for every decision made by the people below them even if they had no control over it.

Did you read an article "Arthur Blank's quarterback involved in dogfighting ring"?

How about "Tom Coughlin's Quarterback throws two fourth quarter touchdowns to beat Bob Kraft's employees?"

Like I said, don't get me wrong, it works both ways because I believe he gets too much credit for some things and too much blame for others.

great points.

tutall
11-11-2011, 04:17 PM
As neither a staunch supporter of Obama nor a decided enemy of him, I have to snicker when I see him receive both way too much credit on things he nary has a hand in and too much blame for something he doesn't really have a part in. Here is another example.

President Obama’s Agriculture Department

The acting secretary imposed the 15 cent tax. It wasn't Obama signing legislation. And before anyone says "Well, he could have voided it or basically vetoed it", then again, you are giving him too much power credit. The president doesn't oversee every decision made by the departments, nor do I even believe that he or she should. Department heads should be more knowledgeable in specific areas than a President should. If you want to make the argument the government as a whole is making another bad decision, fine, I won't argue that, but to just say this is Obama's tax? Nice use of rational thought.

In a sports analogy, it's like blaming the top person for every decision made by the people below them even if they had no control over it.

Did you read an article "Arthur Blank's quarterback involved in dogfighting ring"?

How about "Tom Coughlin's Quarterback throws two fourth quarter touchdowns to beat Bob Kraft's employees?"

Like I said, don't get me wrong, it works both ways because I believe he gets too much credit for some things and too much blame for others.

Completely disagree.... You are going on an individual one item basis... Joe Paterno got fired not because of what he did but what a former assistant of his did... Arthur Blank "Fired" his QB because of what he did.... If Tom Coughlins QB continues to make mistakes and Coughlin does nothing to stop it he takes the blame for it and gets fired... But youdont hear about Coughlin's job being on the line as long as his guys are performing. It isnt giving him too much or blaming him too much. It is exaclty what he signed up for. He signed up to lead the most powerful country in the world and it isnt an easy job. He needs to be in control of everything or at least be informed and make an informed dicision on every issue posed to the federal government ESPECIALLY when it is contrary to a promise he made to voters when he decided to run.

You say department heads should make the decisions but when a department head goes directly against what you promised in your campaign it is then up to you to either remove that person who is not on the same page as you or fix it so he/she is

sanfran22
11-11-2011, 04:31 PM
If Obama appointments do stupid things, it reflects on Obama.....

habsheaven
11-11-2011, 05:44 PM
Completely disagree.... You are going on an individual one item basis... Joe Paterno got fired not because of what he did but what a former assistant of his did... Arthur Blank "Fired" his QB because of what he did.... If Tom Coughlins QB continues to make mistakes and Coughlin does nothing to stop it he takes the blame for it and gets fired... But youdont hear about Coughlin's job being on the line as long as his guys are performing. It isnt giving him too much or blaming him too much. It is exaclty what he signed up for. He signed up to lead the most powerful country in the world and it isnt an easy job. He needs to be in control of everything or at least be informed and make an informed dicision on every issue posed to the federal government ESPECIALLY when it is contrary to a promise he made to voters when he decided to run.

You say department heads should make the decisions but when a department head goes directly against what you promised in your campaign it is then up to you to either remove that person who is not on the same page as you or fix it so he/she is

You still don't get it. It is not a tax. It is a FEE, requested by the people that are going to be paying it. Stop grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit the man.

This whole darn thing is ridiculous. Why don't you all go back to calling him a Muslim. It makes about as much sense as this criticism.

Hilfiger1975
11-11-2011, 05:45 PM
If Obama appointments do stupid things, it reflects on Obama.....
That can be said about EVERYONE just not Obama...

tutall
11-11-2011, 06:09 PM
You still don't get it. It is not a tax. It is a FEE, requested by the people that are going to be paying it. Stop grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit the man.

This whole darn thing is ridiculous. Why don't you all go back to calling him a Muslim. It makes about as much sense as this criticism.

Taxes and fees are essentially the same thing... it is just a fee out of our paycheck to go to the govt to repave roads... it is a fee to medicare that pays others medical expenses...

Hilfiger1975
11-11-2011, 06:12 PM
Taxes and fees are essentially the same thing... it is just a fee out of our paycheck to go to the govt to repave roads... it is a fee to medicare that pays others medical expenses...
That's what you ASSUME, but we all know the government does what they are SUPPOSE to with US citizen's money, huh? That was a excellent way of passing the buck and assuming that money went to OTHER people...:winking0071:

habsheaven
11-11-2011, 06:18 PM
Taxes and fees are essentially the same thing... it is just a fee out of our paycheck to go to the govt to repave roads... it is a fee to medicare that pays others medical expenses...

In this instance, they are not the same thing. And it is certainly not worthy of calling him out on a campaign promise.

mrveggieman
11-11-2011, 09:02 PM
You still don't get it. It is not a tax. It is a FEE, requested by the people that are going to be paying it. Stop grasping at straws in an attempt to discredit the man.

This whole darn thing is ridiculous. Why don't you all go back to calling him a Muslim. It makes about as much sense as this criticism.


Church!! :cheer2:

sanfran22
11-11-2011, 09:09 PM
That can be said about EVERYONE just not Obama...
I agree, but that wasn't the point.

sanfran22
11-11-2011, 09:10 PM
It's a tax if it's gov't mandated. Why don't the tree people just raise the price of their trees .15? Why get the gov't involved?

habsheaven
11-11-2011, 11:04 PM
It's a tax if it's gov't mandated. Why don't the tree people just raise the price of their trees .15? Why get the gov't involved?

Probably because even though the NCTA wants it, I doubt that all the big sellers (Walmart for example) do. If they are going to be starting a program to assist the entire industry I would assume they want full cooperation from the major players. Gov't intervention is the only way to achieve this.

As for your bolded part; that's a very poor excuse for a definition of tax. Are the fees you pay to maintain a driver's licence a tax? I didn't think so.

tutall
11-11-2011, 11:20 PM
Probably because even though the NCTA wants it, I doubt that all the big sellers (Walmart for example) do. If they are going to be starting a program to assist the entire industry I would assume they want full cooperation from the major players. Gov't intervention is the only way to achieve this.

As for your bolded part; that's a very poor excuse for a definition of tax. Are the fees you pay to maintain a driver's licence a tax? I didn't think so.

Why arent they? Is the fee on cigarettes, beer, and gasoline taxes? I would call them that... I would call anything the government collects taxes in one way or another.... If one of the large companies does not want to participate then dont make them... If I start a company and decide to not put a R&D department and other companies grow around me that is my fault.

sanfran22
11-11-2011, 11:34 PM
Probably because even though the NCTA wants it, I doubt that all the big sellers (Walmart for example) do. If they are going to be starting a program to assist the entire industry I would assume they want full cooperation from the major players. Gov't intervention is the only way to achieve this.

As for your bolded part; that's a very poor excuse for a definition of tax. Are the fees you pay to maintain a driver's licence a tax? I didn't think so.
yep. Thats a tax. Fee is just a softer way of putting it.

habsheaven
11-11-2011, 11:35 PM
Probably because even though the NCTA wants it, I doubt that all the big sellers (Walmart for example) do. If they are going to be starting a program to assist the entire industry I would assume they want full cooperation from the major players. Gov't intervention is the only way to achieve this.

As for your bolded part; that's a very poor excuse for a definition of tax. Are the fees you pay to maintain a driver's licence a tax? I didn't think so.

Why arent they? Is the fee on cigarettes, beer, and gasoline taxes? I would call them that... I would call anything the government collects taxes in one way or another.... If one of the large companies does not want to participate then dont make them... If I start a company and decide to not put a R&D department and other companies grow around me that is my fault.

Huh??? Now you are calling taxes fees, just so you can call fees taxes??? I KNOW the difference between a FEE and a TAX. If you guys don't, that's your issue. Stay confused, I'm tired of trying to educate people who ACT stupid just to further their point.

We are talking about a program that promotes the ENTIRE industry. Those choosing to opt out would end up benefiting despite not contributing.

tutall
11-11-2011, 11:38 PM
[quote=tutall;10639853]

Huh??? Now you are calling taxes fees, just so you can call fees taxes??? I KNOW the difference between a FEE and a TAX. If you guys don't, that's your issue. Stay confused, I'm tired of trying to educate people who ACT stupid just to further their point.

We are talking about a program that promotes the ENTIRE industry. Those choosing to opt out would end up benefiting despite not contributing.

You started the confusing of taxes and fees... You can call them whatever you want... I am against private corps being forced to send money to the government against their will to fund something that could and should be done on a private business venture.... Did that clear it up a little?

marvelousmarv
11-12-2011, 12:06 AM
just want to say amen!
Yes he did promise that (along with alot of other lies and double-talk), and he will do his best to stick to not directly raising taxes on the middle class, but he and his cronies are smart enough to realize that their constituents have drank so much of the Kool-Aid that everything but their income can be taxed and they will not complain.

The reality of the matter is that a liberal controlled government will tax everything that they can before one red cent is cut from the budget and their pet entitlement programs. History proves that liberals often talk about cutting taxes, but rarely do they do anything but raise them or create new ones.

tylermckinzie
11-12-2011, 07:44 AM
Completely disagree.... You are going on an individual one item basis... Joe Paterno got fired not because of what he did but what a former assistant of his did... Arthur Blank "Fired" his QB because of what he did.... If Tom Coughlins QB continues to make mistakes and Coughlin does nothing to stop it he takes the blame for it and gets fired... But youdont hear about Coughlin's job being on the line as long as his guys are performing. It isnt giving him too much or blaming him too much. It is exaclty what he signed up for. He signed up to lead the most powerful country in the world and it isnt an easy job. He needs to be in control of everything or at least be informed and make an informed dicision on every issue posed to the federal government ESPECIALLY when it is contrary to a promise he made to voters when he decided to run.

You say department heads should make the decisions but when a department head goes directly against what you promised in your campaign it is then up to you to either remove that person who is not on the same page as you or fix it so he/she is

I understand what you are saying, but you are looking at this from the perspective of "how superiors treat lawbreaking subjects". I was simply speaking from the perspective of "how you perceive a person will always slant how you read your news".

Frankly, I don't care about a 15 cent tax on a tree that has been designated for a purpose in this individual case. My point is that 99% of the world had either said there's nothing wrong with it based on loving Obama or it's another step the end of the world if that don't by the time they'd read the headine and the implication he was a driving force in it.

And to equate this fee in the same category as the crimes I was writing headlines on is hyperbole. I was using them to make a point of how a headline is written. To equate his appointment as having the same poor judgement as the people that I used is ignorant anyway.

mrveggieman
11-15-2011, 01:33 PM
Hopefully this will clear some things up, if not then stir up some more heated debate:

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/11/11/%E2%80%9Cchristmas-tree-tax%E2%80%9D-conspiracy-theory-to-prove-obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cislamicness%E2%80%9D/ (http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/11/11/&#37;E2%80%9Cchristmas-tree-tax%E2%80%9D-conspiracy-theory-to-prove-obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cislamicness%E2%80%9D/)

Hilfiger1975
11-15-2011, 01:35 PM
Hopefully this will clear some things up, if not then stir up some more heated debate:

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2011/11/11/%E2%80%9Cchristmas-tree-tax%E2%80%9D-conspiracy-theory-to-prove-obama%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cislamicness%E2%80%9D/
:ref: