The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

That's the part that puzzles me. If the growers want to get together with the sellers and add 15 cents to each tree to fund advertising that helps all of them, great, go ahead. Why get the government involved in an advertising campaign at all?

So that it is actually an industry-wide effort.

The idea to create a mandatory checkoff program sprang from the industry's inability to sustain voluntary fundraising efforts, according to previous reports in Capital Press.

 

Such campaigns often were initially successful but then fizzled because they relied on the same limited pool of volunteers and contributors.

 

Under the current system, farmers will be able to vote whether to keep the checkoff going after it's been in place for three years.

 

The task force that pushed for the checkoff preferred a delayed referendum so growers would be able to see how the program works.

 

In the years leading up to the USDA's recent approval, the proposal has not been without controversy.

 

Farmers sell their Christmas trees in a variety of ways -- to retailers, directly to the public and through brokers.

 

Other industries with checkoff programs often have a limited number of handlers, packers or processors.

 

Without such a set point for collections, imposing assessments on the Christmas tree industry will be a challenge.

 

That problem has caused some growers to be skeptical of the program.

 

Greg Rondeau, sales manager of Holiday Tree Farms -- a major grower based in Corvallis, Ore. -- said he's still not sure how the collection process will actually work.

 

He's also concerned about how the money will be spent.

 

Farmers in major tree growing areas generally sell into very specific geographic markets, Rondeau said.

 

For that reason, it would make more sense to launch a regional marketing effort rather than a blanket program for the entire country, he said.

 

Rondeau also said he's concerned the checkoff was created due to a inaccurate perception of why prices for trees have been depressed.

 

"It's not necessarily a lack of demand," he said. "It's an oversupply of trees."

 

Although the U.S. checkoff program is bound to come up against obstacles, a similar effort among Christmas tree farmers in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia has been successful, said Malone.

 

The U.S. program will probably emulate Nova Scotia's strategy for collections: hiring a compliance officer to ensure farmers are paying their assessments, she said.

 

The checkoff's 12-member board of directors will be representative of the volume generated in different growing regions, Malone said. Five members will come from western states, four will come from eastern states, two will come from central states, and one will represent importers.

[bmags]

You think the Democrats are more likely to cut down deficits than the GOP, right now, today? Now THAT is absurd.

 

What on earth politics are you watching right now? The "we won't raise any revenues" guys? Give me a break.

[Balta1701]

Sure, let the Bush tax cuts expire=take a big chunk out of the deficits. Expand the Bush tax cuts permanently while cutting even more from the top brackets, capital gains and corporate taxes=expand the deficit.

And "$500 billion in Medicare cuts" to effectively bring health care costs 1/2 of the way to under control in the long-term projection = dealing with the long-term deficit.

[Balta1701]

Link

Agricultural producers have created promotional boards like this one since 1966, and they

date back to the Johnson administration. There are more than 20 such boards in existence

currently, and some well-known promotional boards have developed successful research,

advertising and promotion campaigns.

 

“A group of us farmers and retailers started more than three years ago in April of 2008 to

study other commodities and crops that have these programs,” said Malone. “We focused on

commodities that were similar in size: blueberries, mangoes, watermelons, sorghum and

several others. We facilitated sessions in the four top growing areas of the country. By now

there have been at least 100 meetings across the country at state and national Christmas

tree meetings discussing the checkoff. We did everything that was asked and played by the

rules.”

 

Promotion & Research Boards are created when the industry gathers together and petitions

USDA to create a promotional board according to the law. Following an open comment

period, USDA reviews the petition and creates the board if it meets certain requirements, as

happened here. The board is made up of farmers, not USDA officials. All the costs

associated with the board and program are billed back to the industry, and zero taxpayer

dollars are involved in the administration of the board. USDA provides oversight to the board

to ensure it is operating within the law and is meeting its stated goals.

 

“It’s just so disappointing to have something like this happen because of an internet rumor,”

said Malone. “Farmers know dirt. We know how to grow things. But in this changing world, it

is not enough to grow a great product. We want our businesses to be successful and we

have to let people know about our product. That takes time, coordination and money. Here

we were, a group of farmers trying to pool our own money together to sell more of our crop,

and now we’re not allowed to because someone decided to call it a tax, when it’s not.”

[NorthSideSox72]

So that it is actually an industry-wide effort.

 

Then let the INDUSTRY handle it! Government should not be getting involved in this, it is patently silly.

 

What on earth politics are you watching right now? The "we won't raise any revenues" guys? Give me a break.

 

The same ones who want to cut everything (for better or worse). No doubt in my mind the GOP is more likely to more heavily dent the deficits than the Democrats, as a whole. No doubt at all.

 

But really, the problem is both parties of course. Dems want to raise more revenues and spend a bunch of money, Reps want to reduce revenues and cut a ton of programs.

 

The smart course is what some of the few moderates left in Congress are suggesting - smaller cuts, more reorganization of the social programs to be less costly, some tax increases. A combination. I don't get how people don't see the base problem we are in now - we have debt that is unsustainable (thanks in large part, as I said earlier, to the 2000-2006 spending binge), but also have a huge recession to power out of. The only way to attack both is to do some of all the above, not just cut or just raise taxes or just throw more money at it.

 

[Balta1701]

Then let the INDUSTRY handle it! Government should not be getting involved in this, it is patently silly.

If the U.S. taxpayer is on the hook for nothing and the effort winds up promoting the sale of U.S. produced products, this is a good thing for the U.S. taxpayer and it is patently silly to oppose it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Link

You are still getting the government involved when it shouldn't be, and there are dangers every time you do that, beyond what the supposedly scheduled cost structure is in the current plan. But that is something I suspect you won't ever acknowledge exists.

 

[Balta1701]

You are still getting the government involved when it shouldn't be, and there are dangers every time you do that, beyond what the supposedly scheduled cost structure is in the current plan. But that is something I suspect you won't ever acknowledge exists.

You're damn right I won't acknowledge that there are risks here, just like you won't acknowledge that "fewer U.S. jobs" is a risk associated with shutting the program down.

[NorthSideSox72]

You're damn right I won't acknowledge that there are risks here, just like you won't acknowledge that "fewer U.S. jobs" is a risk associated with shutting the program down.

Actually I 100% agree with that. You are right in that if the program doesn't exist, and if the industry is incapable of doing this themselves, then they won't be able to spend the money on an ad campaign. That means less jobs (maybe a dozen of them).

 

Of course, the industry could also find other ways to raise the revenue for the campaign, as many professional and commercial groups do, without the government.

 

[StrangeSox]

The same ones who want to cut everything (for better or worse).

 

 

LOL, no they don't. They're already saying they'll block the defense spending cut trigger. They want to cut the same social programs they always want to cut, they want to cut taxes on the rich and they want to raise them on the poor. That is the backbone of every single GOP candidate's tax plan.

Edited November 18, 2011 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

LOL, no they don't. They're already saying they'll block the defense spending cut trigger.

And leave the rest in place, and if they had their druthers, cut a bunch of other s*** too.

 

By the way, don't mistake me for saying their plan is good. Not at all. I just see the reality that the GOP is more likely to reduce the deficits than the Dems are.

 

[StrangeSox]

And leave the rest in place, and if they had their druthers, cut a bunch of other s*** too.

 

By the way, don't mistake me for saying their plan is good. Not at all. I just see the reality that the GOP is more likely to reduce the deficits than the Dems are.

 

How? By cutting spending but reducing revenues in equal or greater amounts, leading to reduced aggregate demand and continued slow growth and high unemployment?

[Balta1701]

How? By cutting spending but reducing revenues in equal or greater amounts, leading to reduced aggregate demand and continued slow growth and high unemployment?

Working great in the UK.

[southsider2k5]

Link

 

Great. Now let them fund their own advertising program like pretty much the rest of the known universe.

[southsider2k5]

Actually I 100% agree with that. You are right in that if the program doesn't exist, and if the industry is incapable of doing this themselves, then they won't be able to spend the money on an ad campaign. That means less jobs (maybe a dozen of them).

 

Of course, the industry could also find other ways to raise the revenue for the campaign, as many professional and commercial groups do, without the government.

 

Bingo.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Actually I 100% agree with that. You are right in that if the program doesn't exist, and if the industry is incapable of doing this themselves, then they won't be able to spend the money on an ad campaign. That means less jobs (maybe a dozen of them).

 

Of course, the industry could also find other ways to raise the revenue for the campaign, as many professional and commercial groups do, without the government.

So, the industry is incapable of doing so itself, no taxpayer dollars are on the line, the government has setups that are easily capable of doing this and does so for 18 other industries, doing so through the government would reduce costs all around, the industry asks for it to happen, it provides a benefit to the U.S. economy, but government is always bad and I can't give an exact answer why but it's a slippery slope since government is bad and it shouldn't happen.

 

I feel like you're the 10 year old kid taking away my tricycle for no reason but to see me cry.

[StrangeSox]

So, the industry is incapable of doing so itself, no taxpayer dollars are on the line, the government has setups that are easily capable of doing this and does so for 18 other industries, doing so through the government would reduce costs all around, the industry asks for it to happen, it provides a benefit to the U.S. economy, but government is always bad and I can't give an exact answer why but it's a slippery slope since government is bad and it shouldn't happen.

 

I feel like you're the 10 year old kid taking away my tricycle for no reason but to see me cry.

 

Should the government subsidize industry group advertising for all US-based industries?

[Balta1701]

Should the government subsidize industry group advertising for all US-based industries?

I'm not sure that "Subsidize" is the correct word here, since no taxpayer funds are at risk, it's just making use of the already extant system of collecting and distributing taxes to allow funds to be pooled in a certain way.

 

The government definitely does subsidize US based agricultural industry advertising already, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. It'd be a lot nicer if those subsidies were set up like this.

[StrangeSox]

I'm not sure that "Subsidize" is the correct word here, since no taxpayer funds are at risk, it's just making use of the already extant system of collecting and distributing taxes to allow funds to be pooled in a certain way.

 

The government definitely does subsidize US based agricultural industry advertising already, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. It'd be a lot nicer if those subsidies were set up like this.

 

There is some variable cost associated with this.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, the industry is incapable of doing so itself, no taxpayer dollars are on the line, the government has setups that are easily capable of doing this and does so for 18 other industries, doing so through the government would reduce costs all around, the industry asks for it to happen, it provides a benefit to the U.S. economy, but government is always bad and I can't give an exact answer why but it's a slippery slope since government is bad and it shouldn't happen.

 

I feel like you're the 10 year old kid taking away my tricycle for no reason but to see me cry.

 

I certainly don't think government is always bad, I'm all for government involvement in a variety of things. And WTH does that last sentence even mean?

 

Should the government subsidize industry group advertising for all US-based industries?

That's one of a few of the problems with this I was referring to.

 

[southsider2k5]

I'm not sure that "Subsidize" is the correct word here, since no taxpayer funds are at risk, it's just making use of the already extant system of collecting and distributing taxes to allow funds to be pooled in a certain way.

 

The government definitely does subsidize US based agricultural industry advertising already, to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars. It'd be a lot nicer if those subsidies were set up like this.

 

Well except for the money that they would have gotten from the taxes...

[southsider2k5]

Should the government subsidize industry group advertising for all US-based industries?

 

Bingo X2

[Balta1701]

Should the government subsidize industry group advertising for all US-based industries?

This is, btw, quite literally how places like Germany, with China moving in, have built strong domestic manufacturing capacities...by establishing policies designed solely to benefit and grow domestic industries. They've been more than willing to lose money on those campaigns in order to build the industry up, and they have succeeded in their efforts in many cases.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is, btw, quite literally how places like Germany, with China moving in, have built strong domestic manufacturing capacities...by establishing policies designed solely to benefit and grow domestic industries. They've been more than willing to lose money on those campaigns in order to build the industry up, and they have succeeded in their efforts in many cases.

Does the US export X-mas trees? I'm pretty sure it is the other way around, we have some domestic for domestic and some imported from Canada. That being the case, more X-Mas trees selling is more or less a zero sum game for the economy as a whole. The industries you are talking about tryingto beneift actually export goods, and make it harder for other countries to compete, neither of which really come into play in this case (and both of which are a different topic of discussion with regards to government involvement).

 

[Balta1701]

Does the US export X-mas trees? I'm pretty sure it is the other way around, we have some domestic for domestic and some imported from Canada. That being the case, more X-Mas trees selling is more or less a zero sum game for the economy as a whole. The industries you are talking about tryingto beneift actually export goods, and make it harder for other countries to compete, neither of which really come into play in this case (and both of which are a different topic of discussion with regards to government involvement).

Actually, I'd say that the main competition for domestic live Christmas trees is plastic Christmas trees, most likely produced in Asia, and then imported into the U.S. Probably with, like most things there, non-trivial levels of government support (at least through the currency manipulation).