Liberals have been defending the tax as something the entire industry is agreeing to for the sake of launching a pro ‘natural tree’ campaign, to fight their artificial tree supplier competition. Proponents point to the ‘Got Milk?’ campaign as a template for the move.
So, basically, what we’re being told here, is that since the big names in the business support a federal tax financed advertising campaign, the federal government should implement it? This is wrong on so many levels.
For starters, it is impossible that every tree supplier (including small businesses) agrees with this decision. (in fact, Politico confirms that 26% of comments received by the USDA oppose the new tax) Whatever board that came up with this harebrained idea wants to do it despite smaller voices of dissent. After all, if the entire industry really agrees, why do they need the government to impose the tax? Individual tree suppliers could send in the 15 cents for every tree they sell, in exchange for the all encompassing tree campaign.
Furthermore, this is a tax on the American people. What happens to a local tree farmer when he gets hit by that 15 cent tax? To just maintain his current costs of living, he has to pass it on to the consumer. Now, 15 cents may not seem a huge tax, if you’re only spending it once per year. But it’s still a tax – an extremely specific tax – and historically, taxes increase with time. Give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile. (like taxes on oil, or cigarettes, which have vastly inflated their prices)
And finally, who the heck taxes Christmas trees? I’ll tell you who: the Grinch. Since President Obama is always looking for more ways to take money from American citizens – even around Christmas time – the proper abbreviation isn’t ‘POTUS’… it’s ‘GOTUS’, for ‘the Grinch of the United States’. Perhaps one day he’ll see why excessive taxation is wrong, and his heart will grow three sizes. But I’m not holding my breath for it.
Look, I love our troops. Honestly, they do some of the best work in this world, putting their lives on the line, protecting us, the USA, the innocent, and freedom throughout the world, and for that, we can’t ever thank them enough.
But this type of legislation is favoritism. This is exactly the frame of mind that got us into the housing bubble mess – picking favorites, and giving private entities incentives to do things they would normally not do.
When you give someone enough money to do something, suddenly they aren’t thinking about their bottom line, or any of the other options on the market – getting the free money ends up boosting their profit margins more than any other option they were considering before.
So they ignore the consumer, and what the consumer wants. They even tend to ignore possible future consequences. (such as banks that were encouraged and forced to lend money to people with bad credit ratings, which led to the housing bubble)
Not only does this type of legislation have unintended economic consequences, it is also unfair. What if a person with more experience than the veteran applies for the job as the next logical step in his/her career? Well, suddenly they don’t get the job, because the veteran is more valuable to the business, due to the federal handout incentive. That doesn’t seem very fair to me.
President Obama, if the case is as you say it is, that our veterans are not getting enough support, why don’t you increase their wages or pension plans across the board by an equivalent amount? That would still cost federal money, but it wouldn’t cause underemployment in other job seekers, and it wouldn’t give businesses an incentive to make economically unsound decisions.
I’ll tell you why our Boy-In-Chief won’t increase veteran wages across the board: he has to be anti-military spending in order to keep his voter base happy. And his base tends to lack the knowledge that incentives to hire veterans for businesses, and a military pay hike, are the exact same thing when it comes to foreign policy.
Ah, well. Another day, and another outrageous scheme by the children in our government. It’s almost like it’s a game to them – making up new rules to try to counter each other. The only problem? They don’t have to follow the rules, and almost none of the rules they make affect them now, or in the future.
We had a housing collapse because of liberal housing rules and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securing bad loans? No problem! Time for more of the same, says Obama, who is acting without Congress’ aid.
You see, this is all part of the liberal mindset. When the government screws up a market, it’s never the government’s fault. No, no, no, those who don’t have a profit incentive are never wrong. It’s always those who have an incentive to make money who are wrong.
In fact, even though government officials don’t have any skin in the game, if something does go wrong, the reason it went wrong was because they didn’t meddle enough! (many legislators have been exempt from the laws they pass for some time now)
So, clearly, the solution here is to impose more things on the economy that no consumer wants to buy.
Or perhaps it is our fault as American citizens that we aren’t purchasing risky loans! I’m going to make a change for the better: while shopping this week, I’m going to buy some pizza, Oreos, and a few more subprime mortgage security shares. (from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae of course)
Come on, folks, do your part for our country and buy more shares of risky loans!
Investment disclosure: Nephew Sam does not actually own, nor plans to purchase, any subprime mortgage shares, besides the number the federal government has already bought with taxpayer money.
So, the President is giving his 2011 ‘State of the Union Address’, which is available on a live YouTube stream. I’m not watching it, mind you. I think it’s pretty predictable what he will have to say about the state of our great union:
“ya, we’re havin sum tough timez. it is cawsed by bad bisness peeple whoo r frum Big Bisness. They are so OP, and need nerfed. me and my frend, big govnment, will fix problum rite away. cuz we can nerf Big Bisness, & print monees. its kewl – monee fixes everything. so stop QQing doods. and start helpin’. cus we’re l33t, so u shuld be on our teem. we wurk 2gether. kk? w00t!”
Anyway, on this ‘Union Address’ YouTube stream, people are posting ‘question’ comments for the president to answer two days from now in his ‘YouTube interview speech’. I’m responding to some of the comments below. And, unlike his teleprompter writers, he doesn’t even pay me! I’m just that upstanding of a guy.
There are just so many comments here that come from a lack of economic understanding, it makes a fellow want to give up hope. Fortunately, if I listen to Obama long enough, he will use the word hope at least once. Alright, onto the comments…
“What can jobs do for our country when were in so much debt? More jobs means less money for buisiness owners, and yes, it gets people there lives back, but how can you do this when we are in so much debt?”
Yes, because clearly, business owners hire people in order to make them feel warm and fuzzy inside, not to help meet consumer demand and to increase their profit by multiplying sales x profit margin. Clearly, businesses operate on government checks and incentives, not hard work and common sense.