Quote :

"Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast blogged, "To rid the world of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Moammar Qaddafi within six months: if Obama were a Republican, he'd be on Mount Rushmore by now.""

deserved or not, it's ridiculously true

10/20/2011 5:27:19 PM

steve jobs on obama:
----
The publication also recounted Jobs' first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. According to the book, Jobs told the president that he was "headed for a one-term presidency." Nevertheless, the two kept in touch, with Jobs even offering to help create Obama's ads for the 2012 campaign. The report noted, however, that Jobs had said Obama's focus on the reasons that things can't get done "infuriates" him.
----


hahaha. i basically have this same opinion...... let it be known.... actual business 'do-ers' of society vs elite leftists 'oversee-ers' have MAJOR differences of opinion about what drives just about everything in life.

10/20/2011 11:51:28 PM

Obama is working. The government has shifted enough of the nation's wealth to itself and its people to now surpass every other metropolitan region in terms of income.

10/21/2011 12:29:37 AM

look at all the awesome products and goods and substance to sustain life on earth those govt jobs create in washington.

oh wait, it's a propped up lie, supplied by an endless fountain of loans and taxpayer dollars.


lol and that's all the avg income they can muster up with all the leeching? c'mon now.

this is like UNC cheating in football and STILL only getting to the belk bowl once. pffft. if you are going to cheat might as well go all out like LSU and win a national championship.

10/21/2011 12:44:23 AM

Quote :

"The publication also recounted Jobs' first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama. According to the book, Jobs told the president that he was "headed for a one-term presidency." Nevertheless, the two kept in touch, with Jobs even offering to help create Obama's ads for the 2012 campaign. The report noted, however, that Jobs had said Obama's focus on the reasons that things can't get done "infuriates" him."

THEN STEVE JOBS DIED "OF CANCER"



[Edited on October 21, 2011 at 8:30 AM. Reason : lkj]

10/21/2011 8:30:41 AM

anybody want to try and defend him regarding this new student stimulus idea?

lol. give me a fucking break.

10/26/2011 11:27:27 PM

the new "iStimulus". I cant wait for the commercials for that!

10/27/2011 6:57:25 AM

So how many consecutive quarters of economic growth is this? Seven, eight? What happened to the double dip recession or the impending Armageddon forecasted by the libertarian tea leaf readers?

10/27/2011 12:07:00 PM

You realize that every single time these "good" GDP numbers come out, they're revised down the following quarter? You also realize that government spending is included in the GDP, so when we build missiles and blow up villages, that means our GDP goes up, despite the fact that the economy has not actually grown?

10/27/2011 12:14:47 PM

Ummm, you do realize that consumer spending, exports, and private job growth are all on the uptick as well? In fact, the only thing that's remained unchanged is your aforementioned government spending, because state legislatures are cutting everywhere they possibly can, while the GOP congress is blocking any further stimulus measures. You are wrong, wrong, and wrong.

10/27/2011 12:20:28 PM

Re: BOs student loan plan...
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/obamas-student-loan-order-saves-the-average-grad-less-than-10-a-month/247411/

Quote :

"sing these values as the high and low bounds of average student debt over the last ten years, the monthly savings for the average student loan borrower would be between $4.50 and $7.75 per month. Clearly, this isn't going to save the economy. While borrowers with bigger balances would save more, this is the average. And even someone with $100,000 in loans would only cut their monthly payments by $28.50. "

BO is trying to buy the student vote for $10 per month. Good politics on his part, shitty for taxpayers.

10/27/2011 12:57:15 PM

Lol how hamfisted. "The seat of government has a high average salary, therefor government is takin all our money and makin themselves rich."

Yup, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the thousands of corporate lobbyists living in the DC metro area, each one making far more than your average congressman.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the ridiculous cost of living in DC which has been ridiculously high for decades and decades and decades.

Nope, this is all Obama's doing

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2011 1:05:31 PM

Quote :

"You realize that every single time these "good" GDP numbers come out, they're revised down the following quarter?"

Citation please. I've seen them revised both up and down, but the right wing circles only notice the downs and crow about them endlessly.

Quote :

"So how many consecutive quarters of economic growth is this? Seven, eight? What happened to the double dip recession or the impending Armageddon forecasted by the libertarian tea leaf readers?"

Just you wait, the Weimar-style hyperinflation they predicted from the QE two years ago is going to hit any day now.

[Edited on October 27, 2011 at 1:07 PM. Reason : .]

10/27/2011 1:06:28 PM

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150365/Gallup-Finds-Significant-Drop-Unemployment-During-October.aspx

Quote :

"As a result, the government next week is likely to report a seasonally adjusted October unemployment rate of less than 9.0%."

Obama policies are destroying jo.........errrrrr what?

10/27/2011 1:30:17 PM

What a minute, you are bragging that the unemployment rate will be south of 9% since April 2009??? And we are a year away from election?? some standards you have

10/27/2011 1:33:14 PM

http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM116_obamadoc.pdf

THE JOB IMPACT OF THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT PLAN - EMBARGOED UNTIL 6:00 AM SATURDAY, JANUARY 10, 2009

Quote :

"First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.(1) (1) Forecasts of the unemployment rate without the recovery plan vary substantially. Some private forecasters anticipate unemployment rates as high as 11% in the absence of action."

10/27/2011 6:22:49 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON -- Pushing a campaign to act without Congress, President Barack Obama moved unilaterally Friday to boost private business. He signed executive orders aimed at spurring economic growth, capping a week in which Obama sought to employ the power of his office as he struggles to make headway on his jobs bill on Capitol Hill. Obama's orders direct government agencies to shorten the time it takes for federal research to turn into commercial products in the marketplace. The goal is to help startup companies and small businesses create jobs and expand their operations more quickly. On the other front, Obama called for creation of a centralized online site, to be known as BusinessUSA, for companies to easily find information on federal services. The site, a recommendation of the president's jobs council, is to be up and running within 90 days and will be designed with input from U.S. businesses. Obama announced both steps in presidential memos released Friday morning. "Today, I am directing my administration to take two important steps to help American businesses create new products, compete in a global economy, and create jobs here at home," Obama said. "

http://huff.to/tcM2lR

10/28/2011 3:01:29 PM

Quote :

"While Republican presidential candidates are looking forward by proposing variations of a flat income tax, President Obama’s tax-the-rich campaign strategy is looking backward—to Franklin Roosevelt’s 1936 reelection campaign. FDR won his reelection, but the American people lost: Roosevelt’s new taxes on business and the “economic royalists” gave us the “Roosevelt recession” of 1937-38. By August of 1935, Roosevelt had achieved some of his signature pieces of legislation: a new entitlement program known as Social Security, banking reform, pro-union reform, infrastructure expansion and massive transfers of wealth to the poor and middle classes. Sound familiar? FDR also ran up federal spending significantly: from 6 percent to 9 percent of the economy. However, FDR needed more revenue to support his big-government schemes. More importantly, he needed a villain to explain why, given the passage of his New Deal legislation, government spending and regulations, the economy was still struggling. So he proposed raising taxes on the rich, which he dubbed a “Wealth Tax.” As he explained to Congress in June 1935, “Our revenue laws have operated in many ways to the unfair advantage of the few, and they have done little to prevent the unjust concentration of wealth and economic power. … Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods.” President Obama couldn’t have said it better himself. There were several components to FDR’s plan. First he wanted very high taxes on the rich—up to 79 percent—and to lower the thresholds so that more high-income earners paid more taxes. He also wanted to increase the estate tax. As for business, he wanted to close the “loopholes,” a graduated corporate income tax and a tax on intercorporate dividends. But the bill that actually passed the Democratically controlled Congress in 1935 would not raise much money—estimated at about $250 million, which initially seemed like enough to cover budgetary shortfalls. FDR’s associates acknowledged at the time that the Wealth Tax was more about politics than policy, or as Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau put it, “it was more or less a campaign document.” However, by 1936 Roosevelt needed yet more revenue and had apparently grown to relish his new class warfare and railing against “organized money.” So he proposed another business tax: an undistributed profits tax. Like Obama, FDR faced what he saw as a big problem: Businesses had a lot of cash on hand but weren’t spending it. “Regime uncertainty,” the reluctance of business to hire and invest when faced with a growing onslaught of new taxes and regulations, suppressed capital spending. No one knew what the future held so businesses held on to their cash hoping to survive. Again, sound familiar? Roosevelt believed that forcing businesses to spend that money would create jobs. So he proposed, and got, his undistributed profits tax. If the government were going to tax idle money anyway, maybe businesses would put it to work. The irony, of course, is that the more FDR dreamed up new taxes and regulations to get the economy moving, the more regime uncertainty he created. And those efforts had a predictable effect: the economy began to turn south in 1937, resulting in the Roosevelt recession. Unemployment had fallen from a high of 24.9 percent in 1933 to 16.9 percent in 1936, the year of FDR’s first reelection—still significantly higher than the post-war high of 7.5 percent during Reagan’s 1984 reelection and the current, and likely to remain, 9.1 percent unemployment rate under Obama. However, unemployment under Reagan and Roosevelt were dropping quickly in their reelection years, which boosted voter confidence. Not so with Obama. And Obama’s embracing of FDR’s “soak the rich” tax policies—as FDR’s critics called it—will do just as much economic harm now as they did then. While the unemployment rate fell to 14.3 percent in 1937, it rose to 19 percent in 1938 and only declined to 17.2 percent in 1939.* If President Obama is trying to draw lessons from FDR’s 1936 reelection, he is learning the wrong ones. FDR had a huge majority in both houses of Congress, so he was able to get his class-warfare agenda passed—though his efforts expanded the growing divide between conservative and liberal Democrats. Obama may complain about the need to tax the rich; Republicans won’t let him do it. In addition, the country leaned more to the left then, with several national demagogues—including Louisiana Senator Huey Long, Francis Townsend and Father Charles Coughlin—constantly pulling FDR leftward (whether FDR really resisted that leftward tug is a matter of opinion). There really is no strong national voice to the left of Obama, except for MSNBC and perhaps Occupy Wall Street. The lesson Obama should be learning from the 1936 election is that FDR’s Wealth Tax and class warfare set the economic recovery back years. Obama’s effort to channel FDR’s policies and reelection success would have exactly the same impact. * For a discussion of the best figures for pre-war unemployment rates see Robert A. Margo, “Employment and Unemployment in the 1930s,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 1993."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2011/10/28/obama-campaigning-like-its-1936/

10/31/2011 8:34:54 AM

Seen in that liberal bastion, Asheville, NC. Real liberals hate Obama.

11/1/2011 6:41:28 PM

^^Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone try to DIScredit FDR for getting us out of the great depression. As if it is somehow a coincidence that a progressive tax rate, Social Security, and the other charters of the New Deal along with unionized labor just so happened to create the American Middle Class. Is that article seriously trying to claim that FDR slowed the recovery?

And the sad thing is that Obama is going to do NOTHING that FDR would have done. He's EXTENDED the bush tax-cuts, and he's probably going to sacrifice Social Security to the Republicans just for the hell of it. Hell, the only thing remotely similar to FDR is going to be the impending war we're going to get dragged into after the new year. Iran is going to suddenly become a nuclear threat to America (or Israel, take your pick), so hooray for that.

Jesus, I just don't understand how conservatives can hate Obama, he's just a tan version of Mitt Romney. But then again, they seem to hate him, too.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 7:19 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2011 6:59:20 PM

^^shrike and mcdanger arent real liberals-

theyre just the poor dumb bastards that cheer for their team no matter what.

i think thats been painfully apparent for quite awhile.

[Edited on November 1, 2011 at 8:42 PM. Reason : ^^]

11/1/2011 8:42:44 PM

^So I guess that near 80% of liberals who still view Obama favorably aren't real liberals either. People who think Obama = Bush are not representative of the Democratic base in this country. They are either one issue voters who thought Obama was going to legalize pot right after he took his oaths, or Ron Paul supporters (who are insane). Also, 2012 is going to be a blood bath for the GOP,

http://thepage.time.com/2011/11/02/obama-rebound/

Obama 47 — Romney 42
Obama 52 — Perry 36
Obama 50 — Cain 40
Obama 52 — Gingrich 37

11/2/2011 4:39:56 PM

Quote :

"People who think Obama = Bush are not representative of the Democratic base in this country"

Naw man, liberals who think Obama = Bush are people who thought he would close Guantanamo, let the Patriot Act expire, and end the Bush Tax Cuts.

11/2/2011 5:03:38 PM

Did he ever promise to end the Patriot Act? I'm pretty sure he only committed to additional oversight. He can't close Guantanamo until we figure out what to do with the prisoners, but at least we aren't torturing and unlawfully imprisoning people anymore. Anyway, my point is that based on his approval ratings among Democrats, most liberals blame the majority of Obama's "failures" on an uncooperative Congress, and don't consider him a Bush clone.

His handling of foreign policy alone is a huge contrast to Bush's incompetence. Everything from the Somali pirates to Libya showed a sense of leadership and decisiveness that was utterly lacking in the last President. He has been extremely clear in his handling of Iraq, Afghanistan, and foreign terrorists, whereas Bush waffled for 8 years and horribly mismanaged all of it. You can disagree with his conclusions, but not his process, and the actual results have been night and day.

11/2/2011 5:55:24 PM

Quote :

"but at least we aren't torturing and unlawfully imprisoning people anymore"

glad you know this for a fact

11/2/2011 6:01:32 PM

his last two posts have been nothing but rectum-speak

11/2/2011 8:22:19 PM

Quote :

"who thought he would close Guantanamo, let the Patriot Act expire, and end the Bush Tax Cuts"

I hoped he would have done all three. He surrounds himself with advisers from Wall Street and didnt offer the change that he promised. I would vote against Obama if anyone legitimate would run against him.

11/2/2011 11:47:18 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mf-global-ties-awkward-for-obama-campaign/2011/11/02/gIQA9w5ogM_print.html

MF Global ties awkward for Obama campaign - Washington Post - T.W. Farnam

Quote :

"The bankrupt financial company MF Global, now under federal investigation for possibly misusing clients’ money, is one of the top sources of contributions for President Obama’s reelection, complicating the campaign’s effort to turn public anger at Wall Street into a political advantage. Employees of the company have given $108,650 to Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, according to federal records. MF Global’s chairman and chief executive, former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, has raised at least $500,000 for the campaign and the DNC as a “bundler,” or volunteer fundraiser. Mitt Romney is the only other major presidential candidate who reports receiving money from an MF Global employee, listing a $2,500 check from a company trader based in Stamford, Conn. MF Global declared bankruptcy Monday, becoming the first U.S. victim of the European debt crisis. The FBI plans to conduct a preliminary probe into reports that hundreds of millions of dollars are missing from client accounts, federal law enforcement officials said. The situation shows the political risk of relying on big money bundlers who can collect checks from friends and colleagues. Trouble can often rub off on candidates when they’re getting help from powerful public figures. Obama’s campaign has released a list of 350 bundlers who have raised at least $50,000, including 40 who have raised more than $500,000 each. MF Global did not return a request for comment. A company attorney said in a recent bankruptcy court hearing that the company was not aware of any missing funds. Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said in a statement that the president has been tougher on Wall Street companies than the Republican opposition. “While the president passed Wall Street reform to combat risky financial deals that put our entire economy at risk,” LaBolt said, “Mitt Romney and the Republican candidates would let Wall Street write its own rules again no matter what the consequences for middle class families.” The Obama campaign said it would return contributions from any MF Global employees, including Corzine, if they are charged with crimes related to the company’s collapse. A Romney spokeswoman declined to comment. MF Global recently made a bond sale with an unusual clause, saying the interest rate on the bonds would rise 1 percent if Corzine ended up being appointed to a post in the Obama administration. There has been speculation that he could be in line for Treasury secretary if the president is reelected. The president has voiced support for recent protests against the financial industry and his campaign aides have said they plan to use the Occupy Wall Street movement to help build momentum for his reelection. “I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel,” Obama said in a news conference last month. “The protesters are giving voice to a more broad based frustration with how our financial system works…. The American people understand that not everybody’s been following the rules, that Wall Street is an example of that.” Obama held his first New York fundraiser for the reelection campaign at Corzine’s home on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, overlooking Central Park. Guests gave the maximum $35,800 donation to Obama and the DNC. Obama’s links to financial companies don’t end with MF Global. The president has raised $15.6 million from the financial industry for his reelection effort and the DNC, according to a Washington Post analysis. The third-largest source of cash for Obama is Chicago-based Chopper Trading, which employs a controversial high-frequency trading technique. The firm’s chief executive, Raj Fernando, held a fundraiser at his home with Vice President Biden and has raised at least $200,000 for the campaign and the DNC. A federal study of the 2010 “flash crash,” when the stock market briefly lost $1 trillion in value only to recover shortly thereafter, placed the blame squarely on high-frequency trading technologies like those employed by Chopper. Other studies have cited high-frequency trading, which now accounts for more than half of all trades, as contributing to stock market volatility. A company spokesman did not return a request for comment, but defenders of the industry dispute those studies. [b]Obama has raised $48,572 from Credit Suisse employees. The bank’s Swiss parent company is under investigation for allegedly helping Americans avoid taxes with offshore accounts. The bank is at top funder of Romney’s campaign, with workers donating $180,250.[b]"

11/4/2011 10:47:23 AM

Quote :

"Wow, I don't think I've ever seen someone try to DIScredit FDR for getting us out of the great depression."

except he didn't get us out of the great depression. WWII did. FDR prolonged it and then set us up to be as fucked as we are today. About the only decent thing he did was the infrastructure projects.

Quote :

"Is that article seriously trying to claim that FDR slowed the recovery?"

yes. because it's the fucking truth, lol.

Quote :

"but at least we aren't torturing and unlawfully imprisoning people anymore."

yeah. now we're just killing them without any attempt at a trial. i find it laughable that you hold this up as something laudable.

Quote :

"most liberals blame the majority of Obama's "failures" on an uncooperative Congress"

yeah. that, uncooperative Congress that was composed of both houses with Democratic majorities. Obama blew his load on a shitty healthcare bill while ignoring the economy the whole damned time.

11/5/2011 6:24:10 PM

Quote :

"except he didn't get us out of the great depression. WWII did. FDR prolonged it and then set us up to be as fucked as we are today. About the only decent thing he did was the infrastructure projects."

WWII may have sped up the recovery, but FDRs New Deal, financial regulation, a progressive tax rate, increased labor bargaining (unions), public works and housing, and Social Security all set up the American middle class. That sustained from the 1940's until the 1980's. Even if you hold on to the notion that WWII got us out of the great depression, how else can you explain the prosperity this country had for 40 years?

The New Deal got us out of the Gilded Age and actually helped social equality. Of course, since the 1980's, unions have been busted, financial regulations have been repealed, the tax code has been reversed and become regressive, and Social Security is next on the chopping block. All the while, income inequality is mirroring the trends this country experienced in the late 1920s, poverty is up to 15%, we are at over 20% real unemployment, youth unemployment is at 25%, and top earners have seen 275% increase in their earnings in the past 30 years while working class Americans have seen less than a 2% increases, and this country has seen a net gain of ZERO jobs since 2001. And you somehow think this is all a coincidence?

We are entering a Second Gilded Age, and you want to sit there and claim that New Deal policies were only good for public works? Fuck me, you're about as worthless as Roosevelt's legs.

11/6/2011 5:46:29 AM

Quote :

"yeah. now we're just killing them without any attempt at a trial. i find it laughable that you hold this up as something laudable."

aaronburro, proving comedic stereotypes of the Republican party 100% true one post at a time,

Quote :

"In their world, Gaddafi died of natural causes, Bin Laden was shot in the face by the free market,” Maher fussed. “You should’ve heard them, we went in too strong, everything they could’ve said that he did wrong. It’s like there’s some kind of hidden Republican clitoris, that they won’t let Obama find, and whenever he tries, they’re like ‘that’s not it!’"

[Edited on November 7, 2011 at 11:49 AM. Reason : :]

11/7/2011 11:49:14 AM

make fun of him all you want-

youre the liberal equivalent.

11/7/2011 2:05:00 PM

lol liberals stand for nothing.

they just exist to troll others who have actual real solutions to real problems


hang on need to tie my shoes and go march in the upcoming gay rights parade, ows, and pretend i like everybody and want to give them all my money because i am greedy. brb

11/7/2011 2:22:24 PM

Quote :

"President Obama’s Agriculture Department today announced that it will impose a new 15-cent charge on all fresh Christmas trees—the Christmas Tree Tax—to support a new Federal program to improve the image and marketing of Christmas trees. In the Federal Register of November 8, 2011, Acting Administrator of Agricultural Marketing David R. Shipman announced that the Secretary of Agriculture will appoint a Christmas Tree Promotion Board. The purpose of the Board is to run a “program of promotion, research, evaluation, and information designed to strengthen the Christmas tree industry’s position in the marketplace; maintain and expend existing markets for Christmas trees; and to carry out programs, plans, and projects designed to provide maximum benefits to the Christmas tree industry” (7 CFR 1214.46(n)). And the program of “information” is to include efforts to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States” (7 CFR 1214.10). To pay for the new Federal Christmas tree image improvement and marketing program, the Department of Agriculture imposed a 15-cent fee on all sales of fresh Christmas trees by sellers of more than 500 trees per year (7 CFR 1214.52). And, of course, the Christmas tree sellers are free to pass along the 15-cent Federal fee to consumers who buy their Christmas trees."

Since when do Christmas trees need image improvement and marketing?

11/9/2011 8:45:05 AM

^ funny thing is people will bitch about Christmas trees being on govt property and will call the ACLU to have them removed (ex. UNC library), but will defend this move of promoting a symbol for a Christian holiday just because they drank the BO juice

11/9/2011 12:34:15 PM

Here's a related article from 2008:

Quote :

"The NCTA is on the cusp of making a major decision influencing the future of the Real Christmas Tree industry. About 400 attendees from the state associations met at the National Convention in Iowa in August to weigh the pros and cons of committing the industry to a Checkoff program. Betty Malone, of Oregon, chairs the task force appointed by the NCTA, responsible for preparing a draft of a Marketing Order. Attendees raised questions, discussed issues, and proposed changes to suit the industry’s needs. Hugh Whaley, president of Association and Government Business for Osborn and Barr, leads the teams responsible for specialized communications on behalf of producer funded organizations, not for profit associations, and U.S. Government agencies. Hugh moderated information sessions at MI, OR, PA, and NC summer meetings and at the Convention, to address questions and discuss options available to the Christmas tree industry. Under the authority of the Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1995 the USDA oversees the formation of Checkoff organizations. The purpose of establishing a Checkoff is to promote the agricultural commodity with the intent of expanding markets and increasing demand. Checkoff programs also provide funding for research. Examples of other agricultural commodity Checkoffs include the egg, beef, pork, mushroom, milk, and honey, etc. industries. We’re all familiar with the Dairy industry’s ad campaigns; “Milk Does a Body Good” and “Got Milk.” “Pork: the Other White Meat,” “Beef: It’s What’s for Dinner” and “The Incredible Edible Egg” are recognizable slogans developed and funded by Checkoff programs. These four ‘big guns’ collect between $45 and $91.2 million in assessments annually. Funding for promotions and research comes from within each industry. Fees could be assessed for example, in the Christmas tree industry, on a percentage of the selling price, per cut tree or per seedling basis. The amount of the assessment, who would participate, how the fees would be collected and how utilized, would be determined by the industry taskforce with the input of growers and attendees at the National Convention. Fresh imports (mainly from Canada) would be assessed at a comparable rate. As in other agricultural industries there would be exemptions for smaller growers. If the assessment is made on a cut tree basis, 4,000 trees has been discussed as a minimum. A percentage of the amount collected could go to state associations in proportion to the amount paid from within that state. The state association could utilize the funds for promotion and research abiding by the same rules as the national Checkoff organization. Hugh anticipates that Christmas tree assessments would be comparable to the amount raised by the blueberry industry, which is $2 million. Dollars utilized for administration can be limited; funds can be designated for promotion and/or research. A taskforce would decide the allotment. There is flexibility built in, to customize the Checkoff program to the industry. But there are definite guidelines. Promotion must be accomplished in a generic way, without focusing on specific producers. Funds cannot be used for lobbying or membership activities. Promotions may not attack competitors. So, for example, pork producers could not advertise the negative aspects of consuming beef. The fake tree industry is important to U.S. retailers. According to a U.S. government census, $103 million worth of fake trees were sold in this country in 2002. Funds collected through a Checkoff organization could not be utilized to negatively depict fake trees. For a more complete list of requirements of a Marketing Order go to: http://www.checkoffstudy.com. Critics of Checkoff programs in other industries come from within and without. Some nutritionists feel that the USDA’s oversight of the promotion of food products (meat and dairy) is a conflict of interest considering the USDA’s role in establishing dietary requirements. The major issue within other industries that would impact tree growers is that the assessment is mandatory whether a producer agrees with the concept or promotional message or not. In 2005, the Supreme Court decided on a case involving the beef industry that producers must pay the assessment even if they object to the advertising message. It should also be noted that only contributors are allowed to vote on issues. So if you are exempt from contributing as a small producer, you would have no voting rights on Checkoff issues. Two major issues that arose in August were the method of collection and whether the industry commits by vote prior to the program being implemented or commits by vote after the plan has been implemented. A delayed acceptance would provide time to evaluate fledgling results. A representative from the Watermelon industry spoke at the Convention and indicated that establishing a Checkoff is not easy, the results are not perfect. But there is flexibility built in to make necessary changes So, there are points to be examined and debated. Our history of voluntary donations for promotion and research has shown that we are not dependable contributors. The few who do contribute tire of supporting the entire industry. We contribute when there is a perceived need. Sales rise and fall like a low amplitude sine wave, following available advertising dollars. This frustrates state and national leadership who have had to cut programs due to insufficient funds. Convention attendees voted to continue the investigation into establishing a Checkoff. They set the goal of having a proposal ready for a vote at the Winter Meeting in Key West, Florida in February. If the NCTA votes to establish a Marketing Order (Checkoff), a legal review is necessary prior to submitting it to the Secretary of Agriculture. Then the USDA’s rulemaking process takes about a year. If the industry is not satisfied, if expectations are not met, Checkoff programs can be dismantled. Renewal referenda are initiated no later then 7 years after assessments begin, or at the request of the board, or at the request of 10% or more of eligible voters. To learn more about the status of the decision on the Checkoff you can contact your state Christmas tree association on their website, or visit http://www.checkoff.com. Carbon footprint, sustainability, CSA, going green, these catchwords all offer the industry an edge in promoting and selling our product to the disadvantage of the fake tree industry this season. Industrial pollution in China has been in the news since before the start of the Olympic games. A 3 year study funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation determined that 10-12% of air pollution on the west coast is attributable to Chinese industry, with 6-10% of it carrying over to the east coast of the United States. How many Chinese toys have been recalled due to the presence of lead in their plastics? And what are fake trees made of?. . . PVC. Not only is PVC a questionable material to be decorating your house with it’s also a petroleum product with a huge carbon footprint. Christmas trees are renewable, biodegradable, carbon sinks. Tree farms maintain open space and provide an opportunity for families to share a farm experience. They are an asset to the community. Take advantage of this momentum in your advertising this year. Let’s educate the public once and for all that Real Trees are for-evergreen because they are renewable. CSA stands for community supported agriculture. You are most likely familiar with these local farms that provide fresh produce to subscribers. Subscribers buy in at the beginning of the year then receive fresh installments of fruit and vegetables through out the growing season. The subscription is non refundable so it is understood that if the growing season is poor the subscriber shares the loss with the grower. This concept grew out of a desire for fresh local produce, with an awareness of the risks associated with farming. These people want to support local farms. Why not contract with your local CSA to extend their produce package into December with a fresh tree? Subscribers could accept the tree precut or receive a voucher to cut their own at your location. At the Pennsylvania summer meeting, several good suggestions were made for increasing awareness of the Real Tree industry. Sending fresh trees overseas to our soldiers is a message of support to the troops and puts the industry in the spotlight. Do not be anonymous in your giving. The local media love goodwill stories, especially around the holidays. Would sending a fake tree evoke the same response? doubt it. Real Trees speak to the tradition and nostalgia of family gatherings at Christmas time. Let’s push the point. A school teacher/Christmas tree grower asked at the PA meeting for a teaching package that could be used as part of an ecology curriculum. This teaching tool had previously been available for teachers, but had been dropped due to lack of funds. We need to develop another way to fund promotional and educational materials. Keeping the Real Tree industry viable in the face of imported fake trees is the challenge. A National marketing program with increased funding available for industry research is promising. If not through a Checkoff Program, then how? "

http://www.christmastreesmagazine.com/articles.shtml

11/9/2011 12:53:38 PM

So you're going to improve the sales and marketing of Christmas trees by taxing them?

I don't get it.

Quote :

" funny thing is people will bitch about Christmas trees being on govt property and will call the ACLU to have them removed (ex. UNC library), but will defend this move of promoting a symbol for a Christian holiday just because they drank the BO juice "

Who do you know that is ethically against the display of religious symbols on public property just abandons their ethics for Obama? Or are you just making shit up?

(btw, I don't give a shit about Yule trees.)

11/9/2011 1:13:19 PM

http://www.thetimesnews.com/news/library-20546-michalak-christmas.html

UNC removed trees from library. So no, I have not interviewed every UNC student who protested this, but given the blind support for BO, I'm sure they could find a way to rationalize this. Plus BO has given speeches reiterating his support of separation of church and state.

fwiw, im not vehemently opposed to this "tax" just think the hypocrisy is amusing

11/9/2011 1:32:34 PM

^^ Apparently the money goes to fund research that can be used to improve the sale of real Christmas trees over fake ones.

Apparently we've been paying extra for beef, pork, milk, blueberries, and eggs so those industries can do the same thing under a program that's been in place since 1995.

Not saying I agree with the checkoff program or the USDA's participation in marketing studies, but calling this Obama's war on Christmas seems a little disingenuous.

11/9/2011 1:36:35 PM

Not sure if that last comment was to me, but I certainly wasn't calling it that if it was directed to me.

It still doesn't make sense to me, but I suppose programs designed to get more money out of me are purposefully nonsensical from my point of view.

11/9/2011 1:48:35 PM

Quote :

" Before the federally-subsidized Solyndra scandal, there was the scandalous, Michigan-subsidized RASCO fiasco. Before Obama's $800 billion stimulus there was Granholm's 2006 $2 billion stimulus (It will "create tens of thousands of new jobs. We'll invest. . . public and private funds to develop new sectors of our economy. In five years you'll be blown away," she said). Before there was a debt ceiling showdown threatening a government shutdown, there was Granholm's 2007 budget showdown that shut down government. Before Obama's proposed tax hike in the middle of a recession, there was Granholm's 14 percent recession tax hike—all the revenue from which was immediately spent, leading to an even larger $2 billion deficit. Before Obama's stubborn 9 percent unemployment, there was Granholm's stubborn 11.4 percent unemployment. Before Standard & Poor's Obama downgrade, ratings services during Granholm's reign downgraded the Wolverine State from "AA- with a stable outlook" to "AA- with a negative outlook." "

http://detnews.com/article/20111108/MIVIEW/111080420/GOP-debate--The-Michigan-lesson

11/9/2011 11:46:37 PM

I thought the "Michigan lesson" was "US Automakers went bankrupt and fired a bunch of people".

11/10/2011 2:48:34 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uceRrR_v5B8&feature=colike

I lol'd

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 12:53 AM. Reason : .]

11/11/2011 12:53:45 AM

that would have been funny if he actually was a class warrior.


too bad he's fucking not.

11/11/2011 1:17:17 AM

I campaigned for Obama in 2008 and he has lost all credibility with me. I love the Asheville pic posted above. His civil liberties record is equal to or worse than GWB as well.

11/11/2011 8:40:10 AM

Quote :

""Michigan lesson""

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/04/jennifer-granholm/jennifer-granholm-says-massive-government-cuts-mic/

Quote :

"We calculated the change in general fund expenditures for all 50 states between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2010 -- the closest approximation we could get to the start and end dates of Granholm’s tenure. And by this measure, Granholm is right. Every state but two saw their general-fund expenditures increase over that period (without taking inflation into account). The two that didn’t? Georgia, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by $54 million over that period, and Michigan, which saw its general fund expenditures fall by more than $1 billion. If they’d been adjusted for inflation, the decrease would be even more severe. Using another measure, Carole Polan, a spokeswoman for Granholm, added that from 2000 to 2008, the number of state employees fell by about 11,000 -- a 17 percent decline. That was a more rapid decline than in private employment, which fell in the state by 12 percent over the same period, Polan said. "

Michigan's problems are more complicated than just "big government." Michigan has cut its state spending by more than any other state in the union over the last ~10 years.

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 8:46 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 11, 2011 at 8:48 AM. Reason : also lol at Solyndra being this horrible "whipping boy" scandal now]

11/11/2011 8:44:19 AM

Quote :

" http://detnews.com/article/20111108/MIVIEW/111080420/GOP-debate--The-Michigan-lesson"

Why did you post this? That column has no real information. The republican didn't turn anything around. Michigan still has one of the worst,if not THE worst unemployment issues in the entire country. And I like how they framed the republicans tax increases as closing loopholes. Lol.


I can't believe any of the regulars here would find such a worthless article note worthy.

11/11/2011 9:51:07 AM

What are you saying? "Regulars" are constantly posting links to worthless articles. That's the rule, not the exception.

11/11/2011 12:06:13 PM

^^, yea, that was an impulse post. feel free to ignore it.

When the economy shrinks, the government needs to shrink fast enough to keep up. That Michigan has chronically not done so, makes it a problem of big government.

11/11/2011 12:10:22 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-smallpox-20111113,0,4293298.story

just keep it up a little longer you dumpy bastard-

11/13/2011 9:57:36 AM