Search This Blog

Above: Lake Geneva, Switzerland. At Montreux.

Fodderize v.t. 1. To break down individual components; to make fungible; to disregard difference; to render one easily substituted for another 2. To impose sub-quality goods or services upon, with little recourse 3. To cap role choices, hinder access to resources regardless of merit, and so avoid competition 4. To manage perception by propaganda-spin techniques, while concealing dispositive facts 5. To manipulate, lure, exploit, deceive

Translate

Friday, March 18, 2011

Means Test for Subsidies. Compare Commercial and Personal Disaster Subsidies. Like Welfare Needs Tests

Subsidies treat recipients differently: Investigate human need subsidies, sustenance claims. 

Free ride for commercial subsidies, line-the-pocket special interests..
.
Farm subsidies, family subsidies, what difference.  The difference is in the treatment:  vast investigations into families in disastrous situations; none into the farming subsidy business, where the status of farmer, especially agribusiness, qualifies the "farmer" for subsidies.
.
Subsidies. To ordinary people, the scenario logically consists of people or corporations who claim a disaster has struck, and the government should bail them out. As to farms, it takes on a different cast. Consider the board game here as a golden fleece.  Not even a disaster need occur.  See Haley Barbour at http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/02/22/haley-barbour-and-the-regressive-economics-of-farm-subsidies/.  There "disaster subsidies" are termed corporate cronyism, promoted by the farm lobby.
.
.
1.  Some subsidies are for people or corporations or LLC's who decided to contribute to conservation.  Is that what that is?  The conservation category? Go there. See http://farm.ewg.org/
.
2.  Some other subsidies are for people or corporations or LLC's who are in the disaster category.  Does that mean risks that people who own farms voluntarily undertook just by owning farmland:  risks gone bad:  risks associated with the intended use of the property and the vagaries of weather, earthquake, drought, flooding, tornado, Katrina, pricing, etc., that affect what profit it makes for the owner.
.
a.  Assume for argument that there is a disaster.
.
Does the system just pass out farm subsidies for "disaster" or market price reduction events, to corporations or individuals, without checking the means of the owner corporation or individual to absorb it; while checking each nickel or dime of families in their own disasters.  Unemployment, off-shoring, training out of date, no mobility, education rotten thanks to all of us over decades, etc.
.
b.  Now assume there is no disaster at all. Can that be possible? Is this a sham? Is all this political?
.
Check that out at http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/02/22/haley-barbour-and-the-regressive-economics-of-farm-subsidies /
.
 c.  Assume either way, that there is a disaster but no vetting as to who needs it; or there is no disaster and this is a dole.
.
Is it time to stop.
.
3.  Stop sham disaster subsidies: those with no disaster; and those reasonably absorbed, given the nature or nature and farming.
.
If we are stopping funding for children's education, reasonable daycare, health, infrastructure; should we not stop funding for those farm owners whose land encounters a disaster, when they can well afford to absorb the risk of working or holding their own land.
.
.
Vet the claimant. Heck, vet the farm lobby.  Guns lobby gets a lot of press, deservedly accusatory when it comes to its active efforts to denigrate public safety (see the cute little purse pistols out now).
.
Vet the recipient even if there is no claim of disaster and it can't be called disaster relief.  Then how is the payola categorized if not as farm disaster?
.
If anyone is claiming a subsidy for anything, check the legal obligation they have to the issue. Farmer:  You own the land, you show the means to pay for disaster.  You are an independent adult, you show the means to pay for what you are asking for.
.
4.  Vet the farm lobby's largesse.
.
Go there.  Find people in your community getting big money.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars, even.  Dare you.  Click on the website at http://www.farm.ewg.org/, put in your zip code, and see your friends and neighbors or at least those who live in your town or suburb, who are getting all sorts of benefits simply because of
.
a) politics, if Haley Barbour is right; or
b) altruism an act, a status as farm owner, or as part of their desire to conserve; or
c) claimed disaster -- that would take looking at the application for the funds.  Are there applications?  Or are there instead just reviews of who lives in that district, who can do the most for the party, and will, or other.
d) Or are some of those merely hobby farms, not used for or needed for production particularly, just a tax category even out of the state where the person who is listed lives?  Inquire.
.
Of the choices, we think  that b) altruism, the desire to conserve, altruism in the long run even if it is a financial benefit for now,  is a good thing, and we like seeing it. That kind of subsidy we think can be fine.  Disclosure of the receipt by the individuals and the purpose:  good, accepted. For
a) politics; 
b) a claimed disaster without vetting need for outside help; or
c) a dodge, not so keen.
.
5.  Normal risk cycles of an occupation vs. DISASTER.
.
We are not so keen on people-corporations-LLC's  getting subsidies for the normal risks of active farming.  It is expected that some years or series of years may be bad, followed by the boomers.  Where they do get help for the bad event, why is there no payback to the government when times get good. Are you appalled at how open this is, if indeed there is not even a disaster? See http://farm.ewg.org/  What is the investigatory process?  Selection?  Or is it all tax?
.
.
6.  Differing treatment of people who are not in farming, as a dodge or for a livelihood, who are in bad times.
.
Look at family subsidies.
.
People without jobs, with children or needing other sustenance assistance, no mobility realistically out of where they are, no training available in their reach, all that.
.
And look at the investigations, every last dime -- are you allowed to spend food stamps for deodorant so you could go get a job?  In some cases, no, with predictable results.  You stink, you get no job.  Can you even find fresh groceries in your area.  In some cases, no, with predictable results as to fast food obesity. With predictable health and productivity results.
.
7.  Families downgraded; corporations upgraded.
.
We as a nation investigate families in trouble, those seeking family food, shelter and medical assistance from the government in hard times and accessibility to those basics in normal times; yet, we do not investigate (we understand so far) the "need" of those people who own big farms who hit some bad years, when that is part of the deal. Farming carries no guarantees. And if this is just a tax dodge, then check out the special relationship to politics and lobby.
.
And the owners get subsidies.  Unquestioned?
.
An aside:  Do rural people need NPR?  Yes, because the profit-market media people aren't interested.
.
Moral.  The market is not the decider as to moral values.
.
Feed the people.  Then the corporations, and the LLC's and the rich, if they persist in their absurd claim and it is found that there is indeed a reason, a disaster, not one that should be absorbed by the risk-taker.  A new kind of hedge fund:  the government backing up people's farm risks when the people have means and there is a disaster; and even when there is not and they do not but should.

.
Helper people say put the money to help, not to take the place of effort, but to help when needed.  Hoarder people say let me hoard.  I am the hoarder.  I hoard all.  And if there is no disaster, give me the subsidy anyway.  I want big government.  I want government invervening in the food market.  No privatization of food industry.  We get paid big pumpkins. The buzz goes on, see  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/586819/posts/ from 2001.  And the Hillbilly Report, a Progressive Community Forum for Rural Americans, at http://www.hillbillyreport.org/
.
Defund hoarders. 



Saturday, March 5, 2011

Political Buyer's Remorse. The Role of Newfound Free Will. Changing Hats Opens Doors. Adjust the Bureau.

The political buyer returns corporate-sold political merchandise?
Needed:  A Political Consumer Adjustment Bureau

A Manual for Political Consumer Returns  - Adjustment Bureau.
How to do it?

a. Vet the workings as advertised against the reality
b. Demand truth in sales of political ideas, figures
c. A return may require opening new doors, changing hats
...........................................................
 
I.  The political selling of Bureaus, Structures; and 
II. The political selling of Doorways

Overview:   Did the political corporation you bought into fail to work in your interest as advertised?  Return it!

I.  The Political Selling of Bureaus, Structures, Things to Work for You

Our heroine here is the lady from the political flea market. She wonders what is underneath the corporation bureau that they sold her -- she bought so fast she hardly knew what was happening.  It all sounded so good.


Now she wants to check out that corporation bureau to see what is really there. She is a little late, because she is already home with it, so she is on her own in examining its downsides and drawers.  They said that, if she bought, she would enjoy new fun on a bus, friends and freebies, placards and hats all paid for by unknowns at the time, but she was not concerned about who was funding her fun before the election. 

What does she find, now that she looks:

1.  Here is the little old bureau.  Now in her house. She thought it was for adults!

Look at this thing. What use is it for her?  It is so small in reality it even fits on a table.  Measure it against the little old 19th Century chair, also meant for smaller bums. And get scale from bits of a trip, behind. Maybe a doll cabinet?  What use is this for the lady?

This is a corporation bureau, for heaven's sake.  Not for people at all.


How could they sell her this, she thinks, now that she has it home? All they showed her was the back.

She didn't even know where it came from. Her decision tree in her brain was just angled this way and that. See ://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2009/12/neuromarketings-limits-on-advertising-creativity-.html.  Easy.  Psy Ops can sell anybody anything.

So here she is, tipping it over after she has already committed to it, and looking under,  after the ball was over.

Egad! No bottom! The corporation bureau folks have mooned me! she gasps.


Mooning does get complex in human history; been a round a long time.  Pun. See Michelangelo and the Sistine. Foggy Texts.

Here, the mooning reveals that there is no foundation at all to what they sold her!

2.  How deceiving are Appearances, as scripture says, she thinks.  Or doesn't. 

Take a corporate interest disguised as serving People.  Tip the whole thing over, and see this cunning little corporation bureau was made from something else to begin with.  Not original at all!  Fancy that.  Overside Dougles & Co?

Somebody just patched in a box from somewhere else and made a %#@!X! bureau out of it to sell at this particular flea market, and the lady bought.  And we thought we were the first one.  D____!


Look! And here's a drawer, with little china knobs. So you can pull it out! And put your little nothings in.  Cute! Always needed that. Great way to buy a vote.


3.  She continued her bureau adjustment inspection and found several items of interest.

Whoever sold it to me, thinks she, is not virginal either in selling or making things to sell.  They hid their origins. They sold a bill of goods with another agenda entirely.

See those little sticky out things like little ears at the top picture?  This even was made into somebody's wall display cupboard.  Nice.

Moral: People will sell at political flea markets anything they can sell. Is it really worth the commitment to the Cause when they never told you the full story?  You decide. They already have your vote.  They are a corporation.  Do they care about you or their bottom line.  Silly.

So what does the lady from the flea market do next?


II.  The political selling of  Doorways:  Ways to get where you want or need to go.
Time to open some new ones. No other way to get there.

Doors.  Doors usually do not open by themselves, unless there are sensors and mechanisms to spot you coming.  Without that, and given a recalcitrant door, it will open if you follow this protocol. 

A.  You may need to put on a new hat
B.  You may need to turn the knob harder and push.
C.  You must assume risk if it is a new door.  Going through a new door may require giving up entitlements and tenure; for the sake of merit, achievement on one's own, performance. Or, those can be balance. Moral:  keep your balance.

The lady from the flea market has to go through some new doors if she is to return the politically flawed bureau she bought.  She is in fear of going off the grid. They told me I was entitled to lots of things by birth and color, and that other people were threatening it, and just join them and I'd be fine forever.  Nonsense. But do I dare try another door?





3.  Hats - The Power of Headgear in Opening Doors

How can I deal with this, asks the lady from the flea market. I am told I need a new hat.  I want this corporation bureau out of my life.  So how to reassert my independent thinking, now that I have been sold a bill of goods.  I thought I was getting an adult bureau to last a lifetime for my needs; and Igot doll stuff to stick on the wall, dummy.  

Suggestion of another hat on my head. I will follow it!  Change hats. Take a risk. Get out of the pattern. Wear a power hat.

Wear a particular hat and I can become the Hat's Function, she muses.  Here, a Mongolian Barbecue Chef in Silkeborg, DK.   Wear that hat and I will feel like a chef!

Mongolian Barbecue, Silkeborg DK

Wear this, and I can do great food.  Best oriental in Scandinavia is right here in Silkeborg. but I am still stuck with this corporation bureau.

Napoleonic Bicorne, San Bernardo Pass, Alps

Wear this hat and I can move armies over mountains.  The Bicorne.  Napoleon made this famous, she learns, although it is the usual headgear for 18th and 19th Century officers, military and naval.  Think first of a big-brimmed hat, fold up front and back and affix, perhaps with a embellishment or status cockade. Then morph it into pointy ends, stretch it out into more of a triangle, and voila.

Face the wind in a bicorne, and she would have to hold your hat. Compare to the "cocked hat" -- same thing, but worn at right angles to the shoulders, like admirals often: facing front. Face the wind, the hat will not blow off. At least, not so easily.

4.  Can the lady risk putting on another hat and putting aside the political sponge role?

If she risks changing hats, putting on other hats without knowing fully what will happen, but believing doors will open; can she then put aside the sponge role. Will she quit just absorbing, absorbing what corporations tell her, and quit imbibing happily and with placards what they give out for free so she won't question whether corporations serve her interests or not? 



The risk is in what to trust.  Theories of data, knowledge, how we think we know.  See Bertrand Russell from the 1920's at ://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/russell1.htm/  Marxist?  Isn't that bad?  Is all of it bad?  Nobody said issues were easy to figure out.  See Belief Systems. Persuasion. See the 1920's.So why trust a corporation to tell you?  They are satisfying shareholders, not the common good.  Is that so?



Aha. She has found it.  The key to independence.

5.  The hat to wear in this situation is the Phrygian Cap.

This liberty cap originated in the middle east millennia ago, and we still use it in the Senate, the Army, State seals.  Put on that hat, and look back (once it is on) at what doors will open to you.  Go ahead.  Turn the knob, counterclockwise.


See ://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/rrm/img/28300.jpg; see also  Phrygian Cap. 

The famous Phrygian cap -- DNC has advance designs on it for its political identity, is that so?  See DNC Adopts Humana Freedom Capl

She tries it on.  Cute!


6.  Is a financial analysis all you need to know about what this country should be doing.

So she puts on the Phrgian Liberty Cap, and suddenly starts to question her corporate bureau and why it has no bottom.

Are media and corporate and secret-sponsor people that equate the American historical role as moneymaking, telling  me what I need to know?  See KPCB.com, with download of USA Inc., A Basic Summary of America's Financial Statements, ://www.kpcb.com/usainc/

No, they are not.  Those numbers and charts are fascinating statistics, but are easily manipulated, selected, on those corporate sites geared to persuading people that all that matters in life is finances.  But the approach is a fraud for the purpose it is being used.  It is applicable as analysis only if the sole purpose of the national corporation is to make money for shareholders. That approach is meaningless if the analysis excludes how to increase revenues to get a job done, not just ax services.

Nuts. The lady knows that America was not made of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.  There weren't any at the time, anyway.

America is of the people, by the people, for the people.  Does she see a bottom line financial measure there?  No.  If she and the nation want to get somewhere and need money to make opportunity within reach of all people (sustenance, health,  infrastructure, education, mobility), you get the revenue needed to do that. You don't drop the dream, you garner the revenue.

7.  Try Revenue adjustment to meet the goals of the country.

What the corporation bureau does not want the lady to know, is that corporations figure out ways to increase revenue all the time.  But the lady isn't shown revenue adjustment in the great analysis of America's balance sheet at the big corporate sites, and those who sponsor nice neat financial balance sheets.  Surprise.

Just put taxes back to the Pre geo W era tax cuts, she thinks with her Phrygian hat on, and we are on our way.

Role of purpose:  The purpose of the corporation decides the appropriateness of the expenditure. If the purpose is right, then get the revenue to do it.

Call this country a financial moneymaker, she goes on to herself, and we go in one direction.  Call us a fiduciary nation to the degree that we allow doors to open, we increase revenue to the degree needed to do that. Then watch the economy rebound, with healthy, productive people. Will it work?  See Act to Incorporate the US as a National Fiduciary Corporation

8.  Specifics.  Health and the Chairmen. 
They don't want healthy, educated people. They might compete.

Can a nation of sick, undernourished people get anywhere?  No.  Is that part of the Plan here.  Keep them out of competition so more goes to the top Chairmen.  What else makes sense for the Plan we see going on?

Productive people produce.  That is good.  Keep people healthy. See chart that comes to us courtesy of an interested party,  OECO, see bottom attribution.  It is repeated several places on the net:  is it copyrighted?  Is this fair use to use this small portion of where it may happen to appear elsewhere? Tell me to take it off and I will, but this looks like public domain info to me.

The point is that we spend a fortune on healthcare and get little for it. Our life expectancy for our expenditure in healthcare is zippo. The solution is not to stop the healthcare, it is to do what is needed to see that the money goes where it is supposed to:  life expectancy. Not corporations if they don't do that.

Don't cut back the healthcare. Cut back the cost that doesn't improve it. Get us up to Japan.  Now, is this public domain or not?



http://enthusiasm.cozy.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/health.png


9.  Some people cannot change hats once they are sold one.  It is too insecure. 



With a hat firmly on head, if they never change their minds, people think they get tenure, a permanent entitlement. Why risk a permanent entitlement to supremacy over others that, by changing hats, may give more freedom.  Is feeling superior better than being able to do more, think more freely?  Perhaps. What about a compromise:  can we do a period of tenure, then a review.  Even people can get divorces. Why not professions?

Tenure  is like ascription, ascribed status, attributional bias often is flung in generalities at opposing camps, trait ascription bias.  They will, perhaps, be in groups that ascribe to outgroups many traits and biases that may not be so at all.  The group they are in has its own survival needs.


10.  A hat to get to know. A turban.

What does another culture understand, and can we learn.  Why fear ideas?  Explore them. Analyze them.




Process of asserting control.  Assess, vet, find doors, change hats, open doors, go in, see what's what.

CONCLUSION

The Corporate Bureau - Buyer Beware.  Corporations are organizations for financial self-interest and power, regardless of a common good.  Corporations offer dire balance sheets to persuade people that the public nation's must be privatized. Privatize, say they.  But a setting that promotes private property do not translate to a public interest. And we have revenue to tap, now just put out of reach into private hoarding.  Corporations know well how to increase revenue to meet needs: That is their business; but when it comes to acquiring public property for private gain, they don't want you to explore the fact that you coulda had revenue to keep it public.

So change hats. Out of the follower hat. Put on your Phrygian Cap.


"Bureau Adjustment". 

Expand the idea. Buy a bureau at the flea market? Buyer's remorse?  Vet the situation. Move the evidence around. Look for choices, Barred? Change hats.  Open doors. Go through. Reclaim choices about that corporate bureau you were sold at the flea market as serving your interests, but it does nothing of the kind, and now you know. 

Opening closed doors by changing hats.

The fedora, among other hats, carries an image, see ://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/nyregion/11nyc.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=FEDORA&st=cse/

Change hat, change the vetting of issues.

Move from absorbing the idea that a deficit has to be addressed by the axe.  What about revenue?

Corporations are in the business of increasing revenue. They don't want you to even Think Revenue.  Voters?  Even changing hats to consider revenue is a risk. Once commitment to no-tax (especially for the top twopies)  is made, how to change. Who can do it? You have to. On your own. Take a risk. This from the film, The Adjustment Bureau Take your own bureau, that you just bought without full information, and find what is under, behind. It is a corporation bureau! After you realize, can you risk getting out? Can you use your free will. Tip it over and dump it? Because it is right for you?  Need we allow ourselves to be governed by other agendas, neuro-persuasion? Neuro linguistic programming, ISSSFOODR? Persuasion and Psy Ops