>>>>>>> The farm bill is ripe for reform, but there's a difference between
>>>>>>> reforming it and walking away without doing anything.

>>>>>> Is it? I would welcome a farm bill that supported actual family
>>>>>> farms; I see no justification for supporting corporate farms.

>>>>> Some `family farms' are very large, whereas some `corporate'
>>>>> (Ones  which are owned by shares , which may or may not be owned
>>>>> by family members) are smallish. A large part of US aid to farming
>>>>> is paid through `disaster' funding. (This suits, as it differentiates
>>>>> against EU general aid. The definition of `disaster' has been watered
>>>>>  down to general bad weather. ). The drought this year is a genuine
>>>>>  disaster. Agricultural output is keeping the US going.

>>>> There was also a frost in Michigan after a big warmup in March.  got
>>>> most of the fruit trees.  Very few apples are being harvested this fall.

>>> While in Washington there's a bumper crop of apples, but not enough
>>> pickers.  I'm not sure why the people who would otherwise be picking
>>> Michigan apples can't get on buses to Washington, but the radio is
>>> saying lots of the Washington apples will rot on the trees.

>> I heard on the radio

> There you go again...

>> that the skilled migrant workers were getting shipped back to Mexico.
>> If there's nothing to pick, the migrant workers don't come here.

> There clearly is something to pick in Washington.

>>>>>>> Is this the same DOD spending that got cut
>>>>>>> by agreement to settle the budget crisis?

>>>>>> You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that
>>>>>> they agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?

>>>>>>> The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed
>>>>>>> a link to recently.  The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>>>>>>> manufacturing plant.  They say they have more than enough tanks and
>>>>>>> parts.  The GOP has been raising holy hell.  They even had the nerve
>>>>>>> to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it open.

>>>>>> They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that
>>>>>> they claim
>>>>>> that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight tooth
>>>>>> and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even measures
>>>>>> that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room are

>>>>>> 1. Congress passes laws, not the president.

>>>>>> 2. The real argument was never about the size of the
>>>>>>     government, but about which programs to fund.

>>>>>> 3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term
>>>>>>     solution that no major party can back out of.

>>>>> Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.

>>>> Hmm, did they discover oil?

>>> Nope.

>>>> Which other countries?

>>> Australia.

> And Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore etc.

>> Interesting.  Looks like they typically tax close to expenditures

> Yes, that's all it takes.

>> and most of their tax is in income tax.

> Nope, that's not correct. Lots of money is raised by what
> we call council rates, similar to your property taxes with
> the exception of the money raised to pay for education,
> cops, roads etc which arent paid for by the rates, and the
> GST which is just another name for the VAT.

>>>>>>>> Its only seen in areas with no piped gas.

>>>>>>>Which isn't common in the NE.

>>>>>>   "A University of Massachusetts study estimated it could cost more than
>>>>>$2,500 to heat the average
>>>>>>    home in the state with heating oil

>>>>>I had a 4 room house and the last bill I paid for a year's oil was $4700.

>>>> So, your statement was that gas was not common in the NE; the quote shows
>>>> that over half of homes are heated with natural gas.   So, your statement
>>>> was incorrect.

>>>I have never lived in a place which used natural gas in Mass.  Why don't
>>>you combine all the yellow pages in Mass and search for heating oil?
>>>Count the number of dealers.  Then multiply that by 500 and you'll get an
>>>idea that a whole lot of homes use oil, not gas.  Manufacturing and office
>>>buildings may not use oil.

>> I don't need to do any of this, since the article I quoted gave the exact
>> figures for the state of Mass.  50% gas, 36% fuel oil.

>Are you talking about number of gallons instead of households?  Does that
>gas figure include propane?

>>>> You get medicare, and then buy a supplement ("part B") policy and a drug
>>>> ("part D") - some supplements include both.  Between them you get full
>>>> coverage, far more cheaply than any other option.

>>> Except they are not full coverage.

>> What do you mean by "full coverage"?

>> Is there any insurance plan anywhere in the US that is "full coverage"
>> for everything, no matter what, with no exceptions, deductibles, or
>> copays?  AFAIK _all_ plans have some kind of limits, whether it's who
>> you can see, how much it will cover, etc.

>> Medicare Part A + Part B + supplemental coverage with drug coverage
>> can cover a lot, depending on which plan you choose (there is a web
>> page that will compare coverage of various plans available to you at at
>> https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan/questions/home.aspx ).

> There is dental and eye care.  I had much better coverage with DEC's
> insurance policy than I do now.  Getting the equivalent here (without
> eye and dental) costs a lot but I can't buy it.  What I really want
> is catastrophic coverage; I'd pay for the mundane stuff myself.

>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ad9aq9F3i17U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote

>>>>> Hmm, did they discover oil?

>>>> Nope.

>>>>> Which other countries?

>>>> Australia.

>>> Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore.

>> Add Panama, Chile and Botswana; and the non-oil countries with
>> at least 3/4ths funded future entitlements and a balanced budget
>> is complete.

> Panama has a money-making ditch, and a lot of American ex-pats,  Chile
> had to throw out a left-wing government to do it.

>> Australia isn't quite at 3/4ths, closer to half.

>> Estonia, Luxembourg and New Zealand are moving to get there.
>> Switzerland has had to abandon the project because it made their
>> currency too valuable.

>> Even among oil economies this is not a common state of affairs,
>> I cannot get beoyond what can be counted on one hand.

> I don't know, but aren't oil economies the worst?  Lots gets skimmed
> off, and the rest isn't usually invested in any productive enterprise.

>>>> You get medicare, and then buy a supplement ("part B") policy and a drug
>>>> ("part D") - some supplements include both.  Between them you get full
>>>> coverage, far more cheaply than any other option.

>>> Except they are not full coverage.

>> What do you mean by "full coverage"?

>> Is there any insurance plan anywhere in the US that is "full coverage"
>> for everything, no matter what, with no exceptions, deductibles, or
>> copays?  AFAIK _all_ plans have some kind of limits, whether it's who
>> you can see, how much it will cover, etc.

>> Medicare Part A + Part B + supplemental coverage with drug coverage
>> can cover a lot, depending on which plan you choose (there is a web
>> page that will compare coverage of various plans available to you at at
>> https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan/questions/home.aspx ).

> There is dental and eye care.

>>>>> You get medicare, and then buy a supplement ("part B") policy and a drug
>>>>> ("part D") - some supplements include both.  Between them you get full
>>>>> coverage, far more cheaply than any other option.

>>>> Except they are not full coverage.

>>> What do you mean by "full coverage"?

>>> Is there any insurance plan anywhere in the US that is "full coverage"
>>> for everything, no matter what, with no exceptions, deductibles, or
>>> copays?  AFAIK _all_ plans have some kind of limits, whether it's who
>>> you can see, how much it will cover, etc.

>>> Medicare Part A + Part B + supplemental coverage with drug coverage
>>> can cover a lot, depending on which plan you choose (there is a web
>>> page that will compare coverage of various plans available to you at at
>>> https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan/questions/home.aspx ).

>> There is dental and eye care.  I had much better coverage with DEC's
>> insurance policy than I do now.  Getting the equivalent here (without
>> eye and dental) costs a lot but I can't buy it.  What I really want
>> is catastrophic coverage; I'd pay for the mundane stuff myself.

> Examine any commercial (non-state) insurance policy closely, and you will
> find a max that they will not pay beyond.

> That is not true. However If that were a candidate's position I would be
> with him. Social Security and Medicare are like weeds that need to
> be pulled out by their roots. It is not the job of the federal
> government to provide for the needs of individual citizens.

>That is not true. However If that were a candidate's position I would be
>with him. Social Security and Medicare are like weeds that need to
>be pulled out by their roots. It is not the job of the federal
>government to provide for the needs of individual citizens.

>>>> Nope, they will be paying nothing of my health insurance when I
>>>> retire. I'll be on MediCare, which Romney wants to destroy.

>>> That is not true. However If that were a candidate's position I
>>> would be with him. Social Security and Medicare are like weeds that
>>> need to be pulled out by their roots. It is not the job of the
>>> federal government to provide for the needs of individual
>>> citizens.

>> Hmm:

>>  We the  People of the United States,  in Order to form  a more
>> perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
>> provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare,

> It clearly did not see that that applied to slavery.

>> From the taxing clause:

>>  to  pay the  Debts  and provide  for  the common  Defence and
>> general Welfare of the United States;

>> So, comparing these programs to "weeds" I take it you think these
>> programs are growing out of control.  So people live way too luxuriously
>> on SS and pay out exorbitant amounts in Medicare payments.

>> I don't think you have a cite for either contention.

>> I've paid the maximum into SS for a large part of my working career
>> and don't plan to collect until age 70.  If SS was all I had to rely
>> on I can't see how anyone would call that paltry benefit
>> "luxurious".

> Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

> He JUST said that 'It is not the job of the federal government to
> provide for the needs of individual citizens'

> A very silly proposition that very few of the voters agree with, but
> nothing like your straw man.

>>>> Nope, they will be paying nothing of my health insurance when
>>>> I retire. I'll be on MediCare, which Romney wants to destroy.

>>> That is not true. However If that were a candidate's position
>>> I would be with him. Social Security and Medicare are like weeds
>>> that need to be pulled out by their roots. It is not the job of the
>>> federal government to provide for the needs of individual citizens.

>> Hmm:

>>  We the  People of the United States,  in Order to form  a more
>> perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
>> for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare,

>It clearly did not see that that applied to slavery.

>> From the taxing clause:

>>  to  pay the  Debts  and provide  for  the common  
>> Defence and  general Welfare of the United States;

>> So, comparing these programs to "weeds" I take it you think these
>> programs are growing out of control.  So people live way too luxuriously
>> on SS and pay out exorbitant amounts in Medicare payments.

>> I don't think you have a cite for either contention.

>> I've paid the maximum into SS for a large part of my working career
>> and don't plan to collect until age 70.  If SS was all I had to rely on
>> I can't see how anyone would call that paltry benefit "luxurious".

>Having fun thrashing that straw man ?