On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:26:41 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-09-25, modom (palindrome guy) > wrote:
>
>> Well, for one thing, it looks like there are Fed bucks to support
>
>> local producers, the whole group may be able to get financial
>> assistance. And it also looks like there is Fed money available to
>> support......
>
>> I'm still noodling my way through the Web site, but I've found grant
>> opportunities.....
>
>> So much of its money and energy historically has gone to Big Ag....
>
>That's the purpose of the USDA? To give money to agriculture? Sounds
>suspiciously like socialism (GASP!). I thought the purpose of the
>USDA was to regulate producers to prevent the toxic contamination of
>everything in sight from spinach to peanut butter. Silly me.

I suppose we could look into its charter to discover the purpose of
the USDA. But I made no statement about its purpose.

First, I spoke of the fact that funding for rural development and
local food networks is apparently being made available through a new
initiative, and if they're giving out guaranteed loans and grants for
those sorts of things, I want my town to get in line for our share.

And second, I spoke of the historical pattern of the USDA supporting
Big Ag and how this new initiative appears to be a tiny step away from
the centralization of our food production system that is the result of
such support.

Our food economy is butt ugly distorted by a history of Federal
subsidies for the big commodities like corn and soy beans. One result
of that distortion is how cheap empty calories are relative to
wholesome foods. Another is crummy tasting food.
>
>What was your stand on free health care, again? I forget.
>
I've looked into the discussion of health care reform in a number of
media and venues, but not on this forum. That thread, I passed over.
None of the proposals I've seen elsewhere so far suggest that health
insurance should be free. Probably I've missed something.

But here's a fun fact: When Clinton tried for health care reform in
the early 90s, spending on medical things in the US totaled 12% of
GDP. This year it's right about 16% of GDP. That's a macroeconomic
trend that bodes ill unless something serious changes.
--

modom