Bush Vetoes Farm Bill

Aaron wrote:The sad part is democrats have authorized enough corporate benefits to offset the socialist benefits so it will more then likely be overridden.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:The sad part is democrats have authorized enough corporate benefits to offset the socialist benefits so it will more then likely be overridden.

What is the difference between "corporate benefits" and "socialist benefits"?

takara40 wrote:I personally do not feel that there is any difference between "corporate
benefits" and "socialist benefits".

takara40 wrote:Hello Ziggy. Thank you for the welcome. I will attempt not to take myself too seriously. Aaron. I prefer your new designation of the meaning of benefits. Hello to Stephanie as well. I think of both as welfare though my belief is that citizens are more entitled to it than corporate interests.

takara40 wrote:But Aaron that is the nature of government. Corruption exists whether in social welfare programs or other government programs. Road projects in particular are rampant with corruption. "Bleeding the contract" as in the infamous Boston Big Dig is very common. In the case of a large scale tragedy like hurricane Katrina there is no possible way that charities could have responded effectively or adequately.( Even government could not.) Do we stop building roads and bridges because construction contractors may have stolen more than a billion dollars (some people say much more) in taxpayer funds? Many construction companies have ties to the Mafia. That is also something that is constantly investigated. What the solution may be is not to totally cancel a program but to purge as much corruption as possible. Will any ever be totally uncorrupt. I doubt it. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is not the solution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

takara40 wrote:I personally do not feel that there is any difference between "corporate
benefits" and "socialist benefits".

takara40 wrote:Stephanie I absolutely agree with you that a safety net is required. We are sometimes terrible in America at caring for our most vulnerable citizens. My father is an attorney and he does civil rights litigation. Though he is an African-American he did not agree that what occurred in New Orleans was racism. He believes that it was classism. The poor, the elderly and the disabled were left to fend for themselves to tragic result. He wants me to become a judge one day. I hope to have his experience in civil rights law first.