Quote:
Originally Posted by August
Don't be blaming the President when your party can't get enough votes to override his veto in spite of controlling the Congress.
AFAIK Bush only veto'd two bills related to defense spending during his term of office, neither of which were aimed at curtailing war spending nor vetoed on those grounds. Both bills were soon modified by Congress and subsequently signed by Bush into law. So yeah it's real funny Gimpy.
Oh no, that overly simplistic blame game just won't fly anymore. Although Congress has been controlled by your party for almost 4 straight years, the last two with a liberal Democratic president even, they still haven't stopped anything, so that pretty much blows your statement right out of the water.
|
I remember bush vetoing Bills that were budget bills that cut a lot of money to Iraq, they were designed to de-escalate the war by basically saying: "we'll give you X amount of money but you have a date to withdraw troops". Bush vetoed these. Those bills would have saved us huge sums of money being sent to that pointless war.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=9946792
Also, the collapse...it isn't necessarily congresses job to keep the pulse on the market. There government agencies that are supposed to keep track of these things...Like the FTC. Who had chairmen who were appointed during the bush administration. where was that oversight by the republican party? Last time I checked congress wasn't the FTC.
you're statement over the "where were the votes" is also unrealistic. Especially when you're dealing with the republican party...who consistently votes partisan...and just about every one of them does so. I'd say you'd be hard pressed to say that for any other party minor or major. So you blaming the democrats for not having 2/3 or whatever it is to override is a farce. Back In those days, they had enough votes to propose a bill...but not get over a veto.