The Cellar - View Single Post

Radar · 12-01-2009, 01:18 PM

Who signs the bills again UT? Oh that's right the President. Even with your attempt to shift the focus to congress, the chart shows that when Carter (A Democrat) had a Democratic Congress, the national debt grew at 10.6% per year. When George W. Bush (A Republican) had a Republican Congress, it grew at 11.1% per year. The difference is Carter vetoed a lot more spending bills even against his own party than George W. Bush did. In fact every president in history has vetoed more spending bills than George W. Bush.

The president proposes a budget. Congress can either go with that one or create their own and vote on that. Either way if the President vetoes it, it won't be passed without 2/3 of both houses voting for it. This is highly unlikely and was not the case during the Reagan years, the Bush years, etc.

Clinton's years were so much better because he FORCED the Republican Congress to balance the budget. He kept using his veto power and the Republicans allowed government to shut down in an effort to get Clinton to bend to their will. It didn't work. Eventually public pressure got to the Republicans and they had to propose the first balanced budget in the last 30 years in order to get Clinton to sign it.

If the President signs it, it is as though he is spending it. So my original statement stands.

12-01-2009, 01:18 PM	#230
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Who signs the bills again UT? Oh that's right the President. Even with your attempt to shift the focus to congress, the chart shows that when Carter (A Democrat) had a Democratic Congress, the national debt grew at 10.6% per year. When George W. Bush (A Republican) had a Republican Congress, it grew at 11.1% per year. The difference is Carter vetoed a lot more spending bills even against his own party than George W. Bush did. In fact every president in history has vetoed more spending bills than George W. Bush. The president proposes a budget. Congress can either go with that one or create their own and vote on that. Either way if the President vetoes it, it won't be passed without 2/3 of both houses voting for it. This is highly unlikely and was not the case during the Reagan years, the Bush years, etc. Clinton's years were so much better because he FORCED the Republican Congress to balance the budget. He kept using his veto power and the Republicans allowed government to shut down in an effort to get Clinton to bend to their will. It didn't work. Eventually public pressure got to the Republicans and they had to propose the first balanced budget in the last 30 years in order to get Clinton to sign it. If the President signs it, it is as though he is spending it. So my original statement stands. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin Last edited by Radar; 12-01-2009 at 01:26 PM.