This nonsense need to be nipped in the bud before it gets stated

So veto help during a pandemic?

 

Most of our troops should be withdrawn to the US. Especially if it is cheaper to base them here.
RP pols like DP pols do tend to be Big Spenders. The corrupt ruling political class is bipartisan.

 

Dude, congress can always over ride the veto and has frequently. And if he doesn't sign or veto it, it becomes law in thirty days.

 

Que?

 

It's in the Constitution. The technical term us a pocket veto. Several governors have this possibility. You neither sign it nor vetod it and it stays in limbo in perpetuity or until a governor does sign it or veto it.

 

But yet you said

You seem a little confused...again

 

You seem to not grasp the obvious, A president is not required to sign or veto a piece of legislation. If he does neither it becomes law in thirty days regardless. What part of that are you having trouble with?

 

So who's fault was it bush blew a budget surplus within 2 years of taking office?

 

yes, you can keep making this statement if you have no ****ing clue how a bill becomes a law.

 

Show me a budget bill in the past 30 years that passed with a veto proof majority.

 

Obama. He signed the 2009 budget and he spent the TARP money and he was in power 3/4 of FY 2009.

 

Almost none this isn't they days when congress was owned by Democrats

Spalling ignorance, further it has nothing to do with the point I'

Dude, the last budget bill that was vetoed was nearly thirty years ago, in 1995.

 

Uh, it’s Obama’s fault that bush blew a budget surplus by 2003? Lol

 

Which renders your post completely meaningless.

 

Which is wrong. The point is simply that the only thing a Republican president can do is veto a bill and then be accused of starving children, throwing grandma off the cliff or whatever seems likely to generate the most outrage.

 

The Dems, along with a lot of cooperation from assorted neocons destroyed the Gingrich coalition that created that balanced budget.

 

How a bill becomes a law has nothing to do with the "power of the purse" which resides in the House.

"The Constitution is filled with ambiguities. But it has a few commands the framers wanted crystal clear. The president is commander in chief. Supreme Court justices have life terms. And, it states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
Article I, section 9, clause 7 is constitutional bedrock, popularly known as “the power of the purse.” James Madison called it “a weapon” arming “the immediate representatives of the people” against the sweeping powers of the president."
THE WASHINGTON POST, National Security, An emergency of the moment may set precedent for the ages, By Fred Barbash and Ellen Nakashima, Feb. 15, 2019.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...599380-314e-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html

So who should we believe James Madison or you?
Where do you teach Constitutional law?

 

either republicans are for limited, small government and fiscal responsibility or they aren't. All evidence points to they are for big government and fiscally irresponsible

 

So Bush forgot how to sign his name on the veto line in 2001, 2002 and 2003? Lol

 

which is a statement only someone who doesn't know how bills become law would say. The senate and president can say no to the houses budget.

 

Yet the closest we've been to a balanced budget was the Gingrich coalition which was dominated by conservative Republicans. Your problem is an inability to differentiate between neocons and conservatives. The former are not conservative they are and always have been big government folks whose only real difference with leftists on most issues is military spending and interventionism.

 

Bush isn't a conservative he's a Neocon. Lots of government spending lots of foreign wars

 

I would agree with you if they had a veto proof majority. they did not. Clinton signed those budgets. He had the absolute and final say.

there are no conservatives. Not in the republican party, or anywhere else. You all are for huge government and fiscal irresponsibility, as long as it's for things you agree with.

 

I was simply correcting your claim that it was the democrats who squandered the budget surplus bush was handed. That is demonstrably and objectively false.