- Banned
- #61
You can see from the graph on the previous page that the deficit was steadily coming down during the Bush years with no projections of increased taxes on the American people. Should he have used his veto pen more? Yes, but he didn't have the people clamoring for that and vetoing budgets usually only increases the time and expense to get one passed. The President submits a proposed budget that covers the administrative costs of government for which the President is responsible. Congress more often than not declares that budget dead on arrival and then writes the budget as a guide for future expenditures. It is usually bigger than what the President presented.
The real government expense then comes in Congressional appropriations bills which usually only roughly follow budget outlines. The President vetoes those only at the expense of shutting down whole components of government, and the way the Congress prevents that is to include appropriates for parts of government that the President doesn't dare shut down.
Such is the way our government works.
The only way to fix it is to prevent Congress from giving away money to anybody.
As has already been pointed out, multiple times, the graph on the previous page is a bunch of BS because the 2009 deficit was Bush's Budget.
Of course you're just going to continue to ignore that fact, aren't you?
![cuckoo :cuckoo: :cuckoo:](/styles/smilies/cuckoo.gif)