Dealmonkey obviously did not read the first sentence of my postOriginally posted by: CADkindaGUY
That still doesn't absolve Congress - which I believe was his point. The democrats seem to think that filibustering well qualified judges is warranted but yet they don't do the same with spending. So yes - they ALL suck. But then again if Bush did veto spending - holy shnikes would you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth coming from the left about funding. Meh - it's politics so blame whoever you wish.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Bush has YET to veto a single spending increase by Congress. He has that ability, but has yet to use it. So don't pass it off on Congress like they're the only ones responsible. If Bush was concerned about spending, he'd be stopping bills left and right. He's clearly not concerned.Originally posted by: charrison
Well most of my reps have done a decent job voting against excessive spending.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You elect your state's reps, you elect the pres and then it's pretty much up to them what happens next. The direct influence we have as citizens on spending is about as incidental as it gets.Originally posted by: charrison
You get to vote for spending. Congress has shown is unwilling to even hold the line on spending.
Most of congress wants more spending, not less. It has been this way for quite some time.
While the republicans are spending too much, the democrats cant make up their mind if they want to slame them for not spending enough(this seems to happen more often), or spending too much.
The democrats have yet to filibuster a spending bill.