• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is responsible for federal government spending?

Who is responsible for federal government spending?

  • Congress

    Votes: 5 22.7%

  • President

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Both (Explain)

    Votes: 17 77.3%
  • Total voters
    22
radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
In YOUR opinion... Who is responsible for federal government spending?

  1. Congress
  2. President
  3. Both (Explain)
 
radcen said:
In YOUR opinion... Who is responsible for federal government spending?

  1. Congress
  2. President
  3. Both (Explain)
Click to expand...

Both. The president does not have to vote for any bill he disagrees with.Congress writes and approves of bills that are sent to he president's desk.
 
Normally its both, the President signs the bills that Congress passes including the budget but of course if there's every a situation where Congress overrides a Presidential veto on a budget then the responsibility is solely there.

And even when it is both I still think the Congress has more responsibility even if the President signed it since the Congress actually designs the budget and the President only gets to approve or disapprove it when it reaches his desk.
 
A combination of factors.
An elected official owes some legislation to the needs of his constituents. Minor impact!

An elected official owes something to his financial backers. Moderate impact!

An elected official owes something to the lobbyists that grease his palms. Major impact!

Business per usual impact. For Example, if war is good business and you been doin' war and good bidness', you gonna keep doin' WAR. Nuclear impact!
 
The President pushes his agenda....it reaches Congress...they vote on it...it goes to the President's desk where he signs it.


Both...fairly simple
 
I say congress. I'll add the President and say both after line item veto passes, something I support but with congressional authority to overturn line item expenditures by the same number of votes by which the original bill passed. Keeps authority to spend with people's money with the congress but allows for an additional check and balance against congressmen attaching unneeded spending to bills that can't be voted down or vetoed. Plus its a way to legitimately hold the President responsible for blowing money along with congress. Holding the President responsible for spending now is IMHO almost akin to holding a bratty kid responsible for blowing the family budget by talking his parents into buying junk at the grocery store. Without the line item veto congress is the bratty kid who instead of nagging his parents into buying needless junk-food, stuffs the grocery cart full of junk knowing the parents are powerless to put it back unless they are willing to let the family starve and go without the food they need. Right now its all or nothing and congress is the bratty kid who has constitutional authority to stuff the grocery cart.
 
Last edited:
Both of course. Spending bills must Originate in the House, be approved by the Senate and then be signed by the President.

However, Congress does take into consideration the Presidents requests because any bill needs to be signed by him/her and there would be little sense in passing bills which can never become law because you don't have a large enough majority to override veto's. Sometimes congress adds things they want to to the presidents request to fund their agenda, sometimes they give the president more than they may want to in order to get the president to sign it. So both, or all, are responsible, but who is at fault and most responsible depends largely on who has control of what and who is pushing spending vs cuts.
 
Smeagol said:
I say congress. I'll add the President and say both after line item veto passes, something I support but with congressional authority to overturn line item expenditures by the same number of votes by which the original bill passed. Keeps authority to spend with people's money with the congress but allows for an additional check and balance against congressmen attaching unneeded spending to bills that can't be voted down or vetoed. Plus its a way to legitimately hold the President responsible for blowing money along with congress. Holding the President responsible for spending now is IMHO almost akin to holding a bratty kid responsible for blowing the family budget by talking his parents into buying junk at the grocery store. Without the line item veto congress is the bratty kid who instead of nagging his parents into buying needless junk-food, stuffs the grocery cart full of junk knowing the parents are powerless to put it back unless they are willing to let the family starve and go without the food they need. Right now its all or nothing and congress is the bratty kid who has constitutional authority to stuff the grocery cart.
Click to expand...

There is no line item veto anymore, it briefly existed in the 90s but the SCOTUS ended it by ruling it unconstitutional.
 
Wiseone said:
There is no line item veto anymore, it briefly existed in the 90s but the SCOTUS ended it by ruling it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I didn't know it actually was in place and thought it got ruled unconstitutional before to took effect. Reagan pushed for it I think.

The old one was just a regular law. In order for it to be constitutional we need a constitutional amendment. I think allowing congressional overrides by the same number the original vote passed maintains the control of spending with congress but allows the president to detach wasteful spending on things like from studying personality disorders of gay prostitutes in Vietnam from keeping the electricity on at Walter Reid Hospital.

$1.44 Million spent to study male prostitutes in Vietnam
 
captainawesome said:
We the people are.
Click to expand...
That's also a good answer! :)


Unfortunately, politicians often lie so while we can get rid of them at the next election, we can't really control their actions once they're in the driver's seat. Ultimately, though, you are correct. We should know enough about our elected representatives before we elect them to be able to trust them to do what we want them to do to the best of their ability once they're in office.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom