Quote:
Originally Posted by jefelump
On the subject of Dude and Mavdog's debate over a president owning a bill that he signs... Let's go back to the War Spending billing dubya pushed for. The bill he received had a timetable for troop withdrawals, so he vetoed it. What happenend? Did the troops just lose funding and come home? No. Congress passed a new bill, which the president signed. So, if Obama didn't like the bill with the mexican trucking thing in it, he could have vetoed it and pushed for a new bill that didn't include it. But he didn't do that.
|
oh yeah, the 2nd bill bush vetoed during his entire 8 years in office..he certainly used that power effectively, didn't he.
the two bills are not comparable. the iraq funding bill was for just that...funding the war. the funds were available to keep the war going while another bill was passed.
the trucking ban was contained in the bill that kept the federal government funded for the rest of 2009, and it was already 6 months late in its passing. if obama vetoed the bill the federal government would have likely run out of funds before another bill would have been negotiated and passed.
vetoing the federal spending bill over a small item such as the trucking issue would have been a very poor decision by obama with severe political ramifications. the restoration of funds for the trucking program can be accomplished without much affect, the shutting down of the federal government would have a much larger (and dramatic) affect.
so you're analogy doesn't work. nice try tho.
don't you wonder why bush only vetoed 2 bills his entire terms? seems as though he just didn't care to take a stand on the issues and defend his position. he would never had risked an override of his veto.