Then it wouldn't be comparing a sink with a toilet.
Yep. But the Prez isn't required to sign it. Can we say "veto?"
Yes it is because if both parties are for the rich and they are all of society all of government all the way back to Mesopotamia.
Yes that's the problem stealing more of our money to give to ingrates and lazy layabouts. The cuts proposed by Donald Trump are strictly to cut off the lazy layabouts paying benefits to them is about buying votes.
Agreed your toilet doesn't flush the turds the one I voted for does.
Since the Republican controlled Congress never sent such a bill to Biden, your post is meaningless.
One side left it alone. The other side actively reduced it. That's not "both sides" by any definition I can think of.
The toilet that didn't flush
That's not what I said both sides do both sides cater to the wealthy all sides ever throughout the history of humankind have catered to the wealthy that's why people want to be wealthy.
Are you suggesting that a Republican Congress passed a bill directly into law, that it was never signed by the Prez?
Again the worn out excuse that 'both sides do it'.
It's not an excuse it's a fact.
Do you remember what you were talking about doing what?
No it was Obama that was more in bed with corporate Masters than any other president.
You should go back and read the posts between us, you might achieve some clarity.
OK. I'm clear that the OP said finance for these purposes was a serious problem before any cuts by Trump. You haven't said anything about why they were a problem except to imply that a GOP Congress in 2024 reduced the allocation. But the Congress can't control spending except by passing a bill, and you say that Congress never did so. That leaves the question of how the budget for these programs was cut by a GOP Congress in 2024, if you're asserting that it was. If not, what was the cause of a low budget for these items before the Trump cuts?