the president has the power to veto the budget and he opted not to. it is frankly embarrassing how much you are willing to stick your neck out to defend Gropey Joe.

Okay so obviously the OP is correct in her rebuttal but even if we forget about veto power (we shouldn't), and focus on the congress, the democrat-controlled senate passed the budget. Even if you run defense for your senile old man because he's on Your Team, members of Your Team betrayed you, too. So can we go back to being straightforward, knowing that this nuance the commenter is trying to add adds, in fact, nothing to the analysis? For Gods' sake.

Facts matter. You can’t add to the analysis if you’re taking out your ass about the basics.

Congress is a bicameral body, meaning legislation must pass the House of Representatives AND the Senate and it has to be the same version of the bill for it to go to the president.

For starters, the Democrats do not have big enough majority to pass a budget bill that doesn’t get everyone in the caucus to sign on. If just one Dem objects to the bill they can hold the whole process up (last time around it was Joe Manchin and Krystin Sinema).

The other body is the House, which is now controlled by the circus that is the Republican party. They would love to cut all social spending, including social security and medicare.

Finally, the President can only veto a bill once, and Congress can override the veto by a 2/3rds majority vote.

If ANY of these groups try to hold out or drag their feet long enough THE US GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN. Let me repeat that: All but essential government works get sent home without pay. Contractors don’t get paid. All but essential federal government functions are shut down.

Including issuing SNAP benefits.

Now for the analysis: This is another example of why people need to vote for more than just president. We need more people voting in congressional races and in mid-term elections. If a party had complete control of Congress and the Presidency then they have more freedom to enact budget legislation in line with the party’s goals.

From the tags, I can tell that you have an infant's view on how the U.S. government functions. I suppose getting an A +in 11th grade U.S. history must have felt nice, but please do not write this much nonsense if the conclusion ends up still being: the Democrats failed to help the poorest of the people living in the USA.

If Joseph Robinette Biden did not fail the people personally (once again, veto matters since the house does not have a big enough majority for a 2/3 vote to override the veto by the republicans because, once again, the material reality we live in doesn't have to take the unsolicited civil lesson into account), the Democrats in the Senate did so by cowing to the republicans. What is the Democratic Whip doing, not censuring politicians like Sinema? It's almost as if the whip won't do the job of reining in problem politicians like Manchin and Sinema because they are actually heavensent to the party. Democrats now do not have to govern and people who do not live in reality like you can point to them and endlessly run defense for the Blue Team while real life people starve to death (THAT'S WHAT THIS POST WAS ABOUT BY THE WAY! I'm sure that a system that, under a slightly different material reality, would have meant that Biden could not veto, would mean so much to them as the system fails to even put food on their table).

I won't even insist on the thought that everyone outside of the USA that struggles against the USA's hegemony thinks (that is, that the USA is a one-party state of capitalists), and would suggest that you, I dunno, get a life I guess.