💾 Archived View for spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › spend$.txt captured on 2023-11-14 at 11:44:22.
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-06-16)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CUSTOM COMPUTING
6815 DICKINSON COURT
TAMPA FLORIDA 33634-4707
CIS: 71327,1251
Sat 07-31-1993
CLINTON'S NEW MATH
Following are some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal column by Tom Bethell.
It discloses some interesting revelations about Clinton's so-called
"Deficit Reduction Budget." This guy and his Liberal lemmings in
Congress are the biggest accumulation of liars one could ever imagine
in his wildest dreams. Remember now, these guys say they are "cutting"
spending. Yeah, right. [Uploader comments in square brackets]
============================================================================
"On April 8, the Office of Management and Budget [now headed by Mr.
Panetta] released the 1994 federal budget."
"On April 9, major newspapers published stories on the budget, but all
failed to publish the outlay and revenue totals shown below."
" ---------------------------------------------------------
|CLINTON'S BUDGET TOTALS |
|in billions of dolars, rounded |
| |
| 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998|
|=========================================================|
|Outlays $1,468 1,515 1,574 1,625 1,690 1,781|
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|Receipts $1,146 1,251 1,328 1,413 1,476 1,531|
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|Deficit $322 264 246 212 214 250|
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|Defense |
|Outlays $277 264 258 252 234 239|
|---------------------------------------------------------|
|Source: Office of Management and Budget |
--------------------------------------------------------- "
[SPENDING CUTS??? YEAH, IN DEFENSE]
"The Washington press corps has permitted Clinton to talk of "spending
cuts without exposing the absurdity of his claim."
"Spending totals increase from $1.468 billion to $1.781 billion in
five years despite real reductions in military spending."
"In Washington parlance, the phrase "spending cuts" means merely
reductions in planned increases. John Cognan, deputy director of
OMB in 1988-1989, says that "the Ways and Means and Finance committees
deliberately legislate future spending increases that they have no intention
of granting, so that they can later reduce them and say they have 'cut
the budget.'"
=======================================================================
[FROM THE UPLOADER: I don't know about those who read this, but, I
get fed up with the way the mainstream media condone these 'dirty
little secrets' the Liberals keep from the American public. To anyone
who doesn't have TV cable, the privilege of watching C-SPAN is worth
the price of basic cable. C-SPAN and C-SPAN II provide live coverage
of the floor activities in the House and Senate, but, in off-hours,
they cover a lot of other activities of political interest. One of
the most enlightening was coverage of the gay rally in Washington in
April.
While we're talking about facts, I have to reiterate some facts about
the national debt, the annual budget deficit, and the bald-faced lies
this guy Clinton and his henchmen have foisted on us since he started
his campaign in 1991. All we heard about was the evil and greedy 12
years of Reagan-Bush. They were (and still are) totally supported by
the visible media people from Sam Donaldson to Bryant Gumbel. I won't
bore you with all the details, but, here are a couple summaries.
By the way, I don't put up anything here that is not verifiable.
Ronald Reagan took office Jan. 20, 1981, and left office Jan. 20, 1989.
Government receipts (income) in 1991 were $599 billion and outlays
(spending) were $678 billion. In 1989, income was $991 billion, and
spending was $1,143 billion (that means 1.143 TRILLION). The budget
deficit wasn't exacerbated by lack of revenues. It was caused by
congressional spending that was out of control. And, I don't want to
hear any more of this drivel from the Liberals that, "We authorized
less than any budget sent to us by Reagan."
Now comes the really heinous part. Remember the 1989 figures: Income -
$991 billion, spending - $1,143 billion. In 1992, these were the
actual numbers: Income - $1,092 billion, Spending - $1,382 billion.
It doesn't make any difference how much money comes into the government
piggy bank. Congress will spend more. Also, remember this: ALL
SPENDING legislation originates in the House Ways and Means committee.
What the President sends up is relatively meaningless, except when the
White House is controlled by the same people who control congress.
Please do us one favor. Go back and read the Income/Spending numbers
once more. And, don't forget. The entire House is up for re-election
in '94. Thirty-four Senate seats are up. Of those, 20 are held by
Democrats, 12 are held by Republicans, and two will simply be vacant.
Metzenbaum (D-OH) and Danforth (R-MO) have announced they will not
seek re-election.
Thanks for reading. UPLOADED BY: Vern Semrad