Organization: Virginia Department of Health
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 9 Jan 1993 17:27:53 EST
From:         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET>
Subject:      daff-uh-zit 1

    From Rush on Clinton, actually I guess more of a democratic response
to the daff-uh-zit increase, 01/08/93 --- (1 of 2) -------------------->

    Maks -------------------------------------------------------------->
    I said I would do a few more comments and the like. So I'll be trying
here. This is on Rush, and there are those who don't like him. So delete
now. The subject matter in general is that Clinton and the democrats may
ABANDON ALL DEFICIT CUTTING MEASURES because of the $18 billion increase
in the deficit.

    Why post these? Because I think as citizens we need to be informed.
If Clinton is going to do something that may well hurt us, then I think
we need to pray that God would open his eyes and change his mind, or to
protect us from what we consider to be the "wrong way" to go.

    While I agree with much of what Rush says, in this particular
segment, he is not kind to Clinton, the news media, and the campaign, the
democrats ran because of the untruths that were given, such as the
economy, etc. If you want to know the latest thing, the next of Clinton's
promises to be "broken", then this is it.

    I can say Rush uses no harsh words and the like, and from a Biblical
perspective, I think we could pray that all the politicians would be more
honest and not use many of the tactics that they use. It also has to do
with the economy and may well give us some things to pray about
concerning the Democrats not making any rash decisions along the lines of
spend, spend, spend.

    Oh, by the way, for any paragraphs I put in, I'll use the "MAKS>" in
front of EACH one. That way, you'll know any unmarked paragraph is Rush,
unless otherwise noted.

    On with the material ----------------------------------------------->

    Rush: Folks, I'm going to tell you something. We have elected a
president on the biggest bunch of falsehoods and fraud and you know I saw
a newspaper from West Palm Beach, and this is happening all over the
country, a guy has written a letter to the editor, a Republican who voted
for Clinton, who thought we were mired in a terrible recession, thought
how bad it was cause the media kept telling him, and now he knows it's
not so bad, wasn't so bad. Feels bad. I bet there are a lot of you out
there who may just now be beginning to question the basis on which you
made your vote. If you did, you're going to be even more uncomfortable
when we tell you what's next.

    MAKS> I know that I posted plenty of posts on the economy being good.
Problem was some were out of work. They wanted "change". That's their
choice, but I'm concerned that the change they wanted is not going to
happen, but just the OPPOSITE of what they voted for, hope for. I still
remember Gore saying "This is UP, that is DOWN..." No it wasn't. AFTER
Clinton got elected, we found out it was improving quite well. This
months job claims are the lowest in 3-5 years! Must be all those policies
that Clinton enacted.

    Rush: The campaign apparatus and the transition team of Bill Clinton
would *LOVE* for you to believe that the deficit projection numbers
announced by the Bush administration yesterday were just SO SHOCKING and
SO UNKNOWN and SO OVER BUDGET, why we're going to have to scrap every
plan we had, forget everything we said during the campaign, this is SO
BAD, why they lied to us. Except they didn't say it forcefully like that,
they said it snivellingly, and with a cry baby attitude. And it's all
baloney, they know this is a bunch of malarkey anyway. Watch.

    Stephanopoulos: "What I think that one of the things we've seen is
that even now there might be some camouflage going on. I think to get the
numbers that Mr. Darman presents in the LNB report, they assume some
policy decisions which are completely unrealistic, the discretionary
freeze, a freeze in discretionary spending in 1996-1997, I think if you
talk to people of the House Budget Committee or the senate budget
committee, will say that any legitimate base line shows that this report
understates the deficit by as much as $50-60 billion, and that obviously
has implications."

    MAKS> I just found a cute one. I had to look up the spelling of
Stephanopoulos in the paper. So, I found the article and it sounded
almost exactly like the speech above. Now, they are talking that Bush
surprised them with the $18 billion increase, and they think it hides
another $60 billion using the largest figure. That's $78 billion. THE
VERY NEXT ARTICLE says the Clinton staff found that old computers caused
the IRS not to bill for $111 BILLION in taxes. If Agriculture were to
consolidate a tiny bit, they could save $100 MILLION in tax dollars. The
Pentagon spent $40 BILLION they didn't need to spend.  They don't know
where they are going to get the money? They accused Darman of reports
that "Don't add up" and in two articles members of Clinton's staff see a
$78 billion deficit and a possible gain of $151 billion, $100 million in
revenue and savings, and still have no idea how they'll get things
balance now.... I feel such confidence.

    Rush: Now my friends, we've got to show you some things here. First
off, I wish I had time to talk to you about the "current services
baseline" and how budgeting really happens, someday, because it would
take a whole show to do this, suffice it to say that there is NO WAY that
George Stephanopoulos and Bill Clinton were surprised by any of this. And
I want to prove it to you.

    MAKS> I can't see how they could be surprised, but I'm no budget
analyst. Does anyone have the inside info and could explain briefly what
he means by this?

    MAKS> End of part 1.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU