"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:30:26 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
RCM only

What I'd like to see along with those are the affects an opposing
CONgress had on those figures. I believe the more fiscally
conservative Rep congress had an effect on Clinton's terms, especially
in '94. Were it only true today... Rep/Dems abound, spending money
like it was going out of style.

There's no need to guess. You can look up the revenues and expenditures
for
those years, as well as the national debt.

Regardless of the fact that the Republican presidents and lawmakers have
been more profligate, we'd be interested to know what spending you would
have reduced or eliminated.

Oh, just the bad stuff, Ed. Y'know, pork and friends. titter


When you look at the annual budgets (available
at the White House site), you'll find it's not so easy.

Yeah, where's the manual for how to read those damned things?
Hmm, I went to www.whitehouse.com and don't see them.

I assume you recognize that *.com is not the official White House site.
d8-)

Try *.gov. Search on "budget". Here are the summaries:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...arytables.html

If you want the detail, you'll have to look on your own. It's not hard to
find.


P.S: I'd defund and remove the War Against Drugs, the War Against
Terror, the DHS, the DOE, the EPA, the DEA, the BATFE, and the ED for
starters. And I'd end handouts to illegals from all countries and
really look at the aid to foreign countries. I don't see why we're
funding Israel's weapons.
That'd just about cut the budget in half.

I think you're in for some surprises.


Why, that's a very nice way of calling him ignorant. You're such a diplomat.

Hawke