Started By
Message

Why weren’t democrats angry when Bill Clinton cut the federal workforce in the 90s?

Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:56 pm
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
71368 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:56 pm
Posted by RummelTiger
Texas
Member since Aug 2004
91990 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:58 pm to
quote:

Why weren’t democrats angry when Bill Clinton cut the federal workforce in the 90s?


Easy.

Because a Democrat did it.

Give us some tough questions...
Posted by SaturatedPhat
Member since Jul 2024
1180 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:58 pm to
Or fricked an intern with a cigar in the Oval Office.
Posted by cattus
Member since Jan 2009
14560 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:59 pm to
It was (D)different.

9 billion Lol
Posted by CR4090
Member since Apr 2023
6528 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:00 pm to
That was (D)ifferent.
Posted by ELVIS U
Member since Feb 2007
10893 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:02 pm to
Because he cut conservative workers and conservative programs
Posted by NIH
Member since Aug 2008
117066 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:02 pm to
We didn’t have the wonderful reporting to know that children were starving in Cambodia without us aid
Posted by RelicBatches86
Florida
Member since Nov 2024
352 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:04 pm to
Optics are the key to everything.

differences

- America was winding down from the Cold War



- Clinton offered a buyout of 5 years. 400k took it from 1994 to 1999. Trump's layoffs and buyout offer are much more prompt.

- Clinton's administration and aides weren't really callling federal workers lazy parasites, deep state operatives that stole an election and funded genocide, propaganda in mass media here and 100 other countries? Nor did Clinton promote a isolationist path of economy.

- Clinton's plan passed through Congress. with large bipartisan support largely, not in the case of Trumps executive orders.

LINK

quote:

A few weeks into his presidency in February 1993, Clinton issued an executive order telling each government department or agency with more than 100 employees to cut at least 4 percent of its civilian positions over three years through attrition or “early out programmes”.

Congress paved the way for buyouts. In March 1994, Clinton signed HR 3345, the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994. The legislation passed by wide, bipartisan margins: 391-17 in the House and 99-1 in the Senate.

The legislation authorised buyouts of up to $25,000 for selected groups of employees in the executive and judicial branches except employees of the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency or the General Accounting Office (now called the Government Accountability Office). The law set an April 1, 1995, deadline.


LINK
quote:


President Clinton signed legislation today intended to help reduce the Federal work force by about 273,000 people over the next five years by offering buyouts of up to $25,000 to employees who leave Government.

"After all the rhetoric about cutting the size and cost of Government, our Administration has done the hard work and made the tough choices," Mr. Clinton said in a statement released in Coronado, where he is vacationing.

The legislation aims to help cut the full-time Federal work force to 1.88 million by the end of the fiscal year 1999 in a more compassionate and cheaper way than involuntary layoffs. The buyouts are expected to reduce the work force by nearly 12 percent over five years.

Under the bill, a Federal employee who has completed 12 months of continuous service could take severance pay or a lump sum of $25,000, whichever is less, on leaving the Government.


This post was edited on 2/15/25 at 1:06 pm
Posted by Raz
Member since Oct 2006
7979 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:07 pm to
“Calling us out is whataboutism”
Posted by tgdawg68
Georgia
Member since Dec 2019
693 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:09 pm to
Today's democrat party is far more to the left.
Posted by HailHailtoMichigan!
Mission Viejo, CA
Member since Mar 2012
71368 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:13 pm to
I feel like your entire argument is in bad faith.

The federal workforce declined by 16% between 1993 and 1997. Not only did it not cause a crash, the economy was very strong in the 90s, and the private sector, especially the tech sector got access to all this freed up labor.

It is entirely irrelevant that it’s bipartisan or not. Either declines in the federal workforce are bad for the economy or they are not.

I am extremely skeptical of your claim that democrats would support the cuts in federal workforce if it was bipartisan.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
156540 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:15 pm to
WJ Clinton also decommissioned a lot of bases and military.
Posted by UncleFestersLegs
Member since Nov 2010
14100 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:19 pm to
quote:

I am extremely skeptical of your claim that democrats would support the cuts in federal workforce if it was bipartisan.
they absolutely will not support a single bill coming from Trump. Johnson should vote on a bill today removing taxes on tips and make every Democrat explain that they voted no because it was a giveaway to all the billionaires who wait tables.
Posted by Grifola
Member since Aug 2017
182 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:20 pm to
quote:

Today's democrat party is far more to the left.


Bill would be called a right-wing extremist by today standards.
Posted by cajunangelle
Member since Oct 2012
156540 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:20 pm to
Posted by LSUbest
Coastal Plain
Member since Aug 2007
13142 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:21 pm to
Back then the Democrats were just a political party.

A member of the party could have different and independent ideas and they were not ostracized

Today they are a cultist religion wherein every member MUST subscribe to every doctrine of the religion. Free and independent thought is not tolerated.
Posted by MaximillianPayne
Member since Sep 2019
398 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:23 pm to
Compared to democrats today, Bill Clinton would almost be conservative leaning. Democrats have gone bat shite nuts since Clinton was in office. Obama was the catalyst for it all.
Posted by TigerSooner
Member since Nov 2023
3015 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:58 pm to
Because demoncraps are stupid.
Posted by Bamafig
Member since Nov 2018
4709 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 2:22 pm to
Why didn’t they care that he deported 11 million illegals?
Posted by rileytiger
Surfing The Gulf of America
Member since Feb 2007
3167 posts
Posted on 2/15/25 at 2:58 pm to
That was before the radicals took over the party. Amazing to think that party at one time did reasonable things.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram