- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 on 2/15/25 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
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 on 2/15/25 at 12:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Or fricked an intern with a cigar in the Oval Office.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 12:59 pm to RummelTiger
It was (D)different.
9 billion Lol
9 billion Lol
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:00 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
That was (D)ifferent.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:02 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Because he cut conservative workers and conservative programs
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:02 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
We didn’t have the wonderful reporting to know that children were starving in Cambodia without us aid
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:04 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
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
LINK
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 on 2/15/25 at 1:07 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
“Calling us out is whataboutism”
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:09 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Today's democrat party is far more to the left.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:13 pm to RelicBatches86
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.
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 on 2/15/25 at 1:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
WJ Clinton also decommissioned a lot of bases and military.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:19 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote: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.
I am extremely skeptical of your claim that democrats would support the cuts in federal workforce if it was bipartisan.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:20 pm to tgdawg68
quote:
Today's democrat party is far more to the left.
Bill would be called a right-wing extremist by today standards.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:20 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton has approved the closing of 130 U.S. military bases and the reduction of 45 others,
How old were YOU in 1993? Yeah, you, reading this. Just curious...
How old were YOU in 1993? Yeah, you, reading this. Just curious...
Posted on 2/15/25 at 1:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
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.
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 on 2/15/25 at 1:23 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
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 on 2/15/25 at 1:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Because demoncraps are stupid.
Posted on 2/15/25 at 2:22 pm to TigerSooner
Why didn’t they care that he deported 11 million illegals?
Posted on 2/15/25 at 2:58 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
That was before the radicals took over the party. Amazing to think that party at one time did reasonable things.
Popular
Back to top
