Go back
Bill Clinton Fired 377,000 Government Workers in early 1990s

Bill Clinton Fired 377,000 Government Workers in early 1990s

Debates


Just thought I might level the playing field before you screaming meames roll off of a cliff. It is normal to fire people we don't need. I am sure Sonhouse does it...don't you?
What are you all so upset about, given how the reduction of waste will help our economy? I hope the best for people who are fired, but if they are government dependents, that is a downer. Shouldn't be.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-clinton-initiative-cut-140000196.html


@AverageJoe1 said
Just thought I might level the playing field before you screaming meames roll off of a cliff. It is normal to fire people we don't need. I am sure Sonhouse does it...don't you?
What are you all so upset about, given how the reduction of waste will help our economy? I hope the best for people who are fired, but if they are government dependents, that is a downer. Shouldn't be.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-clinton-initiative-cut-140000196.html
Great comparison. They spent six months reviewing the agencies carefully, made hundreds of recommendations to agency leaders, there was robust debate in Congress and many compromised, they focused on military contractors getting paid too much, and the job cuts occurred over a 6 year time frame designed to minimize impact on the economy and military readiness.

This is a great historical example of the correct and successful way to reduce the size of government that is completely and utterly ignored at every level by the incoming trump administration.


@wildgrass said
Great comparison. They spent six months reviewing the agencies carefully, made hundreds of recommendations to agency leaders, there was robust debate in Congress and many compromised, they focused on military contractors getting paid too much, and the job cuts occurred over a 6 year time frame designed to minimize impact on the economy and military readiness.

This is a g ...[text shortened]... vernment that is completely and utterly ignored at every level by the incoming trump administration.
Not one lib here will acknowledge this. I am thinking to go whip SSHouse butt.
Nte that he writes somewhere here about Trump being responsible for getting us up to $40T or some such, I really don't read his posts, that is his opening line. As if he is an econ guru. The funny part is that these sniveling libs never complained while the debt went up during Biden. But they complain when Trump is in charge.
We will all prosper when Trump prevails.....I still am not sure if I want the libs to be on the train with us.


@wildgrass said
Great comparison. They spent six months reviewing the agencies carefully, made hundreds of recommendations to agency leaders, there was robust debate in Congress and many compromised, they focused on military contractors getting paid too much, and the job cuts occurred over a 6 year time frame designed to minimize impact on the economy and military readiness.

This is a g ...[text shortened]... vernment that is completely and utterly ignored at every level by the incoming trump administration.
Exactly. 😆

The dictator will do one thing, then another thing, then another ...

And eventually kills all the Jews. It always ends with that. 😆


@AverageJoe1 said
Not one lib here will acknowledge this. I am thinking to go whip SSHouse butt.
Nte that he writes somewhere here about Trump being responsible for getting us up to $40T or some such, I really don't read his posts, that is his opening line. As if he is an econ guru. The funny part is that these sniveling libs never complained while the debt went up during Biden. But ...[text shortened]... l prosper when Trump prevails.....I still am not sure if I want the libs to be on the train with us.
When you wrote "you have to spend money to make money" with regard to government spending, in the other thread, you were espousing an explicitly liberal viewpoint.

Are you referring to yourself?


@wildgrass said
When you wrote "you have to spend money to make money" with regard to government spending, in the other thread, you were espousing an explicitly liberal viewpoint.

Are you referring to yourself?
It is not a 'specific liberal viewpoint' to my knowledge. I myself?? I am 110% capitalist conservative, and have more than once spent money to make money. If you put a $10,000 sign on your donut shot to atract more customers, ...well, my man, you have spent money to make money.
Further, we can assume Musk is PAYING (spending money) to hire the Musk DOGE Team to find billions of dollars. He is spending money to make money in a different way , same concept.


@AverageJoe1 said
It is not a 'specific liberal viewpoint' to my knowledge. I myself?? I am 110% capitalist conservative, and have more than once spent money to make money. If you put a $10,000 sign on your donut shot to atract more customers, ...well, my man, you have spent money to make money.
Further, we can assume Musk is PAYING (spending money) to hire the Musk DOGE Team to find billions of dollars. He is spending money to make money in a different way , same concept.
What you describe is kinda a major point of liberalism.

A capitalist would never suggest using tax dollars to fund your private enterprise donut shop.

1 edit

@wildgrass said
What you describe is kinda a major point of liberalism.

A capitalist would never suggest using tax dollars to fund your private enterprise donut shop.
You disappoint me, man. No sense debate in silliness. Childishness
Everyone,this is an example of the post of a liberal who has lost a bout. It is not hard, it is actually good exercise, to admit you lost your point. Plus, we all enjoy it together.
But off he goes with a not-clever comment to nowhere.


@AverageJoe1 said
You disappoint me, man. No sense debate in silliness. Childishness
Everyone,this is an example of the post of a liberal who has lost a bout. It is not hard, it is actually good exercise, to admit you lost your point. Plus, we all enjoy it together.
But off he goes with a not-clever comment to nowhere.
Disappointment? Because you want to dismiss anything you don't quite get as being silly or childish?

Way to avoid having to actually debate anything. Much better to have a bunch of talking points to stay on message and support your brand?


@AverageJoe1 said
You disappoint me, man. No sense debate in silliness. Childishness
Everyone,this is an example of the post of a liberal who has lost a bout. It is not hard, it is actually good exercise, to admit you lost your point. Plus, we all enjoy it together.
But off he goes with a not-clever comment to nowhere.
Why should taxpayers buy you a donut shop, Joe?


@wildgrass said
Why should taxpayers buy you a donut shop, Joe?
My post above is an example of a shop owner spending money for a new sign on his donut shop, too entice new customers.
Very telling that you fellers work a 'government of taxpayers' in to the scenario.

Even Suez understood my explanation of 'spend money to make money'. I can explain it again if it was too much for y'all to handle. Maybe, your daughter buys a sack of lemons to make lemonade (an investment) to sell in your front yard. You call all your friends and ask them to come buy her lemonade.

Or, we can discuss Trump's responsibility for the plane crash overnight in AZ killing two people.
Or his successful hostage release, (not done fast enought for Marauder).
Or his 100% cabinet approvals. Kash will be approved today.
Or the Los Angeles Mayor Bass saying 'no one told (her) not to go to Ghana'....when she was told.
Or why Musk is bad for the country.

Or, why you all are evolving.......................................


@AverageJoe1 said
Not one lib here will acknowledge this. I am thinking to go whip SSHouse butt.
Nte that he writes somewhere here about Trump being responsible for getting us up to $40T or some such, I really don't read his posts, that is his opening line. As if he is an econ guru. The funny part is that these sniveling libs never complained while the debt went up during Biden. But ...[text shortened]... l prosper when Trump prevails.....I still am not sure if I want the libs to be on the train with us.
Seriously, stop lying or get off the drugs.

1 edit

@AverageJoe1 said
Just thought I might level the playing field before you screaming meames roll off of a cliff. It is normal to fire people we don't need. I am sure Sonhouse does it...don't you?
What are you all so upset about, given how the reduction of waste will help our economy? I hope the best for people who are fired, but if they are government dependents, that is a downer. Shouldn't be.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-clinton-initiative-cut-140000196.html
You are so deep into the Trump Con-Aid, you need an intervention and then rehab.


Having so many federal government workers is not waste. There have to be that many to actually do the work of government. This isn't the early 19th century any more. In order to do the job Americans and Congress have entrusted to us requires an army of worker bees. Start decimating the hive and production will fall off, and that is nothing but big bad for every American. Government is NOT a for-profit business.

Why do you hate America so much?


@Suzianne said
You are so deep into the Trump Con-Aid, you need an intervention and then rehab.


Having so many federal government workers is not waste. There have to be that many to actually do the work of government. This isn't the early 19th century any more. In order to do the job Americans and Congress have entrusted to us requires an army of worker bees. Start decimating the ...[text shortened]... d for every American. Government is NOT a for-profit business.

Why do you hate America so much?
Can you tell us, in maybe another way that we will understand, that 'having So Many federal government workers is not a waste". Are you saying there does not have to be a limit, that there is never a waste? Or, who decides when there may be too many workers, resulting in waste? If that person decides one day that there are too many workers, do they actually FIRE some of the workers? How do they decide which ones to fire? Could it POSSIBLY be the ones that are not actually doing a job, or are mixed in with 3 workers who can handle a job with with just the 3 of them, and do not NEED to have more workers in that job?

It would be nice to have this explanation. The more that these positions are explained, the easier posts become. Imagine if we just raved on to no end everyday, like Sonhouse does. We could reach agreements this way.

1 edit

@AverageJoe1 said
Can you tell us, in maybe another way that we will understand, that 'having So Many federal government workers is not a waste". Are you saying there does not have to be a limit, that there is never a waste? Or, who decides when there may be too many workers, resulting in waste? If that person decides one day that there are too many workers, do they actually FIRE some ...[text shortened]... ne if we just raved on to no end everyday, like Sonhouse does. We could reach agreements this way.
As far as I can tell, you don't even have a job, so I can't take what you say seriously.

Again, why do you hate America so much?

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.