The people Clinton didn't hire and didn't replace were government employees. When he took office, he took some heat for not filling all the upper and mid level vacancies. What are you talking about? https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-changing-shape-of-government/ To Clinton’s credit, his administration has held the total number of executives in check. Those 2,462 officials represent an addition of just fifty-four since January 20, 1993, and include seventy-eight in the newly independent Social Security Administration (SSA). Subtract those positions from the count, and the Clinton administration actually lost weight. The administration also has reduced the number of middle managers. The federal government employed 126,000 middle managers in 1998, down from 161,000 in 1993, dropping the total to its lowest level in fifteen years. The government employed eight rank-and-file workers for every supervisor in 1993; by 1997, the ratio had risen to eleven to one. Moreover, nearly every department, not just Defense, lost mid-level supervisors. Only the departments of Justice (up 2,000) and State (up eighteen) expanded middle management ranks. Interior and Treasury both lost roughly a sixth of their middle managers; Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and Transportation, almost a fifth each. Other departments shrank by higher margins: Education and the General Services Administration cut more than a third; the Environmental Protection Agency and Housing and Urban Development, almost two-fifths; Energy and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, more than half; and the Office of Personnel Management, more than two-thirds. How did the administration lose the weight? Downsizing began with military base closures in the late eighties. It accelerated in 1993, when Clinton issued an executive order mandating a 100,000-position reduction in total employment, and again in 1994, when he signed the Workforce Restructuring Act. The two initiatives clipped a grand total of 272,900 positions. Although presidential appointees and senior executives accounted for none of the reductions, and middle managers formed just ten percent of the total cutback, Clinton clearly slowed the growth rate in both categories, which had expanded substantially under presidents Reagan and Bush. Congress also gave the Clinton administration resources to offer senior and middle-level executives $25,000 buyouts as incentives to step down. There is no question that the inducements allowed the administration to shrink the number of retirement-eligible executives and managers. Of 83,000 buyouts between 1993 and the first half of 1995, for example, almost three-quarters involved recipients who already were eligible for early or regular retirement. Whether those employees would have departed in due course anyway is in some dispute, but the fact remains that they did vacate at least some of the middle-level management positions.
sure, just like your oceans.....we've had this argument about 500 times...I'm making you money..where's my cut?
The people who elected (or hired) Obama did so with the expectatation he'd get our kids out of Iraq. He did what he was hired to do. If he had stayed and/or escalated, he would have been excoriated for THAT. I'm sure there are a lot of parents (and Iraq veterans) who would consider your definition of "surrender" to be a scurrilous slander.....it makes a mockery out of those who fought....and especially those who died. It was never, ever a war that could be "won" by conventional definitions, if any.
4,000 lives, all the injuries, and all the time spent for nothing is the insult to the vets who fought there. It made a mockery of almost 10 years of hard fought peace. The vets believed in the mission and held up their end. If Obama left a few thousand troops, he would have been fine. He didn't shut down Gitmo, so the promises mean squat. The people did not want surrender, ISIS, the state of things in Syria and Libya. A year and a half after the surrender, Obama was rated worst president in since WW II. Even worse than Bush. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056 July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst President Since WWII, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; More Voters Say Romney Would Have Been Better
He is not fighting to silence the press he's trying to get them to stop being bias and lying. Big difference. MSM has a huge audience and you're lying if you think they haven't been bias against Trump. I have no problem with any of them reporting news but please stop making it biased and one sided to fit the into the liberal mindset of never trump. I saw the inauguration all day I watched it live. The picture on CBS or CNN whatever it was, was wrong! It was taken before the damn speech ... and what spicer said about being big audience was wrong and he corrected himself but I still felt like it was okay to berate the press for their obvious bias and agenda.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I thought Spicer's speech was embarrassing. It sounded like butthurt talk. It was completely unprofessional.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies#Obama_administration_conflict_with_Fox_News Uh oh.
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden. "I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences." Joe Biden http://www.weeklystandard.com/biden-once-called-iraq-one-of-obamas-great-achievements/article/794909 I was never for creating a democracy in Irag. I don't think a majority of conservatives were, but it was not our call, the US did it. Then after the blood and treasure had been spent, the new President gave it away. That my friends, is a fuck up followed by even a bigger one.
The issue is not crowd size, it's that a newly inaugurated president considers it the most important issue. And lies about it.
We gave it away? It wasn't ours to begin with? Iraq doesn't belong to the United States, and neither does it's oil. Trump insisting that we should have taken it, that we were there to take it, and that we will go back to take it, is proof that the Bush administration used false pretences to go there just to steal their oil, costing thousands of American lives. Going back to pillage Iraq would be a war crime. Obama didn't give it away. He gave it back to the people to whom it belonged. Then he went to Afghanistan and took out Osama Bin Laden, the true culprit of 9/11, not Saddam Hussein or Iraq. Bush never should have sent troops to Iraq, if he wouldn't have, and destroy its government, as Shitty as Saddam was to his people, Isis would not have come there. Isis is a product of Bush's mistake, it is not a product of Obama.
I guess you and Joe don't quite agree. But I also gather, you don't want to at this point. Just a fine point for you to consider. You are very right in that Iraq is not ours, I never wanted to make a democracy there for sure. But we did, and it cost us. It cost lives, and money to hand the people of Iraq a democracy. It was there as Joe said, one of the greatest achievements of Obama. Whether that is correct or not, he sure as hell gave it away. And by it, I mean the he squandered the sacrifice in blood and treasure paid by the American people to hand over a democracy to the people of Iraq. That sir, was a fuck up of major purportions.
