For Dave, Clinton's Fantastic Economy

[DT4K]

EDIT: for the record, I don't blame Clinton for the recession. This is simply a reply to the thread implying that the economy is still in terrible shape and it's all Bush's fault.

January 10, 2000
The 1999 job cut total, 675,132, fell less than 3,000 short of surpassing the record number (677,795) set last year. By comparison, in 1989 there were only 111,285 job cuts.

January 27, 1999
US corporations announced major job cuts over the past several weeks, continuing the rapid pace set in the fourth quarter of 1998. Retailers Montgomery Ward and Caldor Corp. led the way, announcing scores of store closings in the wake of disappointing Christmas sales.

The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas reported that job losses in the fourth quarter of 1998 totaled 246,339, the largest quarterly total since it began keeping records in 1989. Job cuts in December alone totaled 103,166.


April 16, 1998
The past week has seen a new surge in job-cutting announcements by US corporations, amid signs of an overall slowing down of the economy. The largest job cuts were announced by Xerox, which says it plans to eliminate 10 percent of its worldwide work force. Chicago-based Ameritech and United Technologies also announced severe restructurings.

Workers in the computer industry were hard hit in the latest wave of downsizing as well, with Intel and Silicon Graphics both announcing deep cuts.

The recent wave of bank mergers portends major job cuts in the banking industry. The magnitude of the downsizing in the offing was indicated by an officer of NationsBank, who estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 jobs would be cut as the result of his bank's merger with BankAmerica.

There are a number of indications that the long economic expansion may be coming to an end. Estimated quarterly profits for the top 500 American corporations have been revised sharply downward. Other companies whose earnings are expected to fall are computer and chip makers Compaq Computer, Intel and IBM. The energy sector is also expected to be hit, with profit declines seen for major oil companies including Amoco, Chevron, Texaco, Mobil and Atlantic Richfield.

This follows a report earlier in the month by the US Labor Department stating that the total number of jobs declined by 36,000 in March, the first such decrease in two years. Auto sales declined 3 percent in the first quarter, another indication of an economic downturn.

The corporate attack on jobs accelerated in April, with significant cuts being announced by high profile US corporations. The single largest downsizing announcement came from Xerox, which is planning to slash 9,000 jobs. One of the locations targeted for the largest cuts is Xerox's headquarters city, Rochester, New York, where the copier manufacturer will ax 1,400 jobs. This is the second major recent blow in recent months to workers in Rochester. Eastman Kodak, the area's largest employer, has announced plans to cut 6,000 jobs. Together, the two companies account for 10 percent of the city's work force.

Ameritech has announced plans to slash 5,000 jobs. These cuts are in addition to its previously announced decision to close several customer service centers and eliminate 800 jobs. The new cuts will come primarily at the expense of workers in Ameritech's wireless and security monitoring units. Ameritech's profits were down 8 percent in the first quarter from one year ago.

Major job cuts continue in the computer industry, which is suffering from slumping sales. Intel, the computer chip manufacturer, announced Tuesday that it is cutting 3,000 jobs over the next six months. The company saw both sales and prices for its chips fall during the first quarter of 1998, reflecting a glut of personal computers on the market. Intel's net income fell 36 percent from the period a year ago.

One day earlier another computer maker, Silicon Graphics, announced 1,000 job cuts, or 10 percent of its work force. The company said it expects to post a significant loss for the first quarter because of a decline in demand for its products.


December 27, 1997
Boeing will cut its commercial aviation work force by 12,000 in 1998.

Eastman Kodak, which ordered 10,000 layoffs a month ago, announced December 18 that it would slash an additional 6,600 jobs. The latest cut brings the total number of jobs cut by the film giant in 1997 to nearly 20,000.

General Motors is continuing with its announced plans to eliminate 42,000 jobs over the next five years.

Another big cut comes at Hasbro, the toy manufacturer. The Rhode Island-based company says it plans to cut 2,500 jobs, 20 percent of its workforce. 70 percent of the job cuts will come from manufacturing, including 700 jobs to be eliminated by the closure of a plant in El Paso, Texas.

Other job cuts announced in December include:
RJR Nabisco - 3,000 jobs
Polaroid - 1,500 jobs
Quest Diagnostic - 1,100 jobs
Cabletron Co. - 600 jobs
Crane Co. - 600 jobs
Bradlees stores - 400 jobs
Mercury Finance - 300 jobs
Unifi Inc. - 200 jobs
Goodyear Tire & Rubber - 150 jobs.

Notice the Kodak cuts Dave. Wasn't 1997 supposed to be the "good economic times"?

 

[Red Dawn]

Just because Clinton sucked doesn't mean that Bush doesn't. Actually right after 9/11 Bush won me over and I fully supported our Military actions in Afghanistan. I also supported our actions in Iraq before it became apparent that we were misled by the Administration about it.

 

[busmaster11]

America did enjoy a fantastic economy during most of Clinton's 8 years. Not to say that Clinton was the primary reason for it, but if you were to dispute the fact that the economy was doing very well overall at the time, you are a fool.

Otherwise, what's your point?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shanti

January 10, 2000
The 1999 job cut total, 675,132, fell less than 3,000 short of surpassing the record number (677,795) set last year. By comparison, in 1989 there were only 111,285 job cuts.

January 27, 1999
US corporations announced major job cuts over the past several weeks, continuing the rapid pace set in the fourth quarter of 1998. Retailers Montgomery Ward and Caldor Corp. led the way, announcing scores of store closings in the wake of disappointing Christmas sales.

The outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas reported that job losses in the fourth quarter of 1998 totaled 246,339, the largest quarterly total since it began keeping records in 1989. Job cuts in December alone totaled 103,166.


April 16, 1998
The past week has seen a new surge in job-cutting announcements by US corporations, amid signs of an overall slowing down of the economy. The largest job cuts were announced by Xerox, which says it plans to eliminate 10 percent of its worldwide work force. Chicago-based Ameritech and United Technologies also announced severe restructurings.

Workers in the computer industry were hard hit in the latest wave of downsizing as well, with Intel and Silicon Graphics both announcing deep cuts.

The recent wave of bank mergers portends major job cuts in the banking industry. The magnitude of the downsizing in the offing was indicated by an officer of NationsBank, who estimated that between 5,000 and 8,000 jobs would be cut as the result of his bank's merger with BankAmerica.

There are a number of indications that the long economic expansion may be coming to an end. Estimated quarterly profits for the top 500 American corporations have been revised sharply downward. Other companies whose earnings are expected to fall are computer and chip makers Compaq Computer, Intel and IBM. The energy sector is also expected to be hit, with profit declines seen for major oil companies including Amoco, Chevron, Texaco, Mobil and Atlantic Richfield.

This follows a report earlier in the month by the US Labor Department stating that the total number of jobs declined by 36,000 in March, the first such decrease in two years. Auto sales declined 3 percent in the first quarter, another indication of an economic downturn.

The corporate attack on jobs accelerated in April, with significant cuts being announced by high profile US corporations. The single largest downsizing announcement came from Xerox, which is planning to slash 9,000 jobs. One of the locations targeted for the largest cuts is Xerox's headquarters city, Rochester, New York, where the copier manufacturer will ax 1,400 jobs. This is the second major recent blow in recent months to workers in Rochester. Eastman Kodak, the area's largest employer, has announced plans to cut 6,000 jobs. Together, the two companies account for 10 percent of the city's work force.

Ameritech has announced plans to slash 5,000 jobs. These cuts are in addition to its previously announced decision to close several customer service centers and eliminate 800 jobs. The new cuts will come primarily at the expense of workers in Ameritech's wireless and security monitoring units. Ameritech's profits were down 8 percent in the first quarter from one year ago.

Major job cuts continue in the computer industry, which is suffering from slumping sales. Intel, the computer chip manufacturer, announced Tuesday that it is cutting 3,000 jobs over the next six months. The company saw both sales and prices for its chips fall during the first quarter of 1998, reflecting a glut of personal computers on the market. Intel's net income fell 36 percent from the period a year ago.

One day earlier another computer maker, Silicon Graphics, announced 1,000 job cuts, or 10 percent of its work force. The company said it expects to post a significant loss for the first quarter because of a decline in demand for its products.


December 27, 1997
Boeing will cut its commercial aviation work force by 12,000 in 1998.

Eastman Kodak, which ordered 10,000 layoffs a month ago, announced December 18 that it would slash an additional 6,600 jobs. The latest cut brings the total number of jobs cut by the film giant in 1997 to nearly 20,000.

General Motors is continuing with its announced plans to eliminate 42,000 jobs over the next five years.

Another big cut comes at Hasbro, the toy manufacturer. The Rhode Island-based company says it plans to cut 2,500 jobs, 20 percent of its workforce. 70 percent of the job cuts will come from manufacturing, including 700 jobs to be eliminated by the closure of a plant in El Paso, Texas.

Other job cuts announced in December include:
RJR Nabisco - 3,000 jobs
Polaroid - 1,500 jobs
Quest Diagnostic - 1,100 jobs
Cabletron Co. - 600 jobs
Crane Co. - 600 jobs
Bradlees stores - 400 jobs
Mercury Finance - 300 jobs
Unifi Inc. - 200 jobs
Goodyear Tire & Rubber - 150 jobs.

Notice the Kodak cuts Dave. Wasn't 1997 supposed to be the "good economic times"?

So how long have we been in a Recession? Long enough to call a Depression I bet.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
America did enjoy a fantastic economy during most of Clinton's 8 years. Not to say that Clinton was the primary reason for it, but if you were to dispute the fact that the economy was doing very well overall at the time, you are a fool.

Otherwise, what's your point?

The point is that Dave is an idiot for claiming that recent job cut announcements by companies like Kodak are an indication that the economy is terrible and it's all Bush's fault.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: busmaster11
America did enjoy a fantastic economy during most of Clinton's 8 years. Not to say that Clinton was the primary reason for it, but if you were to dispute the fact that the economy was doing very well overall at the time, you are a fool.

Otherwise, what's your point?

The point is that Dave is an idiot for claiming that recent job cut announcements by companies like Kodak are an indication that the economy is terrible and it's all Bush's fault.

God don't be so sensitive! He's known jokingly here as "Chicken Little" for a reason!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: busmaster11
America did enjoy a fantastic economy during most of Clinton's 8 years. Not to say that Clinton was the primary reason for it, but if you were to dispute the fact that the economy was doing very well overall at the time, you are a fool.

Otherwise, what's your point?

The point is that Dave is an idiot for claiming that recent job cut announcements by companies like Kodak are an indication that the economy is terrible and it's all Bush's fault.

I actually never said it was Bush's fault. The reason the thread Title was changed was because everyone insisted it is Clinton's fault but he's not the President now is he?

What's the big deal anyway, everyone agrees with the President, CAD, Rush etc that the Economy is Soaring and Booming and more jobs been created than lost and at highest wages ever. That's what your fellow AT experts CAD & Co said, the BLS Government reports say and the President, so it has be correct and true so I agree too. They can't be wrong. I'm wrong of course.

 

[DT4K]

Are you for real?
I'm a little surprised they let you have internet access from your institution.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
America did enjoy a fantastic economy during most of Clinton's 8 years. Not to say that Clinton was the primary reason for it, but if you were to dispute the fact that the economy was doing very well overall at the time, you are a fool.

Otherwise, what's your point?

Someone is a fool for knowing the economy was supported by deception and promises... where's your dot com profit now? Hmmm... where's the talk of all the paper millionares and stock options now? Hmmm.... Yes, people spent money during those 8 years because they lead themselves into a false sense that they were going to be rich. Once everyone realized that wasn't going to happen and that most dot coms were never going to see black ink, we entered into a recession. How could the economy be doing very well when all that was waiting was for the bottom to fall out?? Give me long term steady growth and I'll show you a very good economy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: busmaster11
America did enjoy a fantastic economy during most of Clinton's 8 years. Not to say that Clinton was the primary reason for it, but if you were to dispute the fact that the economy was doing very well overall at the time, you are a fool.

Otherwise, what's your point?

Someone is a fool for knowing the economy was supported by deception and promises... where's your dot com profit now? Hmmm... where's the talk of all the paper millionares and stock options now? Hmmm.... Yes, people spent money during those 8 years because they lead themselves into a false sense that they were going to be rich. Once everyone realized that wasn't going to happen and that most dot coms were never going to see black ink, we entered into a recession. How could the economy be doing very well when all that was waiting was for the bottom to fall out?? Give me long term steady growth and I'll show you a very good economy.

Well point out to us the last time the economy had long term steady growth under someone besides Clinton?

BTW, I give credit to the good economy during the last 6 years to the fact that we had one party in Congress and another in the White House. It seemed like having Conservatives acting like Conservatives in Congress is the best solution. Unfortunately the Republican Congress under Bush acts more like a Tax and Spend Liberal Congress.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674


So how long have we been in a Recession? Long enough to call a Depression I bet.

*****This certificate entitles you to one free 'The Vocabulary and Jargon of Economics Made Easy' lecture*****


...send me a PM, or visit the D.C. area in person, to redeem.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Well point out to us the last time the economy had long term steady growth under someone besides Clinton?[/quote]

Point out how the economy had long term steady growth under Clinton. Last I checked, bottom fell out, unless I've been wearing Dave's tin foil hat again.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Well point out to us the last time the economy had long term steady growth under someone besides Clinton?

Point out how the economy had long term steady growth under Clinton. Last I checked, bottom fell out, unless I've been wearing Dave's tin foil hat again.[/quote]
6+ years is pretty good. I think Bush would be more than pleased if he could accomplish that if he is re-elected.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: busmaster11
America did enjoy a fantastic economy during most of Clinton's 8 years. Not to say that Clinton was the primary reason for it, but if you were to dispute the fact that the economy was doing very well overall at the time, you are a fool.

Otherwise, what's your point?

Someone is a fool for knowing the economy was supported by deception and promises... where's your dot com profit now? Hmmm... where's the talk of all the paper millionares and stock options now? Hmmm.... Yes, people spent money during those 8 years because they lead themselves into a false sense that they were going to be rich. Once everyone realized that wasn't going to happen and that most dot coms were never going to see black ink, we entered into a recession. How could the economy be doing very well when all that was waiting was for the bottom to fall out?? Give me long term steady growth and I'll show you a very good economy.

What does that have to do with anything then? Is it Clinton's fault? Is it Bush's fault? Is it the fault of space aliens - the same ones commandeering our space rover?

 

[DT4K]

Dave,
you still haven't given me an answer.
You said you didn't claim the poor economy was Bush's fault.
But your other thread is titled "Bush's Fantastic Economy". Clearly the "Fantastic" part is sarcasm and your statement implies Bush's ownership of the economy.

So explain to me how Kodak's recent job cut announcements are an indicator of a bad economy while the Kodak cut of 20,000 jobs in 1997 was an indicator of economic prosperity under Clinton.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
you still haven't given me an answer.
You said you didn't claim the poor economy was Bush's fault.
But your other thread is titled "Bush's Fantastic Economy". Clearly the "Fantastic" part is sarcasm and your statement implies Bush's ownership of the economy.

So explain to me how Kodak's recent job cut announcements are an indicator of a bad economy while the Kodak cut of 20,000 jobs in 1997 was an indicator of economic prosperity under Clinton.

You're really grasping at straws here. Who every said the 97 cuts were an indication of prosperity? Provide some quotes please.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
you still haven't given me an answer.
You said you didn't claim the poor economy was Bush's fault.
But your other thread is titled "Bush's Fantastic Economy". Clearly the "Fantastic" part is sarcasm and your statement implies Bush's ownership of the economy.

So explain to me how Kodak's recent job cut announcements are an indicator of a bad economy while the Kodak cut of 20,000 jobs in 1997 was an indicator of economic prosperity under Clinton.

You're really grasping at straws here. Who every said the 97 cuts were an indication of prosperity? Provide some quotes please.

Nobody that I know of made such a claim.

So the point is:
How can you claim the recent job cuts are an indication of a poor economy but the massive job cuts of 1997, 1998, and 1999 were not?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
you still haven't given me an answer.
You said you didn't claim the poor economy was Bush's fault.
But your other thread is titled "Bush's Fantastic Economy". Clearly the "Fantastic" part is sarcasm and your statement implies Bush's ownership of the economy.

So explain to me how Kodak's recent job cut announcements are an indicator of a bad economy while the Kodak cut of 20,000 jobs in 1997 was an indicator of economic prosperity under Clinton.

You're really grasping at straws here. Who every said the 97 cuts were an indication of prosperity? Provide some quotes please.

Nobody that I know of made such a claim.

So the point is:
How can you claim the recent job cuts are an indication of a poor economy but the massive job cuts of 1997, 1998, and 1999 were not?

LOL, remember this is Dave we are talking about

 

[Strk]

Shouldn't the part about 22 million jobs(around there anyways) being created be taken into consideration when discussing Clinton? I'm not really trying to defend him, but it's worth acknowledging. (I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this part or not)

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Strk
Shouldn't the part about 22 million jobs(around there anyways) being created be taken into consideration when discussing Clinton? I'm not really trying to defend him, but it's worth acknowledging. (I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this part or not)

Come on man, it's a short thread, surely you can read it all.
As I said, I'm not blaming Clinton for anything and I agree that our economy was very strong during the majority of the Clinton administration.

dmcowen started a thread implying that our economy was in terrible shape and it was Bush's fault.
He quoted recent job cut announcements from Kodak and others as evidence of our poor economy.

I was simply pointing out some of the massive job cut announcements from 1997, 1998, and 1999 (considered a time of economic prosperity).

My point is just that companies cut jobs for many reasons in good times and bad and it is not neccessarily an indication of the general economic state.
The Kodak cuts for instance are part of a continuing restructuring that has been ongoing for the past 7-10 years. I work for Kodak and can tell you that the recent job cut announcements have nothing to do with the economy.
Kodak had a very long and successful history in film photography. Film is a dying industry and Kodak's attempt to transition to digital has been very challenging. This is the reason for the continued job cuts.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Shanti
Dave,
you still haven't given me an answer.
You said you didn't claim the poor economy was Bush's fault.
But your other thread is titled "Bush's Fantastic Economy". Clearly the "Fantastic" part is sarcasm and your statement implies Bush's ownership of the economy.

So explain to me how Kodak's recent job cut announcements are an indicator of a bad economy while the Kodak cut of 20,000 jobs in 1997 was an indicator of economic prosperity under Clinton.

kodaks announcement is because they are stopping production of film and film cameras in the americas and europe

 

[wkabel23]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Strk
Shouldn't the part about 22 million jobs(around there anyways) being created be taken into consideration when discussing Clinton? I'm not really trying to defend him, but it's worth acknowledging. (I haven't read the entire thread, so I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this part or not)

Come on man, it's a short thread, surely you can read it all.
As I said, I'm not blaming Clinton for anything and I agree that our economy was very strong during the majority of the Clinton administration.

dmcowen started a thread implying that our economy was in terrible shape and it was Bush's fault.
He quoted recent job cut announcements from Kodak and others as evidence of our poor economy.

I was simply pointing out some of the massive job cut announcements from 1997, 1998, and 1999 (considered a time of economic prosperity).

My point is just that companies cut jobs for many reasons in good times and bad and it is not neccessarily an indication of the general economic state.
The Kodak cuts for instance are part of a continuing restructuring that has been ongoing for the past 7-10 years. I work for Kodak and can tell you that the recent job cut announcements have nothing to do with the economy.
Kodak had a very long and successful history in film photography. Film is a dying industry and Kodak's attempt to transition to digital has been very challenging. This is the reason for the continued job cuts.

[sarcasm]You're right the economy is booming now, no unemployment, everyone is happy and has a job. Wow, Bush sure is a good President![/sarcasm]

FACE IT, the economy was better under Clinton, whether it was because of him or not.

 

[buckmasterson]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Well point out to us the last time the economy had long term steady growth under someone besides Clinton?

Point out how the economy had long term steady growth under Clinton. Last I checked, bottom fell out, unless I've been wearing Dave's tin foil hat again.[/quote]

Clinton rode the Tech's to economic bliss. They fell apart, and everyone's 401k's felt it. Clinton was well known for being in the right place at the right time. As President, he was.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: buckmasterson

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Well point out to us the last time the economy had long term steady growth under someone besides Clinton?

Point out how the economy had long term steady growth under Clinton. Last I checked, bottom fell out, unless I've been wearing Dave's tin foil hat again.

Clinton rode the Tech's to economic bliss. They fell apart, and everyone's 401k's felt it. Clinton was well known for being in the right place at the right time. As President, he was.[/quote]
So neither Clinton or the Republican Congress had anything to do with the extended good economy of the 90's? Did they do anything to hurt the economy or to increase the deficit to record highs?

 

[buckmasterson]

Good point Red Dawn...