"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing,

Funny that you mention Boeing, Doug. Boeing cut 48,000 jobs in 1999 and
2000...which were the last 2 years of the Clinton misAdministration.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...07/story3.html

In previous years, a cutback of that magnitude would have set off alarms in
boardrooms, government offices and homes statewide, and for good reason.
Earlier Boeing downturns coincided with statewide recessions in the early
1980s and early 1970s.

But many leading economists don't expect a Boeing-led recession this time --
not as long as the healthy sectors of the state and national economies stay
that way.

"If Boeing is the only change, and all other things remain the same, then I
don't think we'll see a recession here," said Chang Mook Sohn, executive
director of the state Office of the Forecast Council.

---------------------------------------------------
It looks like Chang was wrong about his recession prediction. Signs of a
recession were beginning to peak in late 1999 and 2000. Wall Street was the
first to notice...but the Democrats *still* can't admit it.

A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts.

#1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what
happened in 1999 and 2000

#2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the
company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is
battering Boeing's customers.

Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia.

#3) And this is the biggest clue

If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20
percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The
company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state.

If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened.

Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the
premonitions you are quoting.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing,

Funny that you mention Boeing, Doug. Boeing cut 48,000 jobs in 1999 and
2000...which were the last 2 years of the Clinton misAdministration.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...07/story3.html

In previous years, a cutback of that magnitude would have set off alarms
in
boardrooms, government offices and homes statewide, and for good reason.
Earlier Boeing downturns coincided with statewide recessions in the early
1980s and early 1970s.

But many leading economists don't expect a Boeing-led recession this
time --
not as long as the healthy sectors of the state and national economies
stay
that way.

"If Boeing is the only change, and all other things remain the same, then
I
don't think we'll see a recession here," said Chang Mook Sohn, executive
director of the state Office of the Forecast Council.

---------------------------------------------------
It looks like Chang was wrong about his recession prediction. Signs of a
recession were beginning to peak in late 1999 and 2000. Wall Street was
the
first to notice...but the Democrats *still* can't admit it.

wrote:

A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts.

#1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what
happened in 1999 and 2000

#2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the
company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is
battering Boeing's customers.

Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia.

#3) And this is the biggest clue

If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20
percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The
company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state.

If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened.

Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on the
premonitions you are quoting.


He's hopeless...he still thinks Bush-**** has added jobs to the economy,
when, in fact, we're still well below the number of jobs of the Clinton
Administration. It is probable the Bush Administration will roll into
the fall elections still showing a net job loss.

wrote in message
ink.net...
A rather impressive statistic NOYB, but you miss 3 very important facts.

#1) An article published December 4, 1998 being used as fact for what
happened in 1999 and 2000

#2) Boeing announced Dec. 1 that it will shed 48,000 jobs throughout the
company in 1999 and 2000, largely because the economic crisis in Asia is
battering Boeing's customers.

Largely because of the economic crisis in Asia.

#3) And this is the biggest clue

If Boeing follows through on its plan, the company will eliminate about 20
percent of the 238,000 workers that it had on its payroll in June. The
company did not say how many jobs would be lost in Washington state.

If is a very strong word... It says that it hadn't happened.

Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on
the
premonitions you are quoting.


They'll be easy to find. My brother was one of the mechanical engineers
laid off in 1999...exactly 3 days shy of his 1 year anniversity with the
company. If it had been 3 days later, Boeing would have had to pay his
moving expenses when he found a new job.

wrote in message news:5TRGc.4940
Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on
the
premonitions you are quoting.


Here's a great article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...oeingweb.shtml

Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it
also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush was
a result of 9/11.

Here's an excerpt:

2000: May: Boeing ends two years of job cuts, reducing companywide payroll
from 238,400 in February 1998, to 191,500.

----------------------------------------------------
Feel better now?

Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000
jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost.

Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved.

So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you proved
your own fact wrong.

If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see that
Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then
announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end which was
followed by 563 airplane deliveries in 1998, 620 in 1999. They ended the 2
years of job cuts just in time to see the deliveries drop to 489 in 2000.

You also missed this very important quote:
"Boeing and the airlines were already suffering under the weight of a
sluggish economy before two commercial jets destroyed the World Trade Center
Towers last Tuesday, and damaged the Pentagon. A fourth airliner
commandeered by hijackers crashed in Pennsylvania."

Your quote:
"Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it
also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush was
a result of 9/11."

While an interesting take on the situation, the terrorism was nothing more
than a "final straw" of an already larger problem. Please keep in mind,
Boeing was scheduled to deliver 538 airplane in 2001. This number was only
reduced by 38 in their projections for the year. Taking into account of
"worse case scenario" Boeing projected a reduction of 120 airplanes for
2002.


Congratulations NOYB, you have now learned the lesson of making sure your
facts are correct before sticking your foot in your mouth. Perhaps you would
be interested in location the final outcome of these job losses Boeing
predicted 8 days after the terrorist attacks.

(I'll give you a hint, 36,490 as of November 22, 2003. Boeing had predicted
30,000) Rather interesting side point is that now Boeing is sharing profits
with the remaining work force.

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message news:5TRGc.4940
Tell you what, if you want yourself to look credible on this, perhaps
you
can locate the actual numbers for what did happen rather than relying on
the
premonitions you are quoting.


Here's a great article:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busine...oeingweb.shtml

Not only does it substantiate my claim about the 1999 and 2000 layoffs, it
also points out that the great majority of jobs lost in 2001 under Bush
was
a result of 9/11.

Here's an excerpt:

2000: May: Boeing ends two years of job cuts, reducing companywide payroll
from 238,400 in February 1998, to 191,500.

----------------------------------------------------
Feel better now?

wrote in message
ink.net...
Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000
jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost.

Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved.

So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you
proved
your own fact wrong.


Wow. I was off by a whopping 2%. You sure got me there.



If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see that
Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then
announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end

Sure they did.

Boeing hired more than 25,000 engineers in 1998. They got rid of almost
twice that many in 1999 and 2000.

Trying to blame cuts in 1999 and 2000 on the 1993 WTC attack is downright
comical...especially when in the next breath you discount the effect of the
9/11/01 attack.

My dad has been a supplier to the aircraft industry for nearly 40 years.
Boeing and Sikorsky are his two biggest accounts. My brother worked for
Boeing at the exact time in question. I think I know a little bit more
about this than you. But if you insist on keep making an ass of yourself,
please don't let me stop you.

No NOYB, you make a fool of yourself when you have the facts in your own
evidence and you ignore it, and an even bigger fool when you remove the
facts when they are pointed out to you just so you can attack.

You know, you are so easy sometimes... I am beginning to miss the days when
you weren't quite so predictable!!

By the way, if you do a little research, you will find that any employee
with Boeing terminated prior to 14 months on the job, does get a severance
package to assist them in relocation if needed. You might want to tell your
brother about it.


"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

wrote in message
ink.net...
Ok.. So what you are admitting here is that the projected loss of 48,000
jobs made in 1998 in actuality was 46,900 jobs lost.

Looks to me that 1,100 projected job losses were actually saved.

So I gather you took the projection to be fact and when pressured you
proved
your own fact wrong.


Wow. I was off by a whopping 2%. You sure got me there.



If you look further into this story you have referenced, you will see
that
Boeing had a slow year in 1997, delivering only 375 airplanes, they then
announced payroll reduction and terminations to meet that end

Sure they did.

Boeing hired more than 25,000 engineers in 1998. They got rid of almost
twice that many in 1999 and 2000.

Trying to blame cuts in 1999 and 2000 on the 1993 WTC attack is downright
comical...especially when in the next breath you discount the effect of
the
9/11/01 attack.

My dad has been a supplier to the aircraft industry for nearly 40 years.
Boeing and Sikorsky are his two biggest accounts. My brother worked for
Boeing at the exact time in question. I think I know a little bit more
about this than you. But if you insist on keep making an ass of yourself,
please don't let me stop you.

wrote in message
nk.net...
No NOYB, you make a fool of yourself when you have the facts in your own
evidence and you ignore it, and an even bigger fool when you remove the
facts when they are pointed out to you just so you can attack.

You know, you are so easy sometimes... I am beginning to miss the days
when
you weren't quite so predictable!!

By the way, if you do a little research, you will find that any employee
with Boeing terminated prior to 14 months on the job, does get a severance
package to assist them in relocation if needed. You might want to tell
your
brother about it.


Not in 1999. It was 12 months.

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


During Clinton's eight years, some 22 million jobs were added to the
economy.

Fun facts (and don't think I'm slamming Clinton's entire record, because
Bush would've done the same thing, if he could figure out how):

One way Clinton created jobs was by personally lobbying the Saudis to be
sure they made a series of enormous commercial aircraft purchases from
Boeing,

Funny that you mention Boeing, Doug. Boeing cut 48,000 jobs in 1999 and
2000...which were the last 2 years of the Clinton misAdministration.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seatt...07/story3.html

In previous years, a cutback of that magnitude would have set off alarms
in
boardrooms, government offices and homes statewide, and for good reason.
Earlier Boeing downturns coincided with statewide recessions in the early
1980s and early 1970s.

Right. Because folks like you and I couldn't afford to buy jets during those
periods, right?