RWers: Would you accept a GREAT paying govt job, despite principle?

[rdean]

This is a question directed at far right wingers who oppose most govt spending, but, anyone can anwser the poll or post one. The quesiton is:

If you had a private sector job, but, the local, county, state or federal government offered you a full time job with GREAT pay (lets say 2-3X more than you make), with great benefits far better than what you get now, would you accept it? Or, would you stick to your small government principles and say that the job pays too good for a government worker, and you will not participate in furthering the problem?

Let the discussion begin hahaha!!!

The question is merely academic. They simply aren't qualified.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Strange things happen to people who start violating their principles for money. Everything becomes negotiable. They don't just abandon whatever principles they abandoned to take that job, they abandon all of them.

strange things happen to people when they have a family to feed too....

Sure, they take bribes, they pad expense accounts, they have sex to land that account or gain an advantage. They look the other way. They take money from lobbyists and sell their vote. Each time someone violates their principles, violating the next one is just a bit easier. And the one after that too. Pretty soon, there are no principles, the person is just another whore. And it can all be rationalized away by wanting to feed a family, or buy a new car, or a new pair of Nikes, or X-box, or golf clubs. Everything is negotiable including their own integrity. Then we wonder how we got to be such a corrupt people.

yea i did all that the 30 years i worked for the PO......anyone ever tell you you are a dipshit Katz?.....you are the Rights version of Dudley.....

 

[blackhawk]

Here is a question back to the OP and any left wingers who want to answer. If you had the local, county, state or federal government job with the great pay and benefits but they were causing said local, county, state, or federal government to sink deeper and deeper into debt would you accept cuts in pay and benefits to help stop this or would you keep them no matter what the short and long term results might be?

 

[buckeye45_73]

This is a question directed at far right wingers who oppose most govt spending, but, anyone can anwser the poll or post one. The quesiton is:

If you had a private sector job, but, the local, county, state or federal government offered you a full time job with GREAT pay (lets say 2-3X more than you make), with great benefits far better than what you get now, would you accept it? Or, would you stick to your small government principles and say that the job pays too good for a government worker, and you will not participate in furthering the problem?

Let the discussion begin hahaha!!!

did you finally give up on saying youre a republican?

as to your question, sure I'd take a great paying govt job, if you were doing something valuable, the problem is there are waaaaay too many governement jobs...

You do realize that conservatives arent anarchists? We do like a small, limited government...not a big, intrusive and dictatorial one?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Here is a question back to the OP and any left wingers who want to answer. If you had the local, county, state or federal government job with the great pay and benefits but they were causing said local, county, state, or federal government to sink deeper and deeper into debt would you accept cuts in pay and benefits to help stop this or would you keep them no matter what the short and long term results might be?

good point...take a pay cut or a job cut, and dont bitch about it. private sector people do it all the time, it's good when govt people do....lets start with congress and the executive, shall we?

 

[Mustang]

You mean people that make a living entertaining?

Are you suggesting that the liberal counterparts in your "good question" scenario don't?




Actually. On second thought, it is possible that they believe everything they say.

Well, I'm SURE they know which side of the bread has the butter on it and what's expected of them when it comes time to broadcast.

Don't you suppose that conservative radio hosts know what would happen to their high-paying, high-flying careers if they ever said something in support of president Obama while simultaneously chastising Republicans for some of the crazy positions they take on the issues. Imagine a conservative radio host seeing his arbitron ratings going the way of the Dixie Chicks CD sales if they ever said something they really believed when it ran contrary to conservative orthodoxy.

Or, the conservatives could just be saying what they believe, since if they said something else, they wouldn't be conservatives, but liberals.

I got a little story for ya.

Right after the Trayvon Martin shooting, naturally conservative hosts came running out of the talk radio box at full clip to comment on a breaking news story and offer their opinions as is their habit. Mike Gallagher came out unequivocally on the side of Martin's family against what George Zimmerman had done. But there was a problem that I suspect Gallagher didn't realize at the time. You see, Mike was on the wrong side of the issue as far as the conservative line was playing out. And within a short period of time (I think it was only a day or two), Mike reversed his position and became an ardent Zimmerman supporter. Now, Gallagher SAID that he learned 'facts' about the shooting of which he was previously unaware. Perhaps. There's no way to know for sure. But I STRONGLY suspect that he came to understand that he was going to be on the receiving end of a litany of criticism from conservatives INCLUDING his listeners. And, I actually heard his listeners baste him pretty good over a couple of days. Now, I can't prove it, but I would be willing to bet that Gallagher 'modified his beliefs' (did a 180) to make sure that his radio show wasn't rowing against the current considering that the overwhelming number of conservatives viewed the shooting as justified, even under the particular circumstances of an unarmed youth being stalked at night by an armed man. I think there's no doubt that Gallagher understood that if he continued to support Martin's family and took their side in the ensuing controversy, that stand had the potential to turn off his core audience and possibly even threaten the continued syndication of his show in several markets.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Well, I'm SURE they know which side of the bread has the butter on it and what's expected of them when it comes time to broadcast.

Don't you suppose that conservative radio hosts know what would happen to their high-paying, high-flying careers if they ever said something in support of president Obama while simultaneously chastising Republicans for some of the crazy positions they take on the issues. Imagine a conservative radio host seeing his arbitron ratings going the way of the Dixie Chicks CD sales if they ever said something they really believed when it ran contrary to conservative orthodoxy.

Or, the conservatives could just be saying what they believe, since if they said something else, they wouldn't be conservatives, but liberals.

I got a little story for ya.

Right after the Trayvon Martin shooting, naturally conservative hosts came running out of the talk radio box at full clip to comment on a breaking news story and offer their opinions as is their habit. Mike Gallagher came out unequivocally on the side of Martin's family against what George Zimmerman had done. But there was a problem that I suspect Gallagher didn't realize at the time. You see, Mike was on the wrong side of the issue as far as the conservative line was playing out. And within a short period of time (I think it was only a day or two), Mike reversed his position and became an ardent Zimmerman supporter. Now, Gallagher SAID that he learned 'facts' about the shooting of which he was previously unaware. Perhaps. There's no way to know for sure. But I STRONGLY suspect that he came to understand that he was going to be on the receiving end of a litany of criticism from conservatives INCLUDING his listeners. And, I actually heard his listeners baste him pretty good over a couple of days. Now, I can't prove it, but I would be willing to bet that Gallagher 'modified his beliefs' (did a 180) to make sure that his radio show wasn't rowing against the current considering that the overwhelming number of conservatives viewed the shooting as justified, even under the particular circumstances of an unarmed youth being stalked at night by an armed man. I think there's no doubt that Gallagher understood that if he continued to support Martin's family and took their side in the ensuing controversy, that stand had the potential to turn off his core audience and possibly even threaten the continued syndication of his show in several markets.

uh mustang, I worked with a lot of black folks that were pissed about the shooting, but after hearing more about it, some of them actually wanted to find out what happened...imagine that

so you think trevyon was just an innocent boy.....wow......how delusional can you be?

 

[uscitizen]

Even if the insurance coverage covered abortions and birth control?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Hell. There shouldn't be any high paying Govt jobs. They should all be on par with the private sector and the taxpayers who foot the bills.

God, people are still whining about that? Yea, lots of mailmen and cops and teachers live in gated communities. Turn Hannity off and think!

 

[rightwinger]

I took a government job in 1978 for $12,900 a year

I retired as a millionaire

 

[Mustang]

Or, the conservatives could just be saying what they believe, since if they said something else, they wouldn't be conservatives, but liberals.

I got a little story for ya.

Right after the Trayvon Martin shooting, naturally conservative hosts came running out of the talk radio box at full clip to comment on a breaking news story and offer their opinions as is their habit. Mike Gallagher came out unequivocally on the side of Martin's family against what George Zimmerman had done. But there was a problem that I suspect Gallagher didn't realize at the time. You see, Mike was on the wrong side of the issue as far as the conservative line was playing out. And within a short period of time (I think it was only a day or two), Mike reversed his position and became an ardent Zimmerman supporter. Now, Gallagher SAID that he learned 'facts' about the shooting of which he was previously unaware. Perhaps. There's no way to know for sure. But I STRONGLY suspect that he came to understand that he was going to be on the receiving end of a litany of criticism from conservatives INCLUDING his listeners. And, I actually heard his listeners baste him pretty good over a couple of days. Now, I can't prove it, but I would be willing to bet that Gallagher 'modified his beliefs' (did a 180) to make sure that his radio show wasn't rowing against the current considering that the overwhelming number of conservatives viewed the shooting as justified, even under the particular circumstances of an unarmed youth being stalked at night by an armed man. I think there's no doubt that Gallagher understood that if he continued to support Martin's family and took their side in the ensuing controversy, that stand had the potential to turn off his core audience and possibly even threaten the continued syndication of his show in several markets.

uh mustang, I worked with a lot of black folks that were pissed about the shooting, but after hearing more about it, some of them actually wanted to find out what happened...imagine that

so you think trevyon was just an innocent boy.....wow......how delusional can you be?

I don't know what you mean by innocent. Innocent of what?

But I can tell you what I'm convinced about. If the circumstances were exactly the same with the only exception being that Martin was a 17 yo white youth, Zimmerman would have been arrested within hours, and conservatives would never have rallied to Zimmerman's defense.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

I took a government job in 1978 for $12,900 a year

I retired as a millionaire

I guess I missed class the day that was taught!

 

[candycorn]

Principle is a foreign concept to the GOP of today.

 

[Erand7899]

This is a question directed at far right wingers who oppose most govt spending, but, anyone can anwser the poll or post one. The quesiton is:

If you had a private sector job, but, the local, county, state or federal government offered you a full time job with GREAT pay (lets say 2-3X more than you make), with great benefits far better than what you get now, would you accept it? Or, would you stick to your small government principles and say that the job pays too good for a government worker, and you will not participate in furthering the problem?

Let the discussion begin hahaha!!!

Don't those holes in your head let enough air in to keep your brain from frying? Can you actually deduce that small government does not mean no government? Can you deduce that advocating small government does not mean anti-government? Can you deduce that small government arguments mostly refer to the federal government, and not state and local governments?

The small government argument refers to reducing the federal government to the role established by the Constitution, and allow the individual soverign states to do the jobs they were created to do. Then, the congress could concern itself with the functions necessary to ensure a fiscally responsible, effective and efficient federal government. The states could get back to taking care of the citizens of their individual states. And finally, you liberal/socialists could crawl back under the rocks you crawled out of.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I wouldn't - not because of "principles", but the sort of "government job" in my field doesn't interest me at all.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Here is a question back to the OP and any left wingers who want to answer. If you had the local, county, state or federal government job with the great pay and benefits but they were causing said local, county, state, or federal government to sink deeper and deeper into debt would you accept cuts in pay and benefits to help stop this or would you keep them no matter what the short and long term results might be?

as long as the guys above me did and the politicians themselves did....if i bleed i expect them to bleed also....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Hell. There shouldn't be any high paying Govt jobs. They should all be on par with the private sector and the taxpayers who foot the bills.

God, people are still whining about that? Yea, lots of mailmen and cops and teachers live in gated communities. Turn Hannity off and think!

they do where i am at.....lots of them.....

 

[bucs90]

Got a few answers from right wingers that I know are absolute lies. If offered 3X more pay than they make now, they would absolutely accept that government job, even if it was in a dept that think shouldnt exist.

But, as one guy said, MOST government jobs do not pay up to private sector par, especially military, law enforcement, teachers, and various local and state government jobs. You'll never be a millionaire working for government (Unless, of course, you are the head football coach at a red state SEC college, where the Bubbas will applaud $4,000,000 a year for a government football coach, but criticize $1,000,000 of extra welfare to feed the poor).

 

[bucs90]

Hell. There shouldn't be any high paying Govt jobs. They should all be on par with the private sector and the taxpayers who foot the bills.

God, people are still whining about that? Yea, lots of mailmen and cops and teachers live in gated communities. Turn Hannity off and think!

they do where i am at.....lots of them.....

Average pay for a cop nationwide is about 50K. Very modest. In the non-union South, a lot of places start cops in the 20's, low 30's, and dont have much of a pay increase in their 25 year careers. No wonder the red state South is the most violent region of the country. They either cant attract good cops, or, they cant keep 'em.

In most places in the South, the manager at McDonalds makes more than the local cops.

 

[OKTexas]

i wont believe anyone here if they say no......

Why would you say that, I would say no. I'll leave it up to you to figuer out why.

i should have said this before i said what i said......i am assuming it would be a person not making 6 figures a year AND the Economy is not in the shitter.....if that was the case....if you were working a job making say 50 grand a year and the govt (especially Federal) gave you a chance to work a comparable job at more money and much better benefits......your going to take it...... if you say no i wouldn't...... i will say bullshit......

You neglected one scenario, I'm retired, not interested in working for anyone.