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

[Quantum Windbag]

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!!!

What principle are we talking about here, what is the job, and why does any government job come with a description of great paying in the first place?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah. Putting principle to practice is harder than they say, isnt it?

Must be why the only people that said yes are you and your sock.

 

[Meathead]

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.

Maybe it had something to do with the picture of the bright and innocent-looking 12 year old which had been Martin several years before.

 

[bucs90]

I can just see all the Bubba's now explaining to their fat wives: "Honey, the government offered me a job. It pays 3X more than we make now. The benefits are pretty good. BUT...I'm not taking it! I have principles to uphold, and I will not abide by Barack Obama's big government dream, I told them to take their job and shove it. The Founders did not mean for this to be reality, and I............." (Wife slamming the door shut as she leaves).

 

[bucs90]

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!!!

What principle are we talking about here, what is the job, and why does any government job come with a description of great paying in the first place?

Well, you see, SOME government jobs are difficult, and very important to society. And, well, the government must compete as well for the best talent in the labor pool. And it is important to attract and retain good people in those important jobs, so, you see....sometimes, we must pay employees of our governments a good salary. Thats kinda how the free market works.

 

[Obamanation]

This thread is soooo stupid! I'd take a job to work for the gov't. I'd even take a pay cut to work for the gov't. Especially if they were paying me to find ways to limit gov't waste. haha!!

Too many gov't jobs tips the scale over. You can see that right?

We will only be against more/higher paying gov't jobs as long as GROWTH is out of control!

 

[Wicked Jester]

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!!!

What principle are we talking about here, what is the job, and why does any government job come with a description of great paying in the first place?

Well, you see, SOME government jobs are difficult, and very important to society. And, well, the government must compete as well for the best talent in the labor pool. And it is important to attract and retain good people in those important jobs, so, you see....sometimes, we must pay employees of our governments a good salary. Thats kinda how the free market works.

That's why the military should be the highest paid government employees, PERIOD!......And that means higher paid than any city, county, state, or federal government employees, no matter what their job/s is/are.

 

[theHawk]

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!!!

I already have a goverment job. It certainly doesn't pay 2-3x more than private sector.
Only thing that is keeping me in is doing an overseas tour. After that I will likely go private sector for better money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!!!

What principle are we talking about here, what is the job, and why does any government job come with a description of great paying in the first place?

Well, you see, SOME government jobs are difficult, and very important to society. And, well, the government must compete as well for the best talent in the labor pool. And it is important to attract and retain good people in those important jobs, so, you see....sometimes, we must pay employees of our governments a good salary. Thats kinda how the free market works.

Name 10.

Hell, I will make it easy for you, name 1.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What principle are we talking about here, what is the job, and why does any government job come with a description of great paying in the first place?

Well, you see, SOME government jobs are difficult, and very important to society. And, well, the government must compete as well for the best talent in the labor pool. And it is important to attract and retain good people in those important jobs, so, you see....sometimes, we must pay employees of our governments a good salary. Thats kinda how the free market works.

Name 10.

Hell, I will make it easy for you, name 1.

Difficult and very important to society?

Police Officer
Fireman
Teacher
Social Worker

If we want to talk about really difficult and important, we can talk about the thousands of scientists, mathematicians, doctors, and computer scientists in NASA, NSA, DARPA, DoD, DoE, and nearly every other government agency.

 

[Londoner]

IN ORDER TO REMEDY HIS RECESSION, Reagan added government jobs - that's right, he increased the federal workforce - in order to boost employment and increase consumption

IN ORDER TO REMEDY HIS RECESSION, GW BUSH added government jobs - that's right, he increased the federal workforce - in order to boost employment and increase consumption.

IN ORDER TO REMEDY THE GREATEST RECESSION IN 70 YEARS, Obama was forced to decrease government jobs so that he would be prevented from boosting employment and increase consumption.

Reagan = increased federal workforce.

Bush I & II = increase federal workforce

Obama = decrease federal workforce.

Why don't Republicans know this?

 

[aaronleland]

I turned down a job as an intern for the Clinton White House during the 90s. I'm broke as hell, but I save money on drycleaning white stains off my clothes. Wait... ignore this post....

 

[Oldstyle]

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!!!

I'm baffled by the concept that believing in efficient government would somehow preclude someone from having a job in government. Are the only people allowed to work in government those who believe in big, wasteful and inefficient government?

 

[Oldstyle]

IN ORDER TO REMEDY HIS RECESSION, Reagan added government jobs - that's right, he increased the federal workforce - in order to boost employment and increase consumption

IN ORDER TO REMEDY HIS RECESSION, GW BUSH added government jobs - that's right, he increased the federal workforce - in order to boost employment and increase consumption.

IN ORDER TO REMEDY THE GREATEST RECESSION IN 70 YEARS, Obama was forced to decrease government jobs so that he would be prevented from boosting employment and increase consumption.

Reagan = increased federal workforce.

Bush I & II = increase federal workforce

Obama = decrease federal workforce.

Why don't Republicans know this?

The Federal workforce has not decreased under Obama. Why don't "you" know this?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Gallagher runs off half-cocked regularly. I heard the show in question...he did not have all the facts initially.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

I retired as a millionaire

You're welcome, parasite.

 

[SuperDave]

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 reality, however, is that a government worker's pay is usually considerably less than the pay for the equivalent private sector job. They just get better benefits.

What you posted is accurate historically but is no longer the case. Not only do government jobs have better benefits but over the last several years a large majority of government jobs have caught up with and passed, in many cases significantly, the pay of equivalent private sector jobs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

You forget: the cops also get gold-plated benefits and, of course, the ability to retire around 55 with a huge pension!

Note also: cops don't have a particularly dangerous job. I am more likely to die on the job than a cop is.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I can just see all the Bubba's now explaining to their fat wives: "Honey, the government offered me a job. It pays 3X more than we make now. The benefits are pretty good. BUT...I'm not taking it! I have principles to uphold, and I will not abide by Barack Obama's big government dream, I told them to take their job and shove it. The Founders did not mean for this to be reality, and I............." (Wife slamming the door shut as she leaves).

If I took a government job, I think Liz would divorce me.

 

[editec]

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!!!

Many of the RWers I see are proud of having been living off the government teat for much of their careers.

They are military retired or they work for the military as civilian employees. (often BOTH, they did their 20 then they went to work as civilians working for the military..double dippers)

But somehow they never consider that career as being socialist.

there is NOTHING more socialist than our miliatry.