Caitlin Clark Snubbed
- Thread starter DDE-6-20-23
- Start date
There's a difference between criticizing a policy or political stance and a personal insult.
You do not have your rights being taken away from you.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I would like for entrenched and unelected government workers to get shuffled in an out. Perhaps this would not be the best way to do this, but I would like to see it done. It is healthy for our democracy.
Those people, many of them black would be replaced by with trumps sycophants. They are the people who kiss the ring or his ^^^.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
But what about when a Democrat is in office again? Wouldn't they get to choose who they want to be there? I don't think Trump would kick black people out just because they are black. He always tries to get the best person for the job. It's what he does.
The cost too train every federal employee every 4/8 years would be astronomical.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
There is no reason to attack my ministry. We can agree or disagree. That is fine.
Keep reading... he's like the Steph Curry of dumb. Entertaining at times ..
Basically a perfect cartoon caricature of everything wrong with evangelicals. To the point that many believe he's a parody account making fun of evangelicals..
If you support that makes it even more clear it’s a stupid idea.
A fair point. But we need to drastically roll back civil service protections. Make it easier to bring layoffs when required (like now). Make them at-will employees.
If an administration cuts too much. They will be judged on it at the ballot box.
I prefer the people at the DMV and the county clerk's office have a lot of experience.
Just sayin’. Does VanPastor not realize that there hundreds of thousands of public employees?
Millions. And the vast majority are working schlubs just trying to do their jobs and serve the public as best they can.
And if their job functions are duplicative or easily automated? If an administration decides to narrow the scope and focus of a particular agency? Or if the executive branch just wants to roll back spending across the board?
Existing protections still would apply to them.
Most of these Departments have the budgets of Fortune 100 companies. The fact that you can essentially only fire someone if they get caught stealing or drinking on the job is unfathomable. It also creates a culture of indifference and mediocrity.
That’s not true in any sense. As an example, Twitter has higher daily traffic than ever before after Elon put in place a sizable headcount reduction.
I suspect you will/ would find similar bloat if you roll back the curtains on these executive agencies.
I’ve worked for the AGs Office and as a prosecutor. The only reason attorneys were there was for a simpler lifestyle. Everyone could have been making more. Throw in the stress of private practice and everyone would have quit.
Ah people seeking less responsibility is EXACTLY who we want in the Federal government.
You tell on yourself.
Lol. You’re not living in the real world. People want to get paid for stress. There is no reason to have it for less money. You just go to the private sector. That’s the deal with government jobs…..Good benefits and less stress for less pay.
I guess in a perfect world for non-government workers the government workers would ignore a free-market economy.
Conceivably you could increase the salaries of Federal employees, while reducing headcount and still come out ahead.
I’d offer you a counter example. Private School teachers on average make less than their Public Counter parts despite their students far outperforming public school kids.
Why? Because at the end of the day it’s not about the salary. It’s about do nothing, mediocrities being drawn to government work like moths to a flame.
You’re pretty much going to get the same deal either way. You want double the work it’s going to cost you double the pay.
Similar threads
