Obama: "Nothing More Important" Than A Government Job

I was medically retired from the military after 17 years service, unfortunately the military is the only thing useful about the government, as Thomas Jefferson advocated, a politics should be considered parttime work, and politicians should have a real job and just meet once a year for a couple of weeks to consider real problems, instead of making it a career to see how much of our money they could spend and how to get more of it from us.

reply to post by zookey


You could say the same about private workers. Big difference though. The private corporation has to make a profit, hence they have a motivation to rid themselves of slackers. You don't have to buy a product or service from any company that is inefficiently run.

We have no choice with respect to government. When you drive by the road work and there are 8 gents there, two working and 6 standing about having a smoke and shooting the breeze, you might think those jobs are vital to the society, I don't. When you go to a government office and they have 9 customer windows, 3 lines open for business with 6 closed and a dozen folks milling about inside the office while tax payers are queued up to the door, you might think that office is filled with vital workers, I do not. You might think that the folks who run the Peanut museum in Georgia are vital to the nation's interest, I do not. Most of the functions performed by the government are harmful to society, let alone vital. What they are is vital to the government

His comments, to me, speaks to his belief that government solves everything; creates, everything...IS everything.

Obama does not respect, IMO, the free enterprise system...capitOlism (all good flowing from centralized governemnt) is his mindset.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Ive worked several government jobs over the decades and was always threatened with termination for getting things done, doing too much, and refusing to write blank checks without shopping around.

It's still like pulling teeth to convince some of the higher ups to let go of their long held partnerships because the taxpayer is getting screwed so hard on every purchase we make.

They all look at me like Im from another planet for not just stamping a seal of approval on every expense that crosses my desk.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by zookey

Please don't think I'm picking on you, (you probably already know I not that kind of member);

The private corporation has to make a profit, hence they have a motivation to rid themselves of slackers.

Well, I don't know about that.... perhaps the owner of a business would agree... but I have seen too many instances of Peter principle achievement in private corporations, 'relatives' of owners, "people who knew the right people' to get a job (even if THEY weren't the right people for it), employees who's success is based upon 'social' or 'aesthetic' factors, and all manner of 'excuses' which enabled slackers, do-nothings, butt-kissers, and wastes of human flesh to rise to positions where their entire function is to 'delegate' and engage in 'meetings' (social gatherings). But you have a point... somewhat.

You don't have to buy a product or service from any company that is inefficiently run.

Really? Like banks, telecommunications companies, insurance companies, medical centers? How about media producers, food services, energy utilities, internet service providers.?

The truth is, when you follow the money trail, true competition is increasingly rare and usually is limited to small privately owned businesses which are scraping along to survive. Those real businesses which so desperately want us to believe they are vital to our economy are generally owned by the same couple of hundred people.... you can;t escape them; it's why they are so big... they are consolidated and frequently conspire to fix prices and legislation to enforce our dependence on them. They are not too big to fail because of how 'smartly' they run their business... they are too big to fail because they have leverage over those who make policy in government.... namely their future employees.

We have no choice with respect to government. When you drive by the road work and there are 8 gents there, two working and 6 standing about having a smoke and shooting the breeze, you might think those jobs are vital to the society, I don't. When you go to a government office and they have 9 customer windows, 3 lines open for business with 6 closed and a dozen folks milling about inside the office while tax payers are queued up to the door, you might think that office is filled with vital workers, I do not. You might think that the folks who run the Peanut museum in Georgia are vital to the nation's interest, I do not.

But we do have a choice.... at least in theory... for now.... we don't have to tolerate the management principles that engender waste and inefficiency... we could demand that government policy-makers take responsibility for the operations we pay them to oversee. They are quick enough to demand 'pay for performance for teachers' why not for them? It is not a labor of rocket science to forge a proposal for the ballot box. Many communities have done so. A well-crafted proposal could eliminate at least some of the abuses you see on the roads and in the local government offices (those are many times 'state' level things, but the principle is the same).

As for your examples I cannot alter the facts. But I do expect that at some point in time many people have had efficient service provided to them, to list only the abuses seems incomplete. In most cases there is a responsible person to whom the scrutiny must be applied... that it is not is telling of the local culture, not the government as a 'blanket' singular entity (which in fact does not exist.)

Most of the functions performed by the government are harmful to society, let alone vital. What they are is vital to the government

I think that's a bit of hyperbole there. It's forgivable because I agree it has gone beyond the point of ignoring it and the abuses are apparently accepted as 'the way it is.' But we do need a way to exist as a nation state in this world, or we will be victims to those who have a monopoly on power. As a nation - we demand equality across all measurements of social conduct.... until such time as we can rely on people to be completely fair and civil to each other - and not prey upon others - we need government.

You see there has to be a way to coexist while disagreeing, to debate without conflict, and to secure the ability for all to pursue life, liberty, and prosperity without engendering theft, oppression, and tyranny.

Many government functions run astray of the mark because they were not put in place for 'everyone'; they were put in place for 'someone specific.'

Originally posted by dolphinfan
Really? He states clearly "And it frustrates me sometimes when people talk about 'government jobs' as if somehow those are worth less than private sector jobs. I think there is nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people"

And that doesn't require your interpretation, yet you give it. You take his words, turn them around and then tell us what he said.

Excuse me, but I can read. I don't need your interpretation, inference or your bastardized quote to know what he said.

You can infer what you want about the comments, but that is what the man said.

You CLEARLY inferred what you wanted and are passing your interpretation off as a fact.

Fact is, what he said stands for itself. Without your help.

In fact, a lot of you are giving your own interpretation of his words. What matters is what he said, not what you think he meant.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

In fact, a lot of you are giving your own interpretation of his words. What matters is what he said, not what you think he meant.

You do understand that everyone interprets things differently right? I find it amazing that you continually argue " Facts " or " Evidence " , and yet have no respect for anyones thoughts or views.

Why are you even here?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I did not infer anything nor bastardize his quote. His quote stands and there is no room for intrepretation. He was speaking about government jobs directly as his comment was directed to a woman who had just lost her government job. He stated that government jobs were of equal importance to private sector jobs. He said that there was nothing more vital than working for the american people, which in the context of the setting and comments clearly refers to government jobs.

You can agree with his assessment of the value of these jobs, fine. You can also choose to infer something else in what he said.

If that makes you feel better, go for it

Originally posted by Realms
You do understand that everyone interprets things differently right?

Right. That's why none of these interpretations matter. What matters is what he said, not the various interpretations (spin) people put on it.

I find it amazing that you continually argue " Facts " or " Evidence " , and yet have no respect for anyones thoughts or views.

Do you understand that facts and evidence are something different from thoughts and views? I respect everyone's right to have and voice their views, but I don't respect them passing them off as facts, especially when the quote of Obama's gets so mangled, depending on who interprets it.

A partial quote, as the title shows is a clear sign that someone is spinning the quote and wants to illicit a certain response.

Why are you even here?

You want to know about me personally and why I'm here? Listen

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

not the various interpretations (spin) people put on it.

Peoples comments are deemed " SPIN" when it doesn't correlate with your argument right. yeah, I've seen a few of your posts before. If the opinion of others differ from your own, you discard it as spin. Ok...I see where this is going.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
What he said was:
"I think there is nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people."

What you twisted it as:
"Nothing More Important" Than A Government Job

It's a misquote on your behalf. A slight misquote but still a misquote, driven by your bias.

The rules for posting in the Breaking Alternative News forum is that the title of the thread must match the title of the article in the link.

If you'll listen to the woman in the video, she clearly states that she "...took a job with the federal government thinking it was a secure job.." Is this the mentality of people who seek government jobs? Did she not admit that her job was a non-essential job? If it was a non-essential job, then her 'services' were never needed in the first place. This lady is in a situation that is no different from tens of millions of other Americans. I've got news for this lady: There is no such thing as a secure job. I'm sorry but I don't have any sympathy for this lady. Jobs that rely on the taxpayer for pay, with the exception of military and law enforcement, are a burden especially when there is smaller tax base to collect from.

Obama did nothing more than appease to her because he was in front of a camera. There are many jobs in government that can be done more efficiently within the private sector.

If it was up to Obama and his ilk, half of the country would work for law enforcement/government and the other half would be in jail.

Originally posted by Realms
Peoples comments are deemed " SPIN" when it doesn't correlate with your argument right.

Wrong. When I see a partial quote (as in the title of the thread and article) my red flag goes up and I want to see the exact quote, not a few words taken out and rearranged to make a headline.

yeah, I've seen a few of your posts before.

Yes, you have said that before. I'm flattered. But you never have shown examples of what you claim are in my posts, so pardon me for reiterating, but your opinion is one thing. Proof is quite another.

Thanks for your opinion, though. Really, if my posts bother you so much, listen to the PODcast. Everything there still holds true as to why I'm here.

reply to post by Deebo


I agree that there are entirely too many government jobs, but some of them do save the taxpayer money….just not enough of them.

I used to be a Mil-Tech, working for Dept of the Army. These jobs were not created, but rather down-sized. Instead of a Soldier filling these slots, they turned them into GS positions. A GS-7 makes half of what an E-7 makes, but in my case, have many more responsibilities as a civilian than a Soldier. We also had to be actively drilling members of our Reserve unit. Made for some long weeks. It pains me to say, but deployments were less stressful than my job.

Yes, it is a pain in the butt to get rid of low-performers, but can be done if you document everything. Performance counseling works wonders dealing with a problem child, sometimes it even fixes them. In the Private sector, most cases, they just show you the door for poor performance. Little to no warning.

My beef with all these Government jobs boils down to simple math. The tax base is just not there to support a Government this size. Even if we cut entitlement programs, Defense research and procurement, pork projects, etc, it will still eventually collapse under its own weight under the current tax rates if the economy stays the way it is, or gets worse. There are too many people to pay, many with little to no oversight, who really don’t produce anything.

We must look at what the various Governmental programs expenditures are and cut, slash or eliminate them. Along with the jobs that support them. Keep those positions which allows the Government to function, get rid of the majority of the executive level positions and chop mid-management by a third. Then we must let the various defense industries actually spend their own money on research and open bid contracts. Remember, we went from prop driven planes at the beginning of WWII and were well on the way to a jet Air Force by the end. And many of us here have seen what happens when creative minds are unleashed.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I listened, and your own words you claim you like psychology, thought, and the expression of thought, and yet have the audacity to question someones views, which are an expression of thought? Um... confused much? I understand what you're saying, but saying one thing, and doing a complete opposite contradicts that which you wish to decry.

* side note * Figured you were female, but never put you on as a sexy voice!


ETA: You stated in your podcast that you " expect " personal accountability, but I've noticed you tend to defend Obama alot. When do you suppose he'll be made to take responsibility for his actions, and the actions of his cabinet..and stop the blame game with Bush?

Originally posted by Realms
I listened, and your own words you claim you like psychology, thought, and the expression of thought, and yet have the audacity to question someones views, which are an expression of thought?

If I disagree with someone's views, I will absolutely question them. Don't you? Isn't that what we do here every day, in fact? That doesn't mean I don't think they should express their views. I'm not trying to shut people up, here. I'm just expressing MY views. You can agree, disagree or question them to your heart's content. No audacity needed.

The president said something and this article and some posters here have taken his words, moved them around, placed their own interpretation on those words and then made a statement that he said something totally different than what he said. That doesn't sit well with me.

* side note * Figured you were female, but never put you on as a sexy voice!

Thanks.

ETA: I don't want to take this thread further off topic, so I will answer your Obama question in a message to you.
.

reply to post by dolphinfan



How did

"I think there is nothing more important than working on behalf of the American people."

Turn into

Obama: "Nothing More Important" Than A Government Job


???


It is sad what many of you do, you cannot make a contrived argument by distorting and confabulating.

This guy, in his life could have been a VERY WELL PAID lawyer, yet he desired to be involved in community
organization, getting paid less, to do what he believed in...

Is it hard for you to accept that some people believe in public service?

Military is the same principle... I don't get you guys

How about nothing more important than the change you promised obama before being falsely elected? or how about..nothing more important than fixing the american economy and jobs being more important? h soudns very for new world order...he shoulda said... nothings more imporatnt than a new world order job

I agree his words got tweaked a bit. We will always need public employees, the government agencies can hire them or their services could be bought from a contractor.

Which would you prefer, government employees or Halliburton contracted employees?

I agree with you entirely on that. The problem with short term privately contracted services is there is no loyalty to the community or infrastructure delivering services and often times no familiarity with the communities impacted. They bid on a short term contracts and have no accountability as to what happens next after the job is completed...from what I've see large contractors also have a tendency to hire illegal workers and people who only care about getting one or two paychecks.

A longer term government or federal employee with some job security and a future will have more loyalty to the job and communities that they serve. They will also have to account for the quality of work once it done or as part of a bigger picture whereas a short term contractor does minimal job and gets out of there without so much concern about what happens next. A professional will act more responsibly and know the community or lands' impact and a longer term vision.