Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Ricechex
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
Participant“I think the Governor could easily eliminate 20% of all gov’t employees with minimal impact to the state.”
Paramount–it would only APPEAR that way. That 20% gov’t workers(and that will be the lower rung, not the higher paid folks) will be outsourced, and instead of the money going to the workers, the money will go to one guy that heads up the contract. What that man will do is line his pockets with gold, get crappy and inefficient workers because he pays so low with poor benes, and the public will suffer. Their tax dollars are still be used for the same services.
Then, what will happen (and I have seen it), is anytime the gov’t needs more workers, they will give the money to the contractor to hire more workers. No bids, nada.
ParticipantOn the fence here…..my guess is most people won’t really vote for Clinton or Obama for president, so I am going for Edwards.
ParticipantOn the fence here…..my guess is most people won’t really vote for Clinton or Obama for president, so I am going for Edwards.
ParticipantOn the fence here…..my guess is most people won’t really vote for Clinton or Obama for president, so I am going for Edwards.
ParticipantOn the fence here…..my guess is most people won’t really vote for Clinton or Obama for president, so I am going for Edwards.
ParticipantOn the fence here…..my guess is most people won’t really vote for Clinton or Obama for president, so I am going for Edwards.
ParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
ParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
ParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
ParticipantYeah, I would think Rustico would! He lives in the city. We choose where we live and in many ways it represents so much about us, whether we like it or not. I could live in a fancy small apartment in La Jolla, or samll SFR in North Park. Give me 92104 any day. Aaah…hah…drawn it back to the housing market!
-
AuthorPosts
