From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: DOGE Slashes 3,600 Wasteful HHS Jobs-Saving Taxpayers $600
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 20:40:33 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2/19/25 19:57, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:07:50 -0800, Alan says...
>
>>
>> On 2025-02-17 17:49, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:14:30 -0500, -hh says...
>>>
>>>>> The implication was that some were working/staying at home, AND
>>>>> getting second jobs, outside of government work.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely: it is an innuendo that's unproven.
>>>
>>> Out of the 10s of thousands of Federal workers, and those who got to
>>> work at home, NONE of the thought to get a job at Wally World?
>
>> How would that be wrong
>
> WHO said it was "wrong"?
>
> I'd ask you if you've read all of my posts in this thread, but that goes without saying, so I guess it's a comprehension problem again. Fucking Cantnadian schools.
>
>> in any way provided they're meeting the obligations of their federal job?
>
> Go back and read ALL of my replies to -hh.
>
> I'll help you, you know... since you went to Cantgaydian schools.
>
> I'll capitalize that which you need to know.
>
> -hh was talking about someone implying something about how many govt. workers were getting second jobs and -hh said there weren't any or the percentage was too small. I said, "the implication was
> that some were working/staying at home, AND getting second jobs, OUTSIDE of GOVERNMENT WORK."
>
> Somewhere, I made the distinction between those who simply had second jobs and those who may have taken second GOVERNMENT jobs, which IS illegal. Working at Walmart would NOT be illegal, but frowned
> upon. The "implication" was to not take a second job either in GOVERNMENT, of a job that would cause a conflict of interest, like maybe working for a contractor or anyone else that works for or
> supplies the government. The company you whined about, West Publishing, would be a good example.
>
> I made the point to distinguish between taking a second job in the private sector as long as there was no conflict of interest and taking ANOTHER government job. I also said, "double-dipping" refers
> to and implies federal employees having two (or more) federal jobs at the same time."
>
> "The implication was that some were working/staying at home, AND getting second jobs, outside of government work", which IS legal.
>
>
> This is me explaining to -hh, that it has already been established, that taking a 2nd job is not "illegal":
>
> "Studies have already shown that some, not all, federal workers who got to work from home took 2nd jobs. THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS NOT 'ILLEGAL', unless the job conflicts with their federal job, or
> ANOTHER federal job."
Sorry, I don't recall seeing that particular part.
> This is -hh and me. HE made this remark and it sounded to me like he believed
> NO ONE was taking a second job, so I sarcastically replied.
Incorrect. I've specifically mentioned people I've known who've had
second jobs: bartender, construction GC's, a real estate guy...
...because my point was that the claimed "1%" of 40hrs/week in-office
workers was being used as innuendo that many of them had illegal
concurrent/interfering jobs. There's been no such proof.
>
> -hh: "Precisely: it is an innuendo that's unproven."
>
> A/C: "Out of the 10s of thousands of Federal workers, and those who got
> to work at home, NONE of the thought to get a job at Wally World? Riiiight."
Of course, having thoughts doesn't mean actually doing so. Agreed?
Bottom line is that there's still no documentation that's shows how many
teleworking Feds fraudulently took a 2nd job.
Sure, there's sure to be some .. there's always a few: I've seen some
"anonymous confession" posts from some Silicon Valley programmers who
seem have developed a scam of working for ~6 months before moving to
another employer to keep their resumé fairly clean, pulling in $200K at
2-3 jobs at the same time. But for Feds? Even though there's
invariably going to be a few, there's not been any evidence provided
that they've found even a dozen scammers yet. In the meantime, these
same "investigators" are so bad, they've claimed $8B savings on a $8M
contract: that's a 1000:1 error.
-hh