I just had a friend tell me this.

[mikkey 0]

Seems like the US government has a tendency to "throw" money at business when a problem occurs due to lack of planning (same in Iraq). Found this article form the Washington Post on a news web site down here:

Quote

Cruisy deal for relief ships
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington
September 29, 2005


AS TENS of thousands of desperate people packed the New Orleans Superdome and convention centre after hurricane Katrina struck, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency pleaded with the US Military Sealift Command.

The Government needed 10,000 berths on full-service cruise ships, FEMA said on September 1, and it needed the deal done by noon the next day.

The hasty appeal two days after Katrina hit yielded one of the most controversial contracts of the hurricane relief operation — a $US236 million ($A312 million) agreement with Carnival Cruise Lines for three ships that now bob more than half-empty in the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay.

The six-month contract — defended by Carnival but castigated by politicians — has come to exemplify the cost of haste that followed Katrina's strike and FEMA's lack of preparation.

To critics, the price is exorbitant. If the ships were full with 7116 evacuees for six months, the price per evacuee would total $US1275 a week, according to calculations by aides to Republican senator Tom Coburn.

A seven-day Caribbean cruise from the Gulf Coast port of Galveston costs $599 a person — including entertainment and the cost of making the ship move.

"When the Federal Government would actually save millions of dollars by forgoing the status quo and actually sending evacuees on a luxurious six-month cruise, it is time to rethink how we are conducting oversight," Senator Coburn said, calling for a chief financial officer to oversee Katrina spending. "A short-term, temporary solution has turned into a long-term, grossly overpriced, sweetheart deal for a cruise line

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[kallend 2,026]

It's all OK, they'll save the money by paying below prevailing wage rates to workers.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Anvilbrother 0]

No they will not work faster, just provide the state with crappier work in the end with roads that buckle sink and crack, bridges that wash out, or the supports wash away, buildings that roofs leak and grow mold so that you have to put on a new roof and have a mold company come in and clean up/replace everything.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

You're the head of the physics department. One of the other professors which you hired is found to be sleeping with female students in exchange for good grades. Do you deserve to be terminated along with the guilty underling, because the buck should stop at the top, and you should be responsible for everyone underneath you?

If I appointed him out of cronyism, then yes.

Well, now we've reached the end of an interesting exchange, and a corresponding interesting shift in position on your part. It's just too bad that we have to drag these more reasonable statements out of you with a tow truck.

Recap. You started out with this statement:

The buck ought to stop in the office of the guy who appointed Safavian (and, for than matter, Brownie) but the concept of the guy at the top being responsible for anything at all seems to have got lost on you.

Note that in this quote, your statement against "the guy at the top" was unequivocal and absolute: the guy at the top should be fired for anything that any of his underlings do wrong. Period!

But when I put you in the shoes of the guy at the top with an example, all of a sudden you switched gears, and claimed that this principle now only applied if "cronyism" was involved.

So you went from an absolutist position against Bush, to one of setting qualifying conditions for yourself. How fun that was to watch you tap dance to try and save yourself.

But you've finally arrived at the correct outcome. The guy at the top is not always responsible for things that are done wrong by his underlings. Top Guy should be held accountable only if he had some involvement or culpability in the wrong-doing.

And that applies not just for you Kallend, but also for President Bush.

[Treejumps 0]

Davis Bacon can only make employers pay their workers more. If DB regulated jobs payed less than market rate, workers would go elsewhere and get market rates. There is a shortage of skilled construction labor nationwide. Workers don't need to protection of Uncle Sam to get fair pay.

Illegal immigrant labor is far more likely to cause a reduction in construction wages than DB.

BTW, I was in sign contracting for years. I remember seeing the DB schedule for wages on these jobs (DC area) and I could not believe what they required wages for electricians. The lowest was in the low $20 per hour and some where $45 and up. In the real world these skills were worth anywhere from $10 to $30 and hour (this was 15 years ago).

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're the head of the physics department. One of the other professors which you hired is found to be sleeping with female students in exchange for good grades. Do you deserve to be terminated along with the guilty underling, because the buck should stop at the top, and you should be responsible for everyone underneath you?

If I appointed him out of cronyism, then yes.

Well, now we've reached the end of an interesting exchange, and a corresponding interesting shift in position on your part. It's just too bad that we have to drag these more reasonable statements out of you with a tow truck.

Recap. You started out with this statement:

The buck ought to stop in the office of the guy who appointed Safavian (and, for than matter, Brownie) but the concept of the guy at the top being responsible for anything at all seems to have got lost on you.

Note that in this quote, your statement against "the guy at the top" was unequivocal and absolute: the guy at the top should be fired for anything that any of his underlings do wrong. Period!

But when I put you in the shoes of the guy at the top with an example, all of a sudden you switched gears, and claimed that this principle now only applied if "cronyism" was involved.

So you went from an absolutist position against Bush, to one of setting qualifying conditions for yourself. How fun that was to watch you tap dance to try and save yourself.

But you've finally arrived at the correct outcome. The guy at the top is not always responsible for things that are done wrong by his underlings. Top Guy should be held accountable only if he had some involvement or culpability in the wrong-doing.

And that applies not just for you Kallend, but also for President Bush.

Bush appointed an incompetent crony and apparently also a crook. His responsibility. End of story.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.