kallend 2,026 #76 September 26, 2005 QuoteQuoteGood for you, but are you as a private individual obliged to pay a "prevailing wage" to independent contractors, then? I think this is apples and oranges. That is the point. It shouldn't be apples and oranges. Why shouldn't contracting from the government have any more restrictions than contracting locally, or personally. . Simple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #77 September 26, 2005 QuoteSimple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is. setting a "prevailing wage" is also a distortion of free market. Every roofer is not able to work the same. when I hire someone it's based on his/her skill and speed and/or ability to learn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #78 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteSimple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is. setting a "prevailing wage" is also a distortion of free market. Every roofer is not able to work the same. when I hire someone it's based on his/her skill and speed and/or ability to learn. This is the kind of guy setting White House policy on contracting. Nice, eh? Another. He is the guy who authored the no-bid (aka help your cronies get rich) contracting policy for Katrina reconstruction work.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #79 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- setting a "prevailing wage" is also a distortion of free market. Every roofer is not able to work the same. when I hire someone it's based on his/her skill and speed and/or ability to learn. address what I said please Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #80 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- setting a "prevailing wage" is also a distortion of free market. Every roofer is not able to work the same. when I hire someone it's based on his/her skill and speed and/or ability to learn. address what I said please What you wrote is based on a false premise so I can't address it. How do you like Bush's guy in charge of Katrina contracts, then (at least, he was until arrested by the FBI).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #81 September 27, 2005 QuoteWhat you wrote is based on a false premise so I can't address it. I knew you wouldn't address it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #82 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuotethink its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour, thats the problem another fine example of how you know nothing about which you speak. ? yea and what of what i said would be untrue, another fine example of how you know nothing about what you speak Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #83 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuotethink its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour, thats the problem another fine example of how you know nothing about which you speak. ? yea and what of what i said would be untrue, another fine example of how you know nothing about what you speak Show where that is happening (and the direct connection to Bush) and you might get people to believe you...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
busaunit 0 #84 September 27, 2005 well lets see what happeneds when contract time comes around see if its anything like iraq contracts. or lets put this another way oil contracters earn around 10000 to any where up to 40000 a month and the armed forces guys earn around 4000 a month sounds like cheap labor to me what job do you think deserves more money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #85 September 27, 2005 I've felt for quite a long time that the military is underpaid, even when I was in. Maybe especially when I was in! Of course, the military does have other benifits that help defray things. They're still underpaid, IMO. With that said: Should an ambulance driver be paid the same as an M.D., too? Different jobs have different pay rates.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #86 September 27, 2005 Quotewell lets see what happeneds when contract time comes around see if its anything like iraq contracts. or lets put this another way oil contracters earn around 10000 to any where up to 40000 a month and the armed forces guys earn around 4000 a month sounds like cheap labor to me what job do you think deserves more money. Sorry man. Contractors have almost ALWAYS been paid more than Ferderal employees. That is not just a Bush thing.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #87 September 27, 2005 yeah, but John, don't you know, when they circumvent the rules it is because that is cheaper than going through a bid process and doing all the paperwork involved. It has nothing to do with giving work to buddies. You obviously have no clue about federal or governmental procurement... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #88 September 27, 2005 Gold star for youMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #89 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhat you wrote is based on a false premise so I can't address it. I knew you wouldn't address it I have addressed it to the extent of pointing out that what you wrote was factually incorrect. Commenting further is a waste of time.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #90 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteGood for you, but are you as a private individual obliged to pay a "prevailing wage" to independent contractors, then? I think this is apples and oranges. That is the point. It shouldn't be apples and oranges. Why shouldn't contracting from the government have any more restrictions than contracting locally, or personally. . Simple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is. Nuts - I said why have 'more' restrictions. Not the same restrictions. You want feds to pay more than everyone else. Why is that? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #91 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGood for you, but are you as a private individual obliged to pay a "prevailing wage" to independent contractors, then? I think this is apples and oranges. That is the point. It shouldn't be apples and oranges. Why shouldn't contracting from the government have any more restrictions than contracting locally, or personally. . Simple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is. Nuts - I said why have 'more' restrictions. Not the same restrictions. You want feds to pay more than everyone else. Why is that? because the Fed could easily undercut everyone, thus making them more in control. Take for example the Census bureau. As it stand, the Bureau is somewhat unique in that it competes with private sector for special surveys. However, since the Bureau, as part of the Federal government, is able to produce such surveys on a very cheap basis, it is not allowed to bid for contracts. It must be approached so that other survey companies are able to maintain their business. If the Bureau was allowed to bid, it would surely be the lowest bid and the result would be government control of that business.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #92 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethink its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour, thats the problem another fine example of how you know nothing about which you speak. ? yea and what of what i said would be untrue, another fine example of how you know nothing about what you speak Show where that is happening (and the direct connection to Bush) and you might get people to believe you... David Safavian, who until Friday headed the "obscure but extremely important" federal procurement office in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was arrested yesterday, accused by federal agents of "lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government." In his position at the OMB, Safavian set purchasing policy for the entire government, and "had recently been working on developing contracting policies for the multibillion-dollar relief effort after Hurricane Katrina."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #93 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGood for you, but are you as a private individual obliged to pay a "prevailing wage" to independent contractors, then? I think this is apples and oranges. That is the point. It shouldn't be apples and oranges. Why shouldn't contracting from the government have any more restrictions than contracting locally, or personally. . Simple - the government, with its coercive and quasi-monopoly power, should not be in the business of undercutting private enterprise. Authorizing government contractors to pay workers less than the normal laws of supply and demand warrant is a distortion of the free market just as much as setting a minimum wage is. Nuts - I said why have 'more' restrictions. Not the same restrictions. You want feds to pay more than everyone else. Why is that? Where does this say "more"? The Davis-Bacon law requires federal contractors to pay workers at least the prevailing wages in the area where the work is conducted.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #94 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotethink its more like bushes mate get more like $100 an hour and 2 people {plebs} get $3.50 an hour, thats the problem another fine example of how you know nothing about which you speak. ? yea and what of what i said would be untrue, another fine example of how you know nothing about what you speak Show where that is happening (and the direct connection to Bush) and you might get people to believe you... David Safavian, who until Friday headed the "obscure but extremely important" federal procurement office in the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was arrested yesterday, accused by federal agents of "lying and obstructing a criminal investigation into Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff's dealings with the federal government." In his position at the OMB, Safavian set purchasing policy for the entire government, and "had recently been working on developing contracting policies for the multibillion-dollar relief effort after Hurricane Katrina." And the link between these companies and Bush are....? By your logic, I could say that Clinton committed a security breach because Sandy "Sock Man" Berger stole sensitive materials...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #95 September 27, 2005 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.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #96 September 27, 2005 QuoteIf the Bureau was allowed to bid, it would surely be the lowest bid and the result would be government control of that business. So, the liberals (sorry democrats) want the government to control all business. But they also want the government to pay more than private industry could negotiate. But removing the 'pay more' law -which they don't want- will result in government control -which they do want-. yet I thought the philosophy was to do whatever it takes to realize the end goal of total socialism. So which takes priority. I guess the whole takeaway point here is that Bush-evil, approved removing the 'prevailing rate' requirement thus pushing us that much closer to socialism. So actually, Bush is a closet Democrat and has been all along. Now it all makes sense. It's very confusing (also very tongue in cheek) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #97 September 27, 2005 If true, its a brillant move, allowing NO to be built faster, better...and cut out all the local corruption. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #98 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf the Bureau was allowed to bid, it would surely be the lowest bid and the result would be government control of that business. So, the liberals (sorry democrats) want the government to control all business. But they also want the government to pay more than private industry could negotiate. But removing the 'pay more' law -which they don't want- will result in government control -which they do want-. yet I thought the philosophy was to do whatever it takes to realize the end goal of total socialism. So which takes priority. Very good, but not true. The purpose of the act is to prevent the enormous coercive and monopoly power of the government from distorting wages negotiated in the free private labor market in that locality. Funny that Republicans support government intervention in free markets when it suits the interests of business owners, but oppose it when it supports the interests of wage earners.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #99 September 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteIf the Bureau was allowed to bid, it would surely be the lowest bid and the result would be government control of that business. So, the liberals (sorry democrats) want the government to control all business. But they also want the government to pay more than private industry could negotiate. But removing the 'pay more' law -which they don't want- will result in government control -which they do want-. yet I thought the philosophy was to do whatever it takes to realize the end goal of total socialism. So which takes priority. I guess the whole takeaway point here is that Bush-evil, approved removing the 'prevailing rate' requirement thus pushing us that much closer to socialism. So actually, Bush is a closet Democrat and has been all along. Now it all makes sense. It's very confusing (also very tongue in cheek) Holy shit...you are damn right that was confusing. Maybe you could try that again....my head hurts. The "pay more" is what? The prevailing wage thing? I thought Democrats wanted to keep it? The would be applicable to only private companies I thought. My example only applied to the Fed doing things at a higher price when it comes to work in the private sector . But I think my example was out of tune with your post anyway, so ignore me doing this. Bottom line for me: Government should not be doing private sector work, but if they do, they should have restictions on bidding because otherwise they undercut everyone...and in the end, WE ALL pay for it.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #100 September 27, 2005 QuoteFunny that Republicans support government intervention in free markets when it suits the interests of business owners, but oppose it when it supports the interests of wage earners. Funny that both parties have criteria where they feel compelled to intervene in the free market when the free market can take care of itself just fine, thank you. It's not that 'free' if you think about it. It's also funny that when a government action takes place to remove a specific instance of interference, it's railed on by anyone that can make a political point - related or not. [It is not in the interest of wage earners to artificially inflate wages in obsolete trades. Better to encourage change and growth - see entry - buggy whips] ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
