Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (150511)	12/11/2005 11:28:00 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793783

Well Carrranza - I do not think the feds should pay for 95% of the cost. Additionally, any spending should be controlled by a reconstruction Czar of some sort with the authority to controll and prosecute contract corruption of all types. Levees are only part of the problem - a friend on Lake Ponchatrain had about 8 ft of water go through his house. Should he get 95% of his costs reimbursed? Should all people who live in a flood plain be covered by the feds up to 95%? It is a far bigger issue than levees. Bob

To: carranza2 who wrote (150511)	12/11/2005 6:16:39 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793783

From what I recall of reading about the levee cases in court, it is not obvious to me that mainly to the Corps of Engineers were the reason cat. 3 levees were not in place. I seem to recall a judge who said it was OK.