bascule Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 http://www.recovery.gov/ More of Obama's fresh approach to transparency. You think any spending bill more than say, $10 billion would come with a web site. Glad to see this stuff. (and for those of you who weren't aware, Obama signed the stimulus bill into law yesterday) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 What does "Protecting the Vulnerable" mean and why does it cost $81,000,000,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 What does "Protecting the Vulnerable" mean and why does it cost $81,000,000,000? Start reading at pg 332. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Many open source zealots have noted this site is running Drupal, an open source CMS That's pretty sweet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 If this web site is promotional and biased in the plan's favor, as opposed to clear and expository, then can it really be said to be an example of "transparency"? Or, for that matter, "change"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 If this web site is promotional and biased in the plan's favor, as opposed to clear and expository, then can it really be said to be an example of "transparency"? I'd say so, yeah. Bothering to make such a detailed case directly to the people in such an easily accessibly way is pretty unusual, no? What would you suggest they have instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 There's a lot to be said about transparency... like how nobody in congress read the 11k page bill before passing it, because there wasn't enough time, the promise of 5 days to read it wasn't granted and Obama was pressuring everyone to rush it through. They seem to talk a lot about where the money is going, but not where its coming from... How will the economy deal when it comes time to actually pay for this thing (on top of the 10 trill. we already owe) Like that kind of transparency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 If this web site is promotional and biased in the plan's favor, as opposed to clear and expository, then can it really be said to be an example of "transparency"? Or, for that matter, "change"? Obama claims they'll replace the estimates with the actual spending figures when it is spent. That's pretty sweet. Is there a similar web site for the $700b bailout where I can see exactly how much money the "Office of Financial Stability" has given out, and to whom? If not, it might explain why it took so long to catch this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Start reading at pg 332.http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf Thanks iNow!! For those who have not read that far....page332 refers to..... Subtitle B—Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals SEC. 2101. EMERGENCY FUND FOR TANF PROGRAM. I didn't know what TANF was, so I looked it up....... "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program became the TANF Bureau within the Office of Family Assistance in May 2006." "Under the welfare reform legislation of 1996, (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act – PWRORA – Public Law 104-193), TANF replaced the welfare programs known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program. The law ended federal entitlement to assistance and instead created TANF as a block grant that provides States, territories and tribes federal funds each year. These funds cover benefits, administrative expenses, and services targeted to needy families. TANF became effective July 1, 1997, and was reauthorized in February 2006 under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005." http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/tanf/about.html It's $81,000,000,000 in Welfare to be given away as each state sees fit. I think. Anyone have a different perspective/interpretation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 http://www.recovery.gov/ More of Obama's fresh approach to transparency. You think any spending bill more than say, $10 billion would come with a web site. Glad to see this stuff. (and for those of you who weren't aware, Obama signed the stimulus bill into law yesterday) Transparency??? Do you think 1100+ pages of 100% questionable/arguable programs to CREATE JOBS, stimulate the consumer can be clarified in one short webb site... Did you know; Puerto Rico, will receive 23 Billion nearly the 24 Billion California will receive. Did you know PR is not even a State and has a total 74B GDP, compared to California's 1,700B (1.7T). Did you know PR has 4 M people, compared to 36M in California. Did you know these dollars were 15B, then cut but came back as 23B. Did you know Senator Reid's Las Vegas, will get a monorail from the LA area to LV, that was originally listed at 2B, cut and came back just before printing as an 8B$ project. I would bet, not one project with a said cost could be justified by any project manager and we have a couple, three on this site. Aside from that, no matter what Block Grants are given to any State, or what is said will be used for the suggested purpose. The probability is they will be thrown into general funds, used first to square State deficits, other needed projects or just used for future problems. In PR, some may go to promoting Statehood, in turn generate 7 Electoral votes, 5 House and 2 Senators, with a 99% probability voting Democrat. No State, that I know of list on the Webb every expense and certainly not going to start with this amount of extra cash. DrDNA; That 81B is extra, with a good share of mandated or discretionary funds allocated by Congress each year designed to cover those cost. Obama is now working on a program to finance housing, in part for the same people that 81B was intended to help. Think about another 80B. Whats really bad, is thousands of those trying to keep up with Taxes/Payments will now quit trying, with additional millions wondering just whats going on...while they have always tried to keep up with obligations, now having to pay toward others, who have not. It's going to get messy. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 And YET ANOTHER thread which has gone off topic so people can vent about their anger and frustration about the stimulus package and bailout. Wow... We're on a role guys. This thread is about our ability to read the laws, to see them... It doesn't matter how long they are or how long the congress people were pressured to move quickly. The deeper issue here is that the citizens are being invited to participate in a more complete way... to review and provide feedback... and you guys are shitting all over the process b/c you are too lazy to read the whole thing and too angry to say anything other than "this who stimulus sucks." Give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 19, 2009 Author Share Posted February 19, 2009 Transparency??? Do you think 1100+ pages of 100% questionable/arguable programs to CREATE JOBS, stimulate the consumer can be clarified in one short webb site... Yes, because among other things it provides a transparent reporting mechanism for where the money is going which is easily and publicly accessible. Or at least, that's what Obama's video claims they are going to create. The site just launched so we'll see where it goes. Maybe you're right and it will add no value or transparency. Or maybe Obama will live up to what he announced and we can see exactly how much money was spent and where. Did you know; Puerto Rico, will receive 23 Billion nearly the 24 Billion California will receive. Did you know PR is not even a State and has a total 74B GDP, compared to California's 1,700B (1.7T). Did you know PR has 4 M people, compared to 36M in California. Did you know these dollars were 15B, then cut but came back as 23B. Did you know Senator Reid's Las Vegas, will get a monorail from the LA area to LV, that was originally listed at 2B, cut and came back just before printing as an 8B$ project. I would bet, not one project with a said cost could be justified by any project manager and we have a couple, three on this site. I didn't know any of those things (well, I know Puerto Rico isn't a state), but you do, which is an indicator to me that there's a decent degree of transparency in place Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd YET ANOTHER thread which has gone off topic so people can vent about their anger and frustration about the stimulus package and bailout. Wow... We're on a role guys. If any of that was directed at me I'm not trying to derail my own thread. However, the two bills are comparable in that they represent absurdly huge spending bills. And one hugely notable difference is: this spending bill has a web site which aims to account for where the money is being spent. Where is the web site for the Office of Financial Stability created by the bailout bill? I can't find it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Yes, because among other things it provides a transparent reporting mechanism for where the money is going which is easily and publicly accessible. Or at least, that's what Obama's video claims they are going to create. The site just launched so we'll see where it goes. Maybe you're right and it will add no value or transparency. Or maybe Obama will live up to what he announced and we can see exactly how much money was spent and where. I didn't know any of those things (well, I know Puerto Rico isn't a state), but you do, which is an indicator to me that there's a decent degree of transparency in place I would agree, anything offering transparency is a good thing, if the information is accurately and in total context. Omissions, things not said, can be deceiving and ultimately serve an agenda. I would ask you to google, *Stimulus Watch* a private think tank that has followed this from the beginning. stimulaswatch.org the site. PR is under most expensive projects. Government can tell you only what States get what grants, not what the States actually do with the money. Yes, if it goes on to what I think are your expectation, I'll be the first to acknowledge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 The deeper issue here is that the citizens are being invited to participate in a more complete way... to review and provide feedback... ?? To the best of knowledge, nobody has asked me or is going to be asking me to participate. Unless perhaps someone's interpretation of my participation is something along the lines of: ....'here read this, this is where we decided to throw your tax dollars and the debt that your childrens' children will be paying for'........ Do you actually consider that an invitation to participate? .....and you guys are shitting all over the process b/c you are too lazy to read the whole thing and too angry to say anything other than "this who stimulus sucks." ??? again It does not make me angry. It does make me concerned. But if it did make me angry, don't I have that right??! Like the members of the House and Senate who voted for it, I have not read the whole thing. Off topic but another reason for a large amount of concern. And it may also make me lazy and/or have a job and/or a life.....you pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 I would agree, anything offering transparency is a good thing, if the information is accurately and in total context. Omissions, things not said, can be deceiving and ultimately serve an agenda. I would ask you to google, *Stimulus Watch* a private think tank that has followed this from the beginning. stimulaswatch.org the site. PR is under most expensive projects. Good point... the website (which is probably run by Obama staffers) could be used as propaganda. Like I said, there's nothing on the website (that I could find) that talked about actually paying for the bill, just where the money is getting spent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 (edited) ??To the best of knowledge, nobody has asked me or is going to be asking me to participate. Unless perhaps someone's interpretation of my participation is something along the lines of: ....'here read this, this is where we decided to throw your tax dollars and the debt that your childrens' children will be paying for'........ Do you actually consider that an invitation to participate? I think you should pay closer attention to the opportunities your government is providing you before you continue ranting that you've been left out. This has been available for quite some time now: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review/ It allowed citizens like you and me to review and submit comments, thoughts, and ideas about the ARRA. Also, if you don't like the fact that you were not personally called or emailed for your feedback, perhaps you should remind yourself that we are a representative republic, not a direct democracy. Also to you and bascule - No one in particular, I've just been growing frustrated lately that every single thread we have in the politics section keeps turning into people ranting OFF TOPIC about their frustrations with the stimulus or bailouts... I'm trying to find a way to get people to be honest with their feelings, but also to keep them directed on topic. It's infuriating that so many threads are indistinguishable because people can't keep their anger/frustration in check. That's just me, though. I'll live. Thanks for asking. Edited February 20, 2009 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDNA Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Thanks for the link! Also, if you don't like the fact that you were not personally called or emailed for your feedback, perhaps you should remind yourself that we are a representative republic, not a direct democracy. And thanks for the reminder! I'll try to remember to remind myself to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Also to you and bascule - No one in particular, I've just been growing frustrated lately that every single thread we have in the politics section keeps turning into people ranting OFF TOPIC about their frustrations with the stimulus or bailouts... I'm trying to find a way to get people to be honest with their feelings, but also to keep them directed on topic. It's infuriating that so many threads are indistinguishable because people can't keep their anger/frustration in check. That's just me, though. I'll live. Thanks for asking. That's a fair request and I'll try to help you as a mod... Could you just specify what you consider off topic in the this thread? Is anything not related to "transparency" off limits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Here, in this specific thread, I was responding primarily to the post before mine (#10), but I've been trying to draw attention to this trend in a few threads recently. I find it fascinating that these actions have caused such a rift in our collective psyches, and it's worth mention that people are just acting on their frustrations. I'm curious to explore that, just not in every single thread we have that even peripherally mentions the economy. I'm probably making more of it than it is, I concede that, but I do appreciate your offer to assist. Much obliged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 If this web site is promotional and biased in the plan's favor, as opposed to clear and expository, then can it really be said to be an example of "transparency"? I'd say so, yeah. Bothering to make such a detailed case directly to the people in such an easily accessibly way is pretty unusual, no? What would you suggest they have instead? Make their case more transparently. You're confusing transparency with salesmanship. I have no problem with an administration doing both, but they should do both, and not call one the other. Reflecting iNow's point for a moment about the subject being our ability to read laws, etc, I do think this is not an easy thing to do, and they are trying to speak to the lowest common denominator about extremely complex issues. I just think there should be more separation between the concept of information dissemination and the concept of promotion of the administration's goals. Obama claims they'll replace the estimates with the actual spending figures when it is spent. That's pretty sweet. Great, I look forward to seeing that. The site just launched so we'll see where it goes. Maybe you're right and it will add no value or transparency. Or maybe Obama will live up to what he announced and we can see exactly how much money was spent and where. Seems fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 Here, in this specific thread, I was responding primarily to the post before mine (#10), but I've been trying to draw attention to this trend in a few threads recently. I find it fascinating that these actions have caused such a rift in our collective psyches, and it's worth mention that people are just acting on their frustrations. I'm curious to explore that, just not in every single thread we have that even peripherally mentions the economy. I'm probably making more of it than it is, I concede that, but I do appreciate your offer to assist. Much obliged. Transparency, offered by the Administration!!! I mentioned a couple items, with a near 35B price tag, bascule (response to) didn't know and I doubt even you knew about. As for off topic; Politics by nature is complicated and issues tend to run together or are interconnected. ecoli; In fairness this 'Bill' and the one aiding the 'Financial System' are whats called emergency legislation. Under law, they can be legislated and placed into law, with out a discussion on 'how to pay'. Both parties will place anything they can into such a bill and have many times, for just this reason. As for the reality 'paying for the programs'; Congress can only disperse Grants/Money to the limits of the current legal deficit. First they need to increase the legal limits of this to a point, borrowing can be attempted or the Federal Reserve can print actual money to cover. That is no one has any idea just how anything is going to be paid...Appropriation Bill's, on the other hand are limited to projected revenues and have some means of increasing, if in fact above the budget, they are working with. This can include cuts from other yet used funding or from set aside funding and really gets complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 20, 2009 Share Posted February 20, 2009 What does any of that have to do with the setup of recovery.gov? Politics may, by its nature, be complicated and overlapping, but that's hardly the case here. It's not that hard. Do try to stay on topic, Jackson, will you please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Apparently the stimulus bill requires that spending decisions be syndicated in standard RSS format: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rssstimulus Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 So, instead of me having to pull the data when I think about it, I can add that to my RSS feed and have it pushed to me. Very cool, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson33 Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Apparently the stimulus bill requires that spending decisions be syndicated in standard RSS format: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/rssstimulusBrilliant! Obama announced this morning (Governor's Conference), 12 Billion would be sent out to States this week to help with Medicare/Medicaid/SCHIP programs. According to your site, this money will be placed in a separate account and draws on these accounts accessible to anyone wanting access. YES, this is good... What your not considering is the 632 Billion (mandated funding), that the Federal Grants automatically goes to States (2009 Budget, Wikipedia, not including Grants funding taking from discretionary spending) that goes directly into general funds in all States. This near 53 Billion each month can easily be used on any item, making sure their little portion of the 12B is used according to mandates. Since it's my understanding the entire 780B is designed to spread out funding for years to come, any actual accounting can be easily be made, but the end result of what was actually achieved not possible. The normal problems usually found in projects (building roads etc), come from the contracting, sub contracting and locations of the project, although it's the best of the entire 'Stimulus Bill', for the intended purpose. Once this money is dedicated to a project, accountability will not be possible IMO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now