PDA

View Full Version : Recovery.gov



SmthBluCitrus
02-17-2009, 03:56 PM
Recovery.gov (http://www.recovery.gov/) is live. It's a nice looking site from the White House. The utilization of internet and technology continues in earnest for the Obama administration.


The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be carried out with full transparency and accountability -- and Recovery.gov is the centerpiece of that effort. In a short video, President Obama describes the site and talks about how you'll be able to track the Recovery Act's progress every step of the way.

It has a pretty cool little chart of "where the money is going."

ari1013
02-17-2009, 05:37 PM
Recovery.gov (http://www.recovery.gov/) is live. It's a nice looking site from the White House. The utilization of internet and technology continues in earnest for the Obama administration.



It has a pretty cool little chart of "where the money is going."
Nicely timed. Obama has it up immediately after he signs the bill.

SmthBluCitrus
02-25-2009, 03:15 PM
Where is your money going (http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments)

behindmydesk
02-25-2009, 03:36 PM
8 billion to other. Awesome line item there guys. Seriously on my taxes, i'm just going to list 1% of my wage as other deductions. Yup just going to write it and say it's good enough and use it to my advantage.

CubsGirl
02-25-2009, 04:59 PM
Where is your money going (http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments)
Boy that diagram is aesthetically pleasing.

Cubsrule
02-25-2009, 05:00 PM
It's funny that Biden didn't know where to find it or what the "number" was.

dbroncos78087
02-25-2009, 05:38 PM
It's funny that Biden didn't know where to find it or what the "number" was.

Well he looked to be asleep for what of the speech i saw yesterday so cut him some slack, he is pretty old looking.

ari1013
02-25-2009, 05:44 PM
Well he looked to be asleep for what of the speech i saw yesterday so cut him some slack, he is pretty old looking.
Shh! Don't tell CG she's got a crush on him :)

Cubsrule
02-25-2009, 07:20 PM
Shh! Don't tell CG she's got a crush on him :)

So does Citrus.

DodgersFan28
02-25-2009, 08:36 PM
PROPAGANDA: We Can Believe In

SmthBluCitrus
02-25-2009, 09:35 PM
Oh come on DF, that's just lame.

DodgersFan28
02-25-2009, 11:09 PM
Oh come on DF, that's just lame.

The government controls every single piece of information on that website, and you're just going to trust them & take them at their word to be totally transparent & honest about everything? Do you live on the same planet I do?

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 12:26 AM
Find me some private information that combats anything Recovery.gov claims.

Obama campaigned on being transparent, open, and honest. The fact that they launched a website to do just that is an amazing step forward in that venture.

Show me some proof that they're distorting the facts or don't come in here claiming that the Obama administration is being insincere in their attempt.

ari1013
02-26-2009, 01:44 AM
PROPAGANDA: We Can Believe In
Is that the new talking point of the week?

Thanks for the update.

Cadarn
02-26-2009, 02:48 AM
Find me some private information that combats anything Recovery.gov claims.

Obama campaigned on being transparent, open, and honest. The fact that they launched a website to do just that is an amazing step forward in that venture.

Show me some proof that they're distorting the facts or don't come in here claiming that the Obama administration is being insincere in their attempt.

:laugh:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090225/D96IFSC80.html

DodgersFan28
02-26-2009, 06:25 AM
^ That article is clearly nothing but right-wing bias & falsehoods. He wanted real facts not something that actually went against what someone from the Democrat party said!



;)

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 09:24 AM
:laugh:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090225/D96IFSC80.html

Does that directly argue that Recovery.gov is a "propaganda" site spewed with lies about the role of the federal government? Or does it challenge where the money is actually going?

Oops -- nope. It's a fact check of what may/may not happen and what congress might have to do on future legislation. Nope, not a damn word about Recovery.gov.


^ That article is clearly nothing but right-wing bias & falsehoods. He wanted real facts not something that actually went against what someone from the Democrat party said!

;)

I'm a she.

But, considering your frequent use of "Democrat" party -- I think I'm done with all future political conversations with you. You have an obvious predisposition and aren't open to anything from the left.

If we said the sky was blue, you'd argue it ... and say we were trying to rush legislation through.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 09:28 AM
Alright, can we stop with the whole If you are going to use Democrat party slogan we are done talking. I'd wager to say 95% of liberals aren't even aware that it's a "slur". And I highly doubt anyone on the right, or 3/4 on the left that haven't talked to Den or Ari knew it either. I mean **** i'm pretty damn smart in a lot of things, and Den that was the first time I heard it was, from him

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 09:31 AM
The fact is, bmd, he's been told about it. He knows, because he's done it before. Now he's doing it intentionally.

If my daughter does something wrong -- but she doesn't know it's wrong, I explain to her that it's wrong. But, if she does it again after she knows it's wrong she gets time-out.

Same holds true for other people that are old enough to know better. Sometimes they're just *******s.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 09:37 AM
The fact is, bmd, he's been told about it. He knows, because he's done it before. Now he's doing it intentionally.

If my daughter does something wrong -- but she doesn't know it's wrong, I explain to her that it's wrong. But, if she does it again after she knows it's wrong she gets time-out.

Same holds true for people that are old enough to know better. Sometimes they're just *******s.

ah. I do without even thinking.

Zep
02-26-2009, 10:09 AM
I had no idea regarding the intent behind using the term Democrat Party, but a quick google search found an interesting article about it from The New Yorker. If anyone has read the above posts and wondered the same thing I did, this article pretty much lays it out for you.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

Interesting quote from the above article:


William F. Buckley, Jr., the Miss Manners cum Dr. Johnson of modern conservatism, dealt with the question in a 2000 column in National Review, the magazine he had founded forty-five years before. “I have an aversion to ‘Democrat’ as an adjective,” Buckley began.

Dear Joe McCarthy used to do that, and received a rebuke from this at-the-time 24-year-old. It has the effect of injecting politics into language, and that should be avoided. Granted there are diffculties, as when one desires to describe a “democratic” politician, and is jolted by possible ambiguity.

But English does that to us all the time, and it’s our job to get the correct meaning transmitted without contorting the language.

ari1013
02-26-2009, 11:46 AM
ah. I do without even thinking.
And we've grown to expect it from you ;)

ari1013
02-26-2009, 11:47 AM
I had no idea regarding the intent behind using the term Democrat Party, but a quick google search found an interesting article about it from The New Yorker. If anyone has read the above posts and wondered the same thing I did, this article pretty much lays it out for you.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

Interesting quote from the above article:
Good find.

spartanbear
02-26-2009, 05:39 PM
I am impressed. Which begs the question why hasn't this simply gesture been tried before? I used to always ask this back in HS to my history teachers. "Why doesn't the government publish something that list step by step, bill by bill, etc where our tax dollars go :mad::mad::mad:? Rabble, Rabble, Rabble." I'll be checking again on July 16th. This is actually making me a bit more confident about this whole thing.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 05:46 PM
I am impressed. Which begs the question why hasn't this simply gesture been tried before? I used to always ask this back in HS to my history teachers. "Why doesn't the government publish something that list step by step, bill by bill, etc where our tax dollars go :mad::mad::mad:? Rabble, Rabble, Rabble." I'll be checking again on July 16th. This is actually making me a bit more confident about this whole thing.

Agreed. I think the level of transparency that they're bringing to this via the internet is remarkable and inspiring. It's like they're letting us see the check book ledger, so to speak.

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 06:13 PM
Agreed. I think the level of transparency that they're bringing to this via the internet is remarkable and inspiring. It's like they're letting us see the check book ledger, so to speak.

It's a step towards transparency, but it still seems way too broad.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 06:41 PM
It's a step towards transparency, but it still seems way too broad.

It's still something on a level that we've never seen before.

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 07:31 PM
I agree, but I still think it's a waste due to how broad it is.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 07:32 PM
The website itself?

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 07:37 PM
The website itself?

Parts of it, like the estimated job effect and where the money is going. I look to it as a political stunt, but that could change.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 07:40 PM
It's an estimation from the White House ... that's all. Not sure it could be construed as a "stunt."

Once data starts coming in concerning actual monies and job output, I think we'll see more accurate information. But, at this point, estimation is all there can be.

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 07:47 PM
Where the money is going is not an estimation, and as for the job growth all it says is how many jobs they are hoping to create, not how the money will be spent to create them.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 07:56 PM
Job creation is an estimate.

Where the money is going is actually a bit of an estimate as well, in the long run at least. Money that is distributed to states is divided up and sent out elsewhere at the state government's discretion. Therefore, some of the stim money could end up larger in certain segments (and probably will).

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 07:58 PM
Fair enough, we'll see if it changes.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 08:02 PM
I suppose I should drop an example for that one.

In Iowa, we have the Highway 20 project that's responsible for making hwy 20 four lanes from Dubuque (eastern border/Mississippi River) to Sioux City (western border/Missouri River). So far, it's a little over halfway through the state (Ft Dodge). But, the state budget crisis prompted the shutdown of the project for the immediate future. With stimulus money, the project can go again.

That actually would be classified as infrastructure repair/improvement -- but it's currently listed as state aid.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 08:03 PM
It's not job creation soley anymore. It's now called 3.5 million jobs saved or created.

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 08:04 PM
It's not job creation soley anymore. It's now called 3.5 million jobs saved or created.

Yeah, I saw that too.

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 08:06 PM
I suppose I should drop an example for that one.

In Iowa, we have the Highway 20 project that's responsible for making hwy 20 four lanes from Dubuque (eastern border/Mississippi River) to Sioux City (western border/Missouri River). So far, it's a little over halfway through the state (Ft Dodge). But, the state budget crisis prompted the shutdown of the project for the immediate future. With stimulus money, the project can go again.

That actually would be classified as infrastructure repair/improvement -- but it's currently listed as state aid.

Those are the kind of examples I'm talking about, I think the problem is if they release that kind of information, the right will start heavily criticizing specific programs, especially those that could be classified as earmarks. Just politics as usual.

ari1013
02-26-2009, 08:07 PM
I'd love for I-380 to be extended further Southeast in Iowa.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 08:09 PM
I'd love for I-380 to be extended further Southeast in Iowa.

Agreed, it should be. But, they invested so much into the "Avenue of the Saints -- St Paul to St Louis" that the likelihood of that happening is very minimal.

There really just needs to be an easy way to get to St Louis from here.

SmthBluCitrus
02-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Those are the kind of examples I'm talking about, I think the problem is if they release that kind of information, the right will start heavily criticizing specific programs, especially those that could be classified as earmarks. Just politics as usual.

But, that's state discretionary. It's not an earmark -- the state gets the money and they decide how to do it and that's hardly on the Federal government.

I mean, those are jobs that were going to be eliminated this summer. And, Iowa cut 2.5% off the state budget. It's a perfect example of saving positions.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Yeah, I saw that too.

i'm surprised that isn't bigger news. Oh well, we can harp on it!

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 08:18 PM
i'm surprised that isn't bigger news. Oh well, we can harp on it!

Absolutely

DodgersFan28
02-26-2009, 09:32 PM
But, considering your frequent use of "Democrat" party -- I think I'm done with all future political conversations with you. You have an obvious predisposition and aren't open to anything from the left.

:laugh: No, I just put that into a couple recent posts to see the rise it would get out of you guys. Remember a recent conversation about a certain Fairness Doctrine? Yep. Funny stuff!


If we said the sky was blue, you'd argue it ... and say we were trying to rush legislation through.

Funny, I seem to remember some Republicans saying that about Democrats 5 years ago. Welcome to the political cycle. When you're back in the minority, remember this post.

In the meantime, feel free to continue your pro-Dem/pro-left spin machine. I'm not a non-stop rah rah Dem cheerleader, which of course makes me more biased than a right-handed pair of scissors, but clearly I have far more political objectivity as this makes clear.

cabernetluver
02-26-2009, 09:41 PM
:In the meantime, feel free to continue your pro-Dem/pro-left spin machine. I'm not a non-stop rah rah Dem cheerleader, which of course makes me more biased than a right-handed pair of scissors, but clearly I have far more political objectivity as this makes clear.

(laugh) No, you are a non stop rah rah right wing nut Rep cheerleader. It bothers me that we are for the same team and live in the same city.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 09:46 PM
We might have a civil war here come baseball season

Df28 and cab =dodgers
Cubsrule and BMD and CG, and Smth= cubs
CG SMth=also giants
BMD=A's too
Ink=Um he's still in an igloo waiting for the thaw, he'll check in late
Ari= ??? I'm just guessing, mets, yanks, or somehow the hated cards.
Doomsday=Is Armageddon and Ron Paul playing in a team?

Cubsrule
02-26-2009, 09:48 PM
We might have a civil war here come baseball season

Df28 and cab =dodgers
Cubsrule and BMD and CG, and Smth= cubs
CG SMth=also giants
BMD=A's too
Ink=Um he's still in an igloo waiting for the thaw, he'll check in late
Ari= ??? I'm just guessing, mets, yanks, or somehow the hated cards.
Doomsday=Is Armageddon and Ron Paul playing in a team?

You can add Wrigley for the Cubs.

DodgersFan28
02-26-2009, 10:06 PM
(laugh) No, you are a non stop rah rah right wing nut Rep cheerleader. It bothers me that we are for the same team and live in the same city.

And which Republicans have I been cheering lately? Can you name ONE? :rolleyes:

I am objective, but the ratio of right/left debate on this board is about 4 to 1 in favor of the left, so guess how the majority of my posts sound? Yeah, and then the left-wing label-smackers can't help themselves. I could have told you this would happen before I made my first post. CubsFan knows what I'm talking about.

behindmydesk
02-26-2009, 10:48 PM
You can add Wrigley for the Cubs.

Yea forgot about him. That will probably get me in trouble.