What is Digg?239 Comments
- jimmaculate, on 02/17/2009, -20/+60I love the fact that Obama is trying to make this a transparent process.
- abadjay, on 02/18/2009, -11/+46I'm glad we are pissing away 8 billion on "other".... what the hell is "OTHER"???
- lsatkins, on 02/18/2009, -11/+44"Protecting the vulnerable"...could it be any more vague?
- GamerSDG, on 02/18/2009, -4/+35It will be funny if they list every thing,
On Feb 28 2008 at 5:00pm, Governor Jack gave $1,000 to a prostitute, for service render. - FenianNProud, on 02/18/2009, -11/+42Yeah, nothing says transparency like 'other' and rest of the generally vague headings.
- treehugger87, on 02/18/2009, -21/+48Where is your money going? 2000-2008
$3 trillion - war we got into on false pretenses against a country that did us no harm
$534 billion - Medicare bill which is a boondoggle for health insurers and pharmaceutical companies
$3 trillion - tax cuts given primarily to the wealthy
$700 billion - "bailout" money for banks who use it to give bonuses
$unknown amounts - stolen, defrauded and moved overseas. - Stevo23, on 02/18/2009, -1/+27Nice idea, we'll see if people actually care enough to wade through pages of charts and graphs. Most people can barely keep track of their own budget, let alone watch the government's spending too.
- synapz, on 02/18/2009, -8/+31You seem to be suggesting that, "If you think this is bad, look at what Bush did!" I find this position unfortunate - it puts the situation in terms of this president or that president, this party or that party. Can't you see that this is a ruse, whether witting or unwitting, to distract us from the true source of this madness?
The true source is government. The state. It steals from some and gives it to others, and calls it stimulus or defense. It uses its position of authority and respect to try to convince everyone that this is the right thing to do.
I'll digg you so that the world can see our errors. - Remelox, on 02/18/2009, -1/+17How do you get 67 million jobs being lost? That's almost 44% of the work force? Cite your source because I find it difficult to believe that almost half of the country lost their jobs in 4 days.
- Digger1123, on 02/18/2009, -19/+34I also love the fact that he gave the US less than 18 hours to look at the bill before it passed. I love that not one member of Congress read the damn thing. And last, but certainly not least, I love how he waited 4 days to sign the bill, losing 67 million jobs in the process. Obama is all about the press, he could care less about the bill, he just wants the credit for saving America, which won't happen under his watch.
- Necoras, on 02/18/2009, -9/+24Welfare/tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes. Protecting the Vulnerable sounds better than "steal from the productive and give to the lazy."
- FearlessFreep, on 02/18/2009, -5/+20What the hell is "Protecting The Vulnerable" for $81B. That chart seems little more than a dodge to give the illusion of saying something without saying anything meaningful
- SkinnerBox, on 02/17/2009, -8/+22Full text of the bill and the promise of specific usage information. Maybe now the conversation about the stimulus will evolve beyond:
"Spending bill, generational theft, handouts to non-taxpayers!"
v.
"New Deal 2.0, panacea, manna from heaven" - Necoras, on 02/18/2009, -17/+30There's $142 billion in "PROTECTING THE VULNERABLE" otherwise known as tax refunds for those who've never paid in a dime, or welfare. A good one dollar in eight is being given to people who don't do any work (or not enough to get taxed on). This is a bad idea.
- mulock, on 02/18/2009, -2/+15Actually the website was announced and launched well before the bill passed, and contained an explaination of what the website would have. If you take the time to actually read the FAQ on the website it clearly explains why there is not more information. The website is planned to include in depth information as to where the funds have gone, and how much has been spent all the way down to the state and city level. I can't quite understand how people can gripe about the website itself. This is really the first time an administration is making an effort to put this out there for everyone. (As opposed to many of the figures that have been covered up by the previous administration)
- FenianNProud, on 02/18/2009, -17/+30Seriously? WTF does that really tell us? Nearly $800B and the government wasn't able to do exactly what they said they would - provide complete disclosure of the bill to the people prior to voting - and now look what we get.
$81B for 'protecting the vulnerable'? What in the gods is that? Hopefully it covers those folks too bloody ignorant to read their mortgage contracts.
$144B for state relief. Thank the gods, the fed can't balance their own budget, neither can most states - once more the people get to pay for it.
$8B for 'other'?! Seriously?!
I sure am looking forward to my $13-$30 a month tax savings while we shovel the s&*! for GM, AIG, etc., etc.
Hopefully people remember this BS come voting time and vote for actual change and elect politicians that don't sell out the population as a whole for what's in their own interest. - elnerdo, on 02/18/2009, -3/+15I don't understand this. Every time I see an article criticizing Obama, the comments are absolutely filled with comments criticizing Bush.
Obama is not Bush. Bush is not even a competitor of Obama. What Bush did is irrelevant to what Obama does. Just because Bush was a bad president does not mean that Obama is necessarily a good one. It is possible (and probably) that they both suck.
I tried to use simple sentences; I hope I got the point across.
(And on a realistic level: None of that money, either from Bush OR Obama was actually 'yours' or 'mine'. It was all deficit spending. This means that the money never existed. It's not as if we are actually paying for this 'stimulus', rather the cost is being deferred to someone else (The rest of the world? Future generations? Etc.)) - Shabadoo, on 02/18/2009, -3/+14Jesus Christ, do people not read anymore?
A) The FULL bill is available for download. And b) "The money is being distributed by Federal agencies, and soon you'll be able to see where it's going -- to which states, to which congressional districts, even to which Federal contractors. As soon as we are able to, we'll display that information visually in maps, charts, and graphics." <--- from the website. In other words, they can't post ***** until the money starts getting spent. - okcomputer1982, on 02/18/2009, -3/+14Perfect doesn't exist.
Welcome to the real world, where people just do the best they can today and try to do better tomorrow. - mpdono, on 02/18/2009, -5/+14I liked on Hannity -- "$1.6 billion for "Science"... what the hell is just "Science"?
- Jordan117, on 02/18/2009, -1/+10Protip: If you want to be taken seriously, don't use ridiculous partisan epithets like "porkulus". It's childish, almost as bad as "0bama" and "Democrat Party" (or "Rethuglicans", if you're on the left).
- scubajim, on 02/18/2009, -6/+14It is a high speed rail system from LA to Las Vegas. Harry Reid got it put in at the last minute.
- enieves, on 02/18/2009, -3/+11and then launched the site, after it was signed into law.
- mrjdavila, on 02/18/2009, -2/+10Wait, why not eliminate or reduce the government?? I think 95% of the problems we have are caused by our elected political heroes. I am going to digg you just so that others can see your question and either post their solutions or vote to reduce the size of the US government.
- mthole, on 02/18/2009, -2/+10The money goes to state governors, agencies, etc to spend on qualifying projects at their discretion. This is how any top-down organization works.
Do you really think Congress picks out exactly what to spend every dollar on in their legislation? Do you really think they should? - las3rjock, on 02/18/2009, -0/+7Did you even look at the top-level page? ( http://www.recovery.gov ) There's a nifty little hyperlink right in the middle of the page titled "Read the full bill here."
- Jordan117, on 02/18/2009, -5/+12Items that cannot be fit into any of the other broad categories, duh. Maybe you should wait into the particulars of the "Other" category are disclosed before you start assuming graft and corruption.
If the government wanted to hide earmarks and pork, would they be putting the entire thing online for everyone to see? - reaper527, on 02/18/2009, -0/+7"* Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy."
how the hell is "Infrastructure and Science, Protecting the Vulnerable (wtf?) and education and training" tax relief? (and yes, i laughed at the big asterisk next to "tax relief").
if putting "81billion dollars for protecting the vulnerable" on a website is what obama considers "showing us how the money is spent", we obviously have different opinions about the definition of transparency. - slider9, on 02/18/2009, -4/+11"other"
- slapded, on 02/18/2009, -3/+10Well, we know none of it went to a good web designer.
- tetroidBurke, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6This is definitely a trend I've been noticing ever since Obama won the election. Seems the logic of his supporters is:
If a debatable issue about Obama arises,
then prove that Bush did it too, or worse.
Or just insult Bush and Republicans (implying all of Obama's critics are Bush supporters)
Therefore, Obama is a good president and justified in his actions.
I hope you can see why that logic is false for many reason. - Jordan117, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6What? There's a link to the bill on the front page of recovery.gov:
"On Our Way: Read the Bill
The President recently signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. Read the full bill here."
http://www.recovery.gov/customcode/thickbox/site_w ... - inactive, on 02/18/2009, -5/+11I wish more had been spent for the state governments and infrastructure. They really need the cash.
I'm also interested in what, exactly, "protecting the vulnerable" is supposed to mean. It's conspicuously vague. - Mattwdj, on 02/18/2009, -2/+8Infrastructure and science yeaaaaaa.
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 02/18/2009, -5/+11Infrastructure and Science.
Science? Can we get a bit more specific than just the elementary school textbook level? And why is this grouped with Infrastructure? Do these people know the difference between science and engineering? - mulock, on 02/18/2009, -3/+9I will feel free to dig you down because your comment does nothing to add to the discussion - aside from sapping IQ. Now go - play with your silly putty and news paper in the kiddy corner.
- dtfinch, on 02/18/2009, -1/+7If the breakdown seems a little too oversimplified:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and ... - jameson5, on 02/18/2009, -0/+6The money we spent on the war hasn't been generational theft?
- maatismoot, on 02/18/2009, -0/+5agreed. From the FAQ
Q: I heard I'd be able to track recovery funds. Why can't I do that?
A: You aren't able to track funds yet because we have not yet started receiving information from Federal agencies on how they are going to allocate the money. It takes a little bit of time for them to make sure your money is going to be spent wisely. Right now, the site features an overview of the law and an explanation of what it is intended to accomplish. You will have access to data as soon as we begin receiving it from agencies. - mrjdavila, on 02/18/2009, -10/+15Remember fellow Diggers, 55% of all Americans voted for Obama. At the same time, in 2006, we voted to put Democrats in both chambers of Congress. This is the CHANGED we seeked and this the CHANGED we got. Now, we have to live with it. One must always be careful of those politicians that promise you everything. I would have voted for Ron Paul but unfortunately he was not the on ballot.
- normalkid0615, on 02/18/2009, -4/+9War in where? Haven't seen it in the news for a while, I thought it was over and that Obama brought the troops home and gave the Guantanamo Bay detainees a fair trial...Am I mistaken? /s
- PeppermintPig, on 02/18/2009, -0/+5What I learned from recovery.gov is that the money is going into bubbles.
- AdamKrapish, on 02/18/2009, -4/+9How is this transparent? You need to read the fine print to understand that the tax relief number includes money that is actually going into the other bubbles? If tax relief includes $15 billion for infrastructure and science then why isn't it in that bubble? They can't even make a clear graph!
- jameson5, on 02/18/2009, -4/+9Everyone seems to like to bash Obama for this stimulus and his attempts at transparency, but I'd like to hear some alternate solutions - aside from "eliminate all government and let everybody fend for themselves".
- inactive, on 02/18/2009, -6/+11hm, i hear a distinct flushing sound.
- inactive, on 02/18/2009, -6/+11"Protecting the Vulnerable" is just a euphemism for "WHO GUNNA PAY MAH RENT?@#$!"
- Dgen_X, on 02/18/2009, -1/+6File that under 'other'
- PeppermintPig, on 02/18/2009, -1/+5"Yet it was still a big improvement over the Bush regime."
The night is still young, Cinderella. - jameson5, on 02/18/2009, -0/+4Not much.. Wikipedia shows more transparency than pretty much everything!
- freedomjoe, on 02/18/2009, -0/+4You are not accurate.
bush also inherited a surplus from Clinton and turned it into record deficit.
whatever,. who is the "everybody"? and why did republicans insist on cutting the tax cuts for the middle class in this bill and upping the tax cuts to the rich?
did you grasp the meaning of "trickle down" economics and if so, how can you possibly claim that we all benefited from bush's tax cuts? have you researched the data re the middle class?
research and reality are NOT a "talking point". -
Show 51 - 100 of 243 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is