Print 58 comment(s) - last by grandpope.. on Jul 13 at 2:22 PM

The government's new site will cost taxpayers up to $18M USD over 5 years. The government insists these expenses aren't just to make the site look "good".  (Source: ABC News Photo Illustration)
Government is sparing no expense for its new site

With the government spending $797B USD in taxpayer money on a stimulus package to jump start the economy and lower unemployment, there's much fear of misuse and abuse.  In order to try to preempt such fears, the Obama administrations launched a new website,, and recently it worked to revamp the site to make it more accessible

However, many are upset over a quiet General Services Administration press release that announced how much the site would cost over a 5 year period -- $18M USD.  The site's redesign alone will cost $9.5M USD.

Craig Jennings of OMB Watch, a watchdog group often critical of government spending, states, "I do think $9.5 million is a bit much.  They already have a large data set to work with. What will do -- and whether they need $9.5 million to do this, I don't know -- is display it."

The site currently offers information on the $60.4B USD of stimulus money award by July 3.  Many complain that the information is hard to read and understand with it being unclear where exactly the money is going in the case of a specific stimulus award.

Edward Pound, spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the government group running the site insists the site is taxpayer money well spent.  He states, "This thing has a lot more to do than designing a good-looking Web site.  We're not here to waste the taxpayers' money."

He says that his organization will demand reports from every group receiving stimulus money, telling how they spent it.  He states, "We have to have the capability to receive that information and post it.  And we need the infrastructure to support all of that. They are going to be filing very detailed information -- who the key officers are on every project, what they're paid, and so forth. And you'll have to be able to see that, very quickly."

The site when first launched was relatively popular, receiving 150 million hits in its first month according to market research firm Alexa.  Since then, traffic has lulled and the site currently sits at 36,572nd in Alexa's traffic rankings.

Andrew MacRae, a website developer comments, "It's not a bad website.  But it's not a tool to tell me where the money is being used."

Mr. Jennings says his organization has already made a better site at a fraction of the cost.  He states, "OMB Watch built a site called, which does basically the same thing.  We said we'll license it for $600,000."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Chadder007 on 7/10/2009 9:28:13 AM , Rating: 5
Must be one hell of a website.

RE: Wow!
By MrPoletski on 7/10/2009 9:35:35 AM , Rating: 5
correction: for 9 million dollars it had damn well better be one hell of a website.

tbh though, people complaining about an expense of under 10m USD in the face of a stimulus bill that approaches a trillion dollars need to learn about perspective.

RE: Wow!
By marsbound2024 on 7/10/2009 9:42:22 AM , Rating: 5
Your point is only half correct in my opinion. Yes, when it comes down to it, eighteen million dollars is small beans. But I still don't think you should talk to people about perspective when government is spending $18 million dollars on a WEBSITE and what about these examples as outlined by the Tulsa Beacon (

"U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn wants to shed light on the wasteful spending in the federal stimulus and his list includes projects in his home state of Oklahoma.

One of the 100 examples Coburn has compiled is $1.5 million in “free” stimulus money for a new wastewater treatment plant results in higher utility costs for residents of Perkins, Okla. Another is $1.15 million for installation of a new guardrail for the non-existent Optima Lake in Oklahoma. There is no lake - it’s a dry hole."

"Ten thousand dead people will get stimulus checks, but the Social Security Administration blames a tough deadline."

"Tualatin, Oregon, plans to spend $2.5 million on a “train-horn-free” zone."

Now that's what I call government waste... and although it is very small individually, it all adds up!

RE: Wow!
By StevoLincolnite on 7/10/2009 9:54:05 AM , Rating: 5
Government spending (Regardless of the government...) is pretty insane, heck they would probably spend 1 million dollars to fix a random tap in a random park if they could.

The Australian Government isn't any better, and I doubt the British are any different either, they see a problem and decide to make a random "sum of money" and throw at it, the result? Expensive, and if it's repairs/building it takes forever to get accomplished.

RE: Wow!
By marsbound2024 on 7/10/2009 10:45:26 AM , Rating: 5
I just had to add a few more of these because I couldn't resist:

"Washington, North Carolina is using stimulus funds to pay for “project-funding manager” whose job it is to secure even more stimulus funds."

"Yale and the University of Connecticut are receiving $850,000 in stimulus for research “to study how paying attention improves performance of difficult tasks.”"

"The National Institutes of Health is giving Yale University $680,100 in stimulus funds to study the effectiveness of diet and exercise at reducing obesity."

RE: Wow!
By DPigs on 7/10/2009 12:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Wow!
By TSS on 7/10/2009 9:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
"Yale and the University of Connecticut are receiving $850,000 in stimulus for research “to study how paying attention improves performance of difficult tasks.”"

i wouldn't call this a waste. i would rather call it neccesary. afterall it's not a study of *if*, but *how*

maybe they'll come up with some sort of paying attention gene/hormone, develop a pill for it which we can then feed to the politicians writing stimuli bills.

RE: Wow!
By BansheeX on 7/10/2009 10:35:04 PM , Rating: 5
Writing a stimulus bill isn't a difficult task. The hardest decision is how much money you think you can get away with printing before its ill effects years later cause people to hunt you down and... oh wait, you'll be dead by then, and it will all be blamed on speculators by your successors. Deferred consequences are awesome, in YO FACE 19th century politicians on a gold standard who couldn't start social security or bond market ponzi schemes! Thank you Federal Reserve for generational theft! To hell with your grandchildren, Daddy needs a new boat and free health care! Make it 20 trillion in new debt at compounding interest! OH HI, CHINA. Keep accumulating our paper promises at interest rates under inflation while we fire up the presses and then spend the money on nothing exportable in perpetuity! Keynesian economics works, world, just keep pumping into us so we can consume your production with your money! Muahahahahha

RE: Wow!
By grandpope on 7/13/2009 2:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
That would be a program I would gladly pay for!

RE: Wow!
By MrBlastman on 7/10/2009 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 5
I want the webmasters job! I'll be sitting fat and pretty managing that mess. I bet he'll get paid at least 250k/yr too going by their supposed budget.

This is just another rediculous example of Obama's throw paint at the wall method. There is no targeting of resources, he's just taking handfuls of money and throwing it everywhere hoping some of it will stick.

Don't believe me? He has over 30 Czar's as is - 30! While it might seem like he's trying to target each area with more precision, I doubt there is any way on earth he can possibly meet with these individuals on a regular basis and manage all the more pressing issues in this country. Past presidents had between 3 - 12 so this is pretty rediculous.

More importantly, 9.5 Million to develop a single website is rather absurd. Another 7.5 Million to run it over 5 years is ludicrous. What on earth could the 9.5 Million be used for? Fancy CGI Graphics and Artists? AI that will read your mind as you are surfing the site? How about multiple licenses to Oracle's web database?

No, this is just another example of why it is bad to give money with complete discretion. The government has no incentive to streamline their operations and instead will just spend it freely, wildly and with abandon. The way you improve Government is not by making it bigger, but instead by cutting their budget and forcing them to analyze their weak areas and streamline their processes. They have an insane amount of money and being efficient is the last thing on their minds. What a complete mess.

9.5 Million on a website is rediculous. If they ran a proper operation, they would engage in a bidding war among several contractors and go with the most capable but lowest bidder - making sure that they include many that are _not_ in the current channels so they can not all get together and decide to gouge wherever they can. It isn't rocket science what they are trying to do here. I've seen small businesses put together something similar for hundreds of times less money.

But, we're letting them spend freely - OUR money. Way to go America. Just remember, all this rampant spending will ultimately come out of our pockets.

RE: Wow!
By tdawg on 7/10/2009 1:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
Government spending has always been ridiculous. $10,000 toilet seats on submarines, $20 million to promote the new $20 bill(!), $1000 wrenches, etc.

We really need to open up government spending projects to the free market where people bid on the projects and the lowest bidder wins--and the government needs to ignore offers to build small projects, such as a website redesign, with inflated costs. No more long-term contracts. We need project by project bids. I think we also need to get congress to start thinking about reasonable costs for projects (though with many not understanding how the internet works, the idea of redesigning a website must be the work of rocket scientists!) and goods.

RE: Wow!
By Keeir on 7/10/2009 4:36:09 PM , Rating: 4
Government spending has always been ridiculous. $10,000 toilet seats on submarines, $20 million to promote the new $20 bill(!), $1000 wrenches, etc.

To be completely fair, some of those items you list do not cost that much, but the amount of hoops the government needs to jump through make the items that expensive.

For example. The government needs a wrench. They can't just go to a hardware store and buy a wrench. (Total Cost, $50 dollar, wrench + time). Instead they need to draft a request for budget (cost), justify the budget (cost), put out a request for bids (cost), evaluate the bids (cost), pay for the wrench (whee cheap), defend the choice (cost), and then finally get around to distrabuting the wrenchs. In addition, they typically need to make the whole process auditable and trackable. This can be very expensive.

I guess what I am getting at is the cost to the government is not just the actual cost of the item, but the total cost of the procurement and distrab. effort.

RE: Wow!
By Kaldor on 7/10/2009 2:57:46 PM , Rating: 3
Its OK, out grandchildren can pay for all this. I also imagine Ill pay a good chunk while Im working until Im 70. Only 36 years to go! WOOT!

Seriously though, how far can we extend ourselves before the entire system breaks down?

RE: Wow!
By sieistganzfett on 7/12/2009 2:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
about 10 years, as baby boomers continue to retire, the country will experience the same issues as japan did.

RE: Wow!
By EglsFly on 7/10/2009 3:56:01 PM , Rating: 4
This is what happens when one party controls the Presidency, Congress, and Senate. Out of control spending.

RE: Wow!
By waffle911 on 7/10/2009 6:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. With the Republican party under Bush, it was the ambiguous "war on terror" (how do you declare war on an intangible ideal?) that has yielded very little in the way of results compared to the amount of money spent on it. With the Democrats, it's the same thing except instead of trying to make America "secure", they're trying to make America "stable".
Though to be fair, if we did end up with a perfectly bi-partisan government, we wouldn't get anything done because we wouldn't be able to get them to agree on anything worth doing for one reason or another. This whole mess is what McCain was trying to prevent. The irony in this whole story is that the level of transparency we are currently getting exposes just how little transparency there actually is; but it still paints a pretty clear picture: the Government has the efficiency and build quality of a Ford Excursion in the city and never carries more than two people at a time and never carries or pulls any loads greater than a trip to the grocery store.
I like Obama, I like a lot of his ideas in theory, and he means well, but in practice he's just completely going about it all in the wrong way. I wasn't even born yet when Carter was president, but from what I hear and have learned back in middle school, Obama is turning out to have many of what seem to be the same (or similar) flaws.
Thee has to be a more efficient/effective way for the people to be in control of their government. I just can't figure out what it is. Of course, that would require that the people actually know all about every issue that comes up, and for the most part they don't care quite that much.

RE: Wow!
By SiliconAddict on 7/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Wow!
By deeznuts on 7/11/2009 11:12:24 PM , Rating: 3
A tourniquet on the economy? This spending will do nothing but put us back into another recession.

Keynesian economics has never worked. It didn't work in the 40's, it took a world war to distract FDR long enough so he didn't muck the economy up so it can go back to what it normally does, which is grow. I'm no economist but I read their works. During FDR's attempt to implement Keynesian economics (what Obama and that idiot Krugman at the NYT advocate) unemployment stayed in double digits for almost a decade. As a matter of fact it never dipped below 20% until WWII started.

Democratic views on the economy do not work because they inherently are opposed to capitalism. Capitalism, i.e. the private ownership of enterprises. Lucky for us, they seem to only come around every 30 years or so. 1940s with FDR, 1970s with Jimmah, and now Ohbama. Hopefully we won't see this shit again until 2040 or so.

Sure we spent some money in Iraq. But are you using acts by Bush to defend what Obama is doing? Are you saying we got more of the same?

Yeah, so are we. About time those who voted for Obama's Change is starting to realize he bullshitted you guys.

RE: Wow!
By bhieb on 7/10/2009 10:43:32 AM , Rating: 3
Some of that is pretty asinine, but unfortunately that is how our system works. Basically look at this $5b as bribe money. Some Maine Senator refuses to accept the plan, so the rest throw his district a few million not to hold up the whole bill. Few million here few million there and pretty soon you have $5B so everyone will hurry up and pass it.

Politics as usual, they are all about what is in it for me, what can I take back to my district and say here is how much I got for our district. A bad side effect, but it is sort of their job to work for stuff in their district.

Limit congressional terms so these morons will do something resembling "right", and not just what will get them re-elected. But since they would actually have to pass such a change, good luck.

Revolution, the only true fix. :)

RE: Wow!
By caqde on 7/10/2009 4:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
You see the same thing in Large companies, wasteful spending on projects that make no sense. The only thing that can be done is finding out what projects are a waste, reporting it and firing the people involved in causing this problem hoping. Not to mention finding a way to make sure it doesn't happen again. Our government needs to find a way to get reorganized this site is there to show you what is being spent and allow you to complain and show you where to complain if you don't like what they are doing that was the whole idea.

I think it is better this way and should allow for better spending in the future. Unfortunately a cheaper government isn't going to happen in a short period of time, but eventually as long as we can keep complaining and are aware of what they are doing and even better if the media gets a hold of it.

RE: Wow!
By Indianapolis on 7/10/2009 9:45:29 AM , Rating: 3
I think that this dollar figure is important because it's probably going to be emblematic of the obscene waste of tax dollars we'll see under this administration. But your point is still valid...with all the money Obama is throwing around, people are starting to lose perspective.

RE: Wow!
By invidious on 7/10/2009 9:47:50 AM , Rating: 4
Where were you when we were complaining about the "stimulus" bill itself? Anyone who is against this kind of spending was probably against the bill as a whole.

And stop calling it a stimulus bill like the PR spin guys call it. Call it what it is, its a spending bill. The fact that it is used for stuff like this proves that it is not to stimulate the economy, it is Obama's blank check for the next 4 years. And while obviously any president needs funding to do their job, there is no reason to not call it what it is.

RE: Wow!
By borowki2 on 7/10/2009 10:16:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well, at least it's better than blowing 3.5 mil on a turtle tunnel or 16 mil mice habitat restoration. The web site will at least be used by human beings...

It'll be interesting to see the access log eventually, to see how much each visit costs.

The quote amount I presume doesn't include promotional cost. Almost everyday I see some banner ads pushing Obama's blog.

RE: Wow!
By yacoub on 7/13/2009 8:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
no that's just it - they realize that because the numbers being bandied about are in the hundreds of billions, no one's really going to make a stink about paying $18m for a website. Way to fall for exactly what they hope you will -- ignoring a massively over-priced payout for a website by distracting you with much more gigantic numbers.

RE: Wow!
By zombiexl on 7/10/2009 1:54:09 PM , Rating: 3
My company will develop and maintain it for 18 years for that price. I've done much larger projects for under 6 figures, I can't imagine what they are doing can cost 1/10th of that budget.

RE: Wow!
By MonkeyPaw on 7/10/2009 5:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
Must be one hell of a website.

Apparently, transparency is expensive.

RE: Wow!
By Meinolf on 7/13/2009 10:04:55 AM , Rating: 2
All I can say is Frontpage.

By marsbound2024 on 7/10/2009 9:28:36 AM , Rating: 5
Jesus, you'd think they'd already have this information stored in various databases throughout government. Is it really so expensive to write some embedded queries in C# and ASP.NET or something and make a few sweet web applications to display the results? Heck, even consolidating the information from those databases shouldn't be too difficult if you write good SQL queries. $18 million for some select * and inner joins?

By Mitch101 on 7/10/2009 9:57:31 AM , Rating: 5
I did a whoos to

There are 1,711 domains hosted on this IP address.
Here are a few of them:

3. LOL!
4. 1708 more...

Yup Government Money Well Spent.

By cserwin on 7/10/2009 10:05:49 AM , Rating: 5
I used to think exactly the same thing. I think this is why all innovation is driven by small business - where a handful of people who have technical skill and vision can move very quickly.

As soon as you get a large enough company that the people with the vision ('business users' 'project sponsors' 'key stakeholders') are different than the people that have to develop the systems ('developer' 'systems analysts who are worth a crap')... and you're big enough that you need people to enforce consistency ('enterprise archatect', 'solutions engineer', 'data modeler') and you have different programming disciplines ('ddl developer' 'etl developer' 'web developer' 'application developer')... and then you need people to keep ducks in a row and keep the suits off your back ('project manager')... and you have some CIO who went to a conference once and is too academic in their approach so they tag on roles with no practical use and you just pray to God that whoever is doing it has half a brain and can adapt('enterprise analyst' 'business analyst' 'project coordinator') and consider half of the above are worthless individual contributors and the other half have to do 2 jobs....

Doing anything innovative gets really expensive really fast when you're a big company - and the Federal Government is the biggest there is.

Seriously, data integration is expensive - the bigger the enterprise, the more legacy systems, the more expensive it is to integrate the data - even when the source systems are golden and have service layers - even when the developers or analysts know the details of the systems and the big picture of the enterprise - even when everything is perfect, data integration is shockingly expensive - and difficult.

The bigger the enterprise, the greater the number of systems, the more expensive it is.

I'm actually surprised that the number is so low. In reality they are probably going to define a general service layer and expect system changes to support the service for every other agency legacy system.

By FITCamaro on 7/10/2009 10:12:12 AM , Rating: 3
It's good to see someone's friend just retired for developing a government web site.

By hosps on 7/10/2009 10:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sounds about right for a 5 year contract and the size/dispersity of the data. There are multiple problems people are not aware of when it comes to developing for the government and working with data from other organizations who own it.

First off, the government has the data but the organization/contract that stores and maintains it is not under any legal obligation to provide it unless it is specifically written in the contract (which most times it is not). This is one of the big reasons why it takes so much money to support what appears to be a small little task. Contractor A does NOT have to support Contractor B on a different contract unless:

a) It is specifically written in the negotiated contract (which for most contracts its not)


b) Contractor B provides funding to support Contractor A for the additional workload required to support Contactor B (which is usually expensive since Contractor A can name any price they want and Contractor B would have to pay it).

Data is almost never shared in a useable format. Getting access to the database to perform straight queries won't happen unless you "Pay" the organization to give you that type of access. It's not part of their current contract to do so and therefore "not their problem" to support you so unless you are willing to pay "them" to support you, you only have one other options. You typically have to download a report, parse it, store it yourself and then update it every day along with all the cross-referencing required to make it in a usable format. Rarely is there any kind of primary index value (typically the only number they use is a contract reference number which is not consistent or unique) in these reports which makes maintaining and cross-referencing difficult. You then run into the problem of synchronization between different data sources and how often it occurs and when one source changes the value of a key you use when cross-referencing the data.

For those who think it’s as simple as an Administration Head saying “share the data”, does not work because there is a legally binding contract already in place that says exactly what the contractor is required to do. Any modifications requires either renegotiating the contract (which is very expensive and time consuming and often results in the contract costs going way up) or breaking the contract (again, very expensive for the government since they open themselves up to legal recourse).

By marsbound2024 on 7/10/2009 10:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think most of the stuff is government related projects so they should be in government databases. Also, if there is a third-party organization receiving stimulus funds then by God they better allow access! Heck, before we even get to that point, we should know how much money we just sent them and keep a record of it. Finally, I think that reports should be submitted from those contractors and third parties in general showing progress with taxpayer dollars. Why can't these simple things be written in the contracts? It is taxpayer dollars and so the taxpayer's deserve to know and it shouldn't cost the government a dime to get the information from who's using our money.

By MrBlastman on 7/10/2009 12:44:02 PM , Rating: 2
So in other words you are saying we should just nuke our government and start over? ;) ... and while we're at it, get rid of all the lawyers that draw up the darned contracts to simplify everything? :)

Stimulus Money
By retepallen on 7/10/2009 10:26:57 AM , Rating: 2
I think the Government is propping up the Web Design industry!

RE: Stimulus Money
By xti on 7/10/2009 10:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
i would have done the site for about 3 grand. cash.

RE: Stimulus Money
By marsbound2024 on 7/10/2009 11:03:31 AM , Rating: 3
Let me guess. You'd offer to host it on GoDaddy, too, right? :)

RE: Stimulus Money
By 67STANG on 7/10/2009 11:55:48 AM , Rating: 2
I would have charged more like 10k, myself. I've gone as high as 73k for an intranet site. Took me 3 months to do-- and I did it after I got home from my day job. ;-)

RE: Stimulus Money
By marsbound2024 on 7/10/2009 12:15:38 PM , Rating: 2
What type of functionality was in that intranet site? Did you use Sharepoint at all or just a lot of interaction with databases (Oracle or MySQL and what .NET language) along with different AJAX or javascript for web applications? I'm just curious, if you don't mind my asking.

RE: Stimulus Money
By 67STANG on 7/11/2009 3:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
It was indeed a SharePoint site. It involved a migration from 2003 to 2007, custom web part programming, AJAX, jQuery, a custom "home" site that rides on top of SharePoint with custom user controls and a full backend to update it. I also setup a backup server for them as well with mirroring. Anyone that's done anything with SharePoint knows you have to have a good backup. =)

Although SharePoint is by default, written in C#, I'm a VB.Net developer, so I converted the master pages and everything to work for me. The database is MS SQL 2005.

By Indianapolis on 7/10/2009 9:27:10 AM , Rating: 3
Is that what you call Obamanomics?

RE: Obamanomics?
By hosps on 7/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Obamanomics?
By mdogs444 on 7/10/2009 11:56:50 AM , Rating: 5
Sure it does, don't you remember his campaign speeches?

“Far too often, the spending is plagued by massive cost overruns, outright fraud and the absence of oversight and accountability,” Mr. Obama said. “In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition; in others, contractors actually oversee other contractors.”

RE: Obamanomics?
By hosps on 7/10/2009 4:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
Obama can't change the contracts already in place, many of which are long term and already underway. All he can do is put legislation in place that adds the ability to modify new contracts as the government sees fit.

For those who believed he could wave a magic wand and change the existing contracts truly don't understand the process or legalities involved. It's one of those campaign promises that he can't deliver on in the short term.

RE: Obamanomics?
By Indianapolis on 7/11/2009 12:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
You're admitting that government is not efficient. Almost everybody knows this. That is why so many people have a problem with Obama drastically expanding the size of government. The more government we have, the more our tax dollars are going to be wasted. This "recovery" website is just one good example.

Its about communication
By SiliconAddict on 7/11/2009 2:37:33 AM , Rating: 1
If I'm being told what is being done with my money in a manner that is informative I don't mind this. And lets please keep this in perspective. How much did the DTV credits cost? How much does a pair of F22's cost? Hell how much does transitioning the from one administration to another cost? Everyone bitches and complains about transparency in the gov. Someone is trying it for once and lo and behold it actually costs money. Go figure.

RE: Its about communication
By Indianapolis on 7/13/2009 12:07:19 AM , Rating: 2
Are you STILL seriously buying this "transparency" BS? If so, then you're a damned fool. If he really wants to demonstrate some transparency, how about starting with his actual birth certificate and his school records?

Someone should...
By wuZheng on 7/10/2009 9:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
...verify this with Ohloh (barring the fact its probably closed source)... just for kicks.

By AshT on 7/10/2009 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 2
Too expensive! It doesn't take a genius to work that one out.

Say good bye to your tax dollars!

It's working!
By tallguywithglasseson on 7/10/2009 11:12:30 AM , Rating: 2
Just think of all the jobs that website created!

By stilltrying on 7/10/2009 11:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
Its currently the Genevesi (D) next time the Gambinos(R) will have it. same game different name.

By taisingera on 7/10/2009 12:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
the government seems to want to pass all of this spending without telling us the details and how much it will mess up the country. That website will probably be a lot like the media is now, report what the White House wants it to and ignore anything that goes against it. STOP SPENDING MONEY!!!

By Tacoloft on 7/10/2009 1:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
America gets what it deserves for voting all of these crooks into office. I wish that the accountability that the government held the people they "serve" to applied to those in government as well. I want any law that they pass to equally apply to them ! They are the ultimate hypocrites and crooks. Our only way out of this is to vote them all out of office. However partisan politics are too entrenched in the minds of the ignorant. We need to get back to principles and character and the idea that politicians serve "We the People" and not the other way around. Sadly I think the whole house of cards are going to implode soon with the all of this can they account for inflation? Answer- they can't, and they don't care about you and me when they are able to give themselves raises year after year after year after year ect...

Sprint commercial time....
By captainBOB on 7/10/2009 5:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine if Small Business owners ran the government for one term. Just think about it, then post, not the other way around.

Stop the looting please
By breakonenine on 7/10/2009 10:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
The Stimulous Looting Package is not worth it, and there is no proof that it will be, since when did Americans prosper with mob tactics? The Constitution provides for Bankruptcies, and the most important duty of government, defense, was supposed to be limited to a maximum of two years worth of spending (I assume to prevent people from becoming paupers by building forts and castles while living in dirt huts)?

Web sites are nothing more than interfaces for databases (in this application) and they already have database servers with robotic storage facilities, etc. Seriously, they don't even bother to encrypt your emails with Congress (all your contact info is in the clear) so I am not surprised to see these people buy stuff from ENRON type sales people?

By aj28 on 7/11/2009 3:08:44 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to laugh when someone ends up tracing the graphics back to a pirated version of Photoshop O_O

Bid for the job
By overlandpark4me on 7/11/2009 12:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever happened to accepting bid to get the job done? After all, they're supposed to take blind bids on other government jobs, right?

Excellent work...
By SublimeSimplicity on 7/10/2009 9:26:26 AM , Rating: 1
If their goal was to stimulate the sector of the economy that deals with stimulus promoting and logistics then I'd say they've hit a home run!

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki