Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes its good to keep things in perspective.
Up to 100 billion are lost each year, yet we have posters here that would argue for the ability to use tax havens.
At least this is creating jobs - despite the necessity of the website redo not being apparent.
It should be when the site is complete.
It's not "creating" jobs. It's being done by an existing company.
OK, I didn't read every post, so not sure if this was mentioned.
But on GMA this morning, they were telling a story about the millions $$$ that were spent to make "recovery" road signs to advise the tax payers that their money was being spent.
The initial version of recovery.gov may have been a very simple website, created quickly, just to get it up and running shortly after Obama took office.
Now that system analysts have been given time to plan the website out in greater detail, the new version may be extremely complex, and require hundreds of highly specialized programs to be written, to handle all the different tasks required by the website.
So I can see how it can grow into a large-scale $18 million project, requiring a large team of developers to work on it.
And considering it's purpose is to keep taxpayers aware of where a trillion (or more) dollars of their tax money is being spent, $18 million is a small price to pay ... don't ya think?
Sometimes its good to keep things in perspective.
Up to 100 billion are lost each year, yet we have posters here that would argue for the ability to use tax havens.
At least this is creating jobs - despite the necessity of the website redo not being apparent.
It should be when the site is complete.
I don't believe that it will create jobs-- certainly not on the broad-based level that will make an impact on the U.S. economy. And even if it did, it's a wasteful way to do it. There are many ways to create jobs while helping people and moving America forward at the same time. When our roads are a mess, hospitals are closing, overpopulated and rundown schools are failing to teach children basic skills and sick, homeless people roam our streets, it's ridiculous to allocate $18 million to redesigning a website that most people will never know about, care about or use.
The road signs are wasteful, too. These are vanity projects when we, as a country, are facing some of the most serious issues we've ever encountered. This continual squandering of taxpayer dollars on projects of little consequence is deplorable-- not from a political perspective, but from an American perspective. Obviously, some feel that limited-use websites and look-at-us-spending-your-money signs are a brilliant use of dwindling resources, so we'll just agree to disagree.
The initial version of recovery.gov may have been a very simple website, created quickly, just to get it up and running shortly after Obama took office.
No, it's not simple. Go look at it. Why would they put up a website right after Obama took office for a stimulus that wasn't voted on ?
No, it's not simple. Go look at it. Why would they put up a website right after Obama took office for a stimulus that wasn't voted on ?
I think your premise is flawed.
His premise is correct. That is how most large sites are fast tracked. You throw up the first version just to get it up, then move on to make it what it really should be with later versions.
And considering it's purpose is to keep taxpayers aware of where a trillion (or more) dollars of their tax money is being spent, $18 million is a small price to pay ... don't ya think?
Sure, since the no one in Congress read the bill in the first place, guess they can also go to that site and read where the money is going.
And since the dems blocked the bill to look at what the Federal Reserve is hiding in their books, I guess we can trust the website to tell us that too!
$18 million is a small price to pay ... don't ya think?
There is already a website with that function.
Quote:
His premise is correct. That is how most large sites are fast tracked. You throw up the first version just to get it up, then move on to make it what it really should be with later versions.
This is what's wrong. How much did it cost to just "throw up" a website that is inadequate for the task and that no one can use? Why not take a little bit more time and doing it right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
