How long before people start complaining that it's not PERFECTLY transparent?

I'm glad that his staff has taken a page from GOOD magazine and begun a campaign of transparency. It's a solid move.

I'm curious, what do they mean by protecting the vulnerable?

I was curious about that too UnDave, couldn't really find out from the website but I haven't been browsing too long.

I only wish he was this transparent before our elected officials voted on it. It seems he didn't care about his transparency promise until after he got his way.

I think it means longer unemployment benefits, digital tv coupons etc.

I think "protecting the vulnerable" is a nicer way of talking about entitlement programs.

And stephley, this is nice now, but why wasn't this much information available before the vote?

My tax money is being spent on tax relief? How about that.

"I only wish he was this transparent before our elected officials voted on it."

Exactly.

Well yeah, complaining. There's not enough information here.

Just reading the posts when I have time at owrk, but I HAD to comment about what other people have mentioned.. transparency NOW - I think many people would have appreciated it before the final vote.

Also protecting the vulnerable... sounds to me like entitlements that aren't Medicare. I would call that spin (along the lines of Obama's tax credits somehow becoming tax cuts), certianly not transparency. If it's a spade, call it a spade.

I also do not understand how such a high amount is going to tax "relief" (another great spin there)... how is that possible? The stimulus I saw was not so heavily oriented in that way. I must have missed something.

Also, kinda OT but steph, you are one of the few posters who has stated that the stimulus doesn't do 'enough.' Are you satisified with where the money is currently going, but would like there to be more of it out there, or would you have prefered that the current funds be diverted to causes that did not get funding under the final bill, or something else...? Just curious 'cause I honestly don't know anyone who has this assessment of the situation.

I would imagine this is just the beginning and more information will follow with a lot more details. But I applaud the Obama adminstration for even doing this, its a first from what I have seen, and allows for a dialogue around areas that aren't working (forums etc.)

This is new and welcomed terrain in government spending for me, and if we continue to do this kind of thing for all spending then that's real change.

I have to say, of course it's a first. The government has never done anything like this before. This amount of spending, this amount of "urgency", and this amount of secrecy.

:high-five: GS

I'm trying not to judge too harshly, but I'm finding that's not possible for me, sorry.

So far Obama's interfacing with the public has seemed very 'marketed' to me.... right down to those silly podium signs that reference his brand.

There's nothing wrong with it on the surface, but I get the feeling that it's meant to distract us from what is really going on. This is just my opinion, or I guess gut feeling more precisely.

You stole my words GS....

I'm always for "being openminded" myself. This tells us nothing though. At the very least I'd like to know what "other" is. That could be anything.

I was talking about the website and the transparency, not the bill itself. No president has ever done something like this, use technology to tell us what was going on and where our money was going. I think its great, I don't know how you could seriously see otherwise. I'm sure its not perfect right now, that the level of detail isn't where I would like it to be right now but at least its a start.

Myd, that is because there has been outrage since it's passing. All over the radio people calling him out on his "transparency." This is just damage control. Incomplete damage control at that.

I guess that's where I disagree with you diadem, I don't feel like Obama is telling us anything worthwhile here.

I disagree this is damage control, it was one of his campaign promises to provide more transparency to government using technology like this. I think this falls in line with what he has been saying for a while.

"And stephley, this is nice now, but why wasn't this much information available before the vote?"
The bill was written in the House and Senate, not by the WH so it wasn't up to the White House to put it out there - if they had, everyone would have complained about biased descriptions. Obama was out talking about what he wanted, it was up to our elected reps to write a bill that they wanted. If you lived through the 80s and 90s, you know that if a group in Congress wants to hold out for what they think is right, they have plenty of options.

I would rather see transparency before the bill is passed so we have the opportunity to tell our congressmen what we like or don't like. To me that is part of what Obama promised, 5 days to read the bill online before he signed it. That didn't happen. Doing it after the bill has been signed does not fulfill the promise.

Our officials didn't even know what they were signing. Post facto transparency is a joke.

They knew what they were signing. The House version was passed at the end of January. The Senate version was argued about for days. What were people arguing about if they did not know what was in the bill?

In the house there were only 5 copies of the bill available to read, made available 12:30 the night before the vote, weighing in at over 1100 pages with some of the parts still hand written.

It would have been impossible to read the final bill before voting on it. It's exceedingly naive to think that they did.

Wow, that's trusting Lil.

I feel like it does matter what Obama does some of you will never be happy because he's not from your side of the fence. Give the man a BREAK did the last president asked you what you wanted. Even if this bill fail oh well take it as trial and error. We gave the last idiot 8 yrs of trail and error. I swear I strongly belief that some of you are hating because he's black and democracy.

You can't possibly be serious with the who cares bit? Is that your child in the pic? They will care. Do you understand how much just 1 billion is?

Ah, there's the card we've been missing.

"I swear I strongly belief that some of you are hating because he's black and democracy."

Nailed it.

I strongly belief you do feel that way Org. It's because he's black and democracy.

The 'we couldn't read it' line is old, tired, and the only people who are buying it are the people who want to believe it, and don't know much about Congress.

“members of Congress can't be forced to vote on anything (as we have seen repeatedly in the context of judicial nominations), and if they believe their leadership has scheduled a vote in undue haste, they can sidetrack it procedurally or vote "no." Many may well have voted on it without taking the time to read it, as they do with many bills.”
National Review online, in article on the Patriot Act, 2005

February 2009:

“Certainly I hope to have the opportunity to go through [the bill] before the vote takes place,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told CNSNews.com. “But that’s something I’ve found doesn’t always happen around here.”

“Voinovich, the only member of Congress who told CNSNews.com that he had taken the time to read through every line of the stimulus bill that had been initially approved by the Senate, said he planned to do the same for the final version of the bill that had been approved by the House-Senate conference committee. But the Ohio Republican wasn’t sure if his colleagues would be as meticulous as he had been. “I don’t know,” he said, when asked if he thought others would read every line of the bill. “You’ll have to ask them.”

Again, you show your true colors and come right out and say that everyone who thinks differently than you is in some way lesser informed and beneath you. Excellent Steph.

Ha! Pot met kettle. "Do you understand how much just 1 billion is?" That's what I see on here all day from both sides. I mean seriously? Come on now, be fair to Steph she made some good points. I know I read the freakin thing before it was signed, if someone's whose job is to read bills before they vote can't do it that's their own damn fault and lack of personal responsiblity.

That makes it better how?

Sorry it bothers you GS - but if someone keeps repeating something that isn't true, there are only so many benign assumptions the rest of us can make about why they're doing it.

Steph, you are assuming that we don't hold every member accountable. I do, I think the others saying that they shouldn't have voted do to. That a clean sweep is needed. We aren't saying it is just Obama or Pelosi. None of these people should have voted at the point they did.

So you're saying that we should be certain that every member of Congress has read every word of every bill presented before voting on it? Because that's going to slow things down a lot.

And I wonder if Sorrowja felt your comment 30 was meant in kindness.

I expect the people I vote for to. If I find out they don't, I don't vote for them next time. You're telling my you don't care if your reps vote on things they haven't read?

Yeah, I think they should read everything they vote on. Shoot, if I don't read every word for word on these threads before I say something. It's

“Certainly I hope to have the opportunity to go through [the bill] before the vote takes place,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) told CNSNews.com. “But that’s something I’ve found doesn’t always happen around here.”

steph - this is an ambiguous quote to me. I think it could go either way: the Senator doesn't take the time to read the bill OR he isn't given time to read the entire bill.

I read in numerous places that Congress people where not given enough time to properly read the stimulus package. You say that is bunk, so I guess there's a chance it is (or not).

My main disappointment in this is that the public was not given the opportunity to digest the final thing. Obama ran on transparency and he did not deliver on the biggest spending bill ever that will undoubtedly have a huge impact on our lives (for better or worse).

I'd say that's a legitimate complaint. Many of us on these boards do not have universal faith that Obama & Co. have our best interests at heart, and many of us are worried sillied (that would be me).

"Did I call her stupid or make some other just generally snarly, witchy comment as you tend to to everyone who doesn't agree with you?"
Sorry GS, I meant comment 33 - which makes the answer 'yes'.

Kranky, the point is that the claim that no one read the bill is nonsense - republicans were against the bill for the kind of reasons that you mention in your last graph - they don't trust Obama or the Democrats. They're allowed to feel that way, but they should say that's their problem, not make up lame excuses. The bill was in the works for weeks, was all over the news - the public had plenty of opportunity to know as much or more about it than they do most bills.

Obama ran on change, not transparency. I voted for him, and I believe that on the stimulus bill he generally delivered real help for the economy and the details of that effort. I wish the White House had written it, and I think it was silly to try winning bi-partisan support on this issue - the divide is too deep and it's going to take a lot of work to breach it. And both sides have to want to do that.

You stand for many of the things Obama and his supporters believe need to be changed so he's not likely to be delivering a lot of change that you can believe in any time soon.

I was making fun of org.

Steph, you can try to justify your behavior all you want, everyone's opinions have already been formed.

You can apply what you say in 48 to your claim in 47 about 33.

?

Haha, I can guarantee there wasn't time to read that bill in the time before the final release and the final vote in the house. It was physically impossible, both spatially and chronologically. Sure they knew a few points, some large and small, but each member didn't and couldn't have known all of the details. I personally expect my representatives to follow through with due dilligence.

I for one am glad Obama is being so upfront with people