Comments on: WashingtonWatch Now A Wiki. This Should Be Good.

By: stqcdy ftgqauwc

stqcdy ftgqauwc — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:44:53 +0000

pfrg zomderuah nuqbyih itumecoy isxvn ojiqyr idpmlvc

By: Waiting For Sunday / Sunday Seven: Interesting links from the past week

Waiting For Sunday / Sunday Seven: Interesting links from the past week — Thu, 03 May 2007 14:45:56 +0000

[...] Washington Watch lists and describes bills before Congress AND breaks down the cost of each PER FAMILY. Via TechCrunch. [...]

By: Jim Harper

Jim Harper — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 17:43:25 +0000

Thanks for the shout, Mike, and thanks for the astute (and funny and cynical) comments, folks.

As to the numbers and their relation to reality, it’s true that tax and spending *incidence* isn’t well reflected in average figures. I’ll be working to make incidence information available, but have found no scalable method of doing that. The numbers do give the public a sense of the relative importance of pending bills. (Important disclaimers along these lines are on the “about” page at – you could guess it – http://www.wash...atch.com/about/ )

The budget bill cited by Tom H. does reflect the amount Congress would spend in Fiscal Year 2008 under the House Budget Resolution. It’s not made up. Actual spending will occur based on appropriations bills that will follow. The Budget resolutions present an opportunity for people to communicate their preferences and observe their represenatives’ behavior, Thus, the decision to include cost information on these bills.

In case anyone thinks that cost information “skews” to the political right, I’d point out that the two most expensive (non-budget) bills are both military spending bills. WashingtonWatch.com is about bringing transparency to the process, and let the chips fall where they may.

Thanks again, Mike and commenters.

By: beng

beng — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:29:26 +0000

A great example of how taxes work…in response to number 13

http://www.snop...es/howtaxes.asp

By: TSW

TSW — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:19:21 +0000

The rich don’t “say” they pay most of the taxes — they do. It’s an undisputed fact.

By: Rich in Calif

Rich in Calif — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:31:46 +0000

Now that TC has mentioned and published this site, watch it hits and Alexa increase.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 14:30:49 +0000

I think sites like this are especially dangerous. With a site like Wikipedia, you still have a huge number of distortions and flaws, even though the site is relatively self-policing (I’ll admit, reluctantly). But if a site like this doesn’t gain traction in its community, you could have one side completely skewing the truth without the other bothering to contribute and correct it.

By: pallet jack

pallet jack — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:31:20 +0000

these are fake numbers – especially since “the rich” say they pay 80% of taxes.

– In that case – these numbers shouldn’t be spread equally.

At my current calculations: This site is getting: 627-734 Unique hits a week.

-Richard Bowles

By: Valentin1979

Valentin1979 — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:13:16 +0000

Hi,

In France, we have an internet media created by Carlo Revelli, in which internet users can post their own articles.
These articles are filtered by 2 different staffs. A third staff is the judge : it’s the internet community.

Anyone can vote, by expressing if this article is “interesting” or “not interesting”.

The site is AgoraVox : http://www.agoravox.com

Regards,
Valentin

By: Kewtr

Kewtr — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:11:12 +0000

This will truly be good I think, although it can only be as important in proportion to how much people care about getting the shaft on government spending. And this set of comments will be even better is we can get some more fresh Bush election jokes. Rich stuff.

By: Scott Yates

Scott Yates — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 12:06:54 +0000

Hombrelobo is right and the others are wrong. TC is doing us a service telling us about sites before they become huge. We can say we new about the site way back when.

If you want to just let Big Media cover the government, fine, but that’s not the way the world is moving.

By: Duncan

Duncan — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 08:07:42 +0000

Do I detect sarcasm in the post headline?

By: hombrelobo

hombrelobo — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:16:09 +0000

#2 Who cares about the Alexa ranking ?

The idea is to review good sites, even if they are not popular yet, if you believe they can be important in the future.

So many sites Alexa with an Alexa of 500 that are worthless (MySpace anyone ?)

By: Tom H.

Tom H. — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:16:09 +0000

Why do you find the per family cost fascinating? Its a completely fictitious number.

Do you really think “H. Con. Res. 99″ will cost the average american family $24,245.07? No.

I find nothing fascinating about play numbers.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 05:00:05 +0000

I hope that Bush finds a way to run for a third term. Who’s with me?!

By: Don't be retarded

Don't be retarded — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:58:55 +0000

why exactly are you reviewing a site with an alexa of 1,000,000 ….. ?? who cares about a site with 1 visitor per week??

By: Hornswaggled

Hornswaggled — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 04:47:57 +0000

Good luck moderating this…