Deadline For Data.gov Arrives, and Delivers 81
inKubus writes "According to a story carried by AP, as part of President Barack Obama's 'Open Government Directive,' the 24 major departments and agencies that make up the executive branch of the federal government had until Friday to release at least three 'high-value' data sets. Over 300 new data sets have been released on data.gov. There's a lot of interesting stuff on there and more to come." One of the departments required to release data is the office of the US Trade Representative. Wouldn't it be nice if they posted the ACTA negotiating drafts?
How accurate are these data? (Score:5, Informative)
I've consulted with major research firms who use government data. Universally we find that the data haven't been verified and a little work shows massive inconsistencies therein. When recovery.org was showing jobs in zip codes that don't exist, etc., I wasn't surprise - it's par for the course.
I'll reserve judgment, but making data available is one thing; collecting usable data is something entirely different.
Re:One difference (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans tax poor people by eliminating social services? Since when is NOT gifting charity to the recipients suddenly a tax? By what right should the government gift them anything while forcing others to pay for it? You really call the decision to discontinue charity as a tax?
Social services are not gifts or charity. They are the shared benefits of civilization and infrastructure, and a recognition that the market does not have just solutions for every situation.
Spoken like a true Marxist. Need as defined by who? What the heck does need have to do with it? Just because someone manages to acquire, without committing a crime, more than another person they should be forced to give it up? By what right should the government take from one person and give to another when no theft or other crime has been committed?
The infrastructure and shared wealth of a society provides opportunity for success. Liberia is not home to any technology firms because it lacks the infrastructure to support one. Infrastructure is funded by public money. Therefore, if you want to continue to have a civilization, you should pay taxes. How much from whom is certainly a valid debate, but one it seems you wouldn't be capable of having.
Democrats tax anyone who makes anything and wastes most of it on operating the government, sending a small percentage of the budgeted money to the recipients.
On this we can sort of agree. Much of the money in the Federal budget is wasted on the military and the loans we have to pay off from previous wars. I say wasted, because although it provides jobs, the end result isn't really an investment. You can't do anything with a laser guided missile after you've paid millions of dollars for it, except use it to kill someone, or sell it to someone you'll probably have to disarm down the road.
They just do it under the "from those who have more than they need to those who don't" argument. I'll ask again, how do you decide when someone has more than they "need"? Who's the determiner? Why should those people be punished for success by having the fruits of their efforts taken from them?
Progressive tax rates are determined by the congress, who are elected by us. They are adjusted every year for inflation, and are based on the idea that taking 1/3 of someone's check who makes $250,000 a year is less damaging than taking 1/3 of someone's check who makes $25,000 per year.
If you think seeing a tax rate increase from 28% to 31% for income above $80k is punishment, or from 31% to 36% for income above $170k, or from 36% to 39.6% for income above $370k... well, forgive me for saying you're just being a bitch. Love it or leave it, right?
Incidentally, current tax rates are much lower. Those are the "Clinton" tax rates that apparently terrify you, I guess because balancing the budget isn't important these days, even if we should have raised taxes instead of lowered them after we decided to go to war. I really think McCain said it best: "The tax cut is not appropriate until we find out the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction."
During his Presidential run in 2000, his commercial said:
"There’s one big difference between me and the others. I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy. I’ll use the bulk of the surplus to secure Social Security far into the future to keep our promise to the greatest generation.”
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Greatest Generation? Fuck those old people. I need a second home in Aix-en-Provence.
Oh, Jesus, let me put that into Conservative Outrage: "I don't need anyone stealing my hard earned money just because they're lazy welfare recipients who just don't want to get jobs!"