$18,000,000 for website redesign. Obamas big pimpin - GoFuckYourself.com

IllTestYourGirls · 07-10-2009, 05:27 PM

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...ampaign=visits

Quote:

A company called Smartronix will get $18,000,000 [1] to redesign Recovery.gov [2], the federal Web site intended to track where federal Recovery Act spending goes.

The government purchased technology for a similar site (with a somewhat smaller scope), USASpending.gov [3], from the non-profit group OMB Watch for only $600,000. A private company already provides information on Recovery Act spending to the public for free [4].

I wrote here [5] enthusiastically about the plans of the Sunlight Foundation to go after this contract, saying ?[T]he contract award will now be subject to public scrutiny. Value-for-dollar to the taxpayer will be easily discernible, and that will raise the political risks of awarding the contract based on cronyism or go-with-whatchya-knowism. Transparency in all things.?

Sunlight did not ultimately bid. Instead, it took some lessons [6] about the government contracting business. The transparency I wrote about materialized, though, and we can take a lesson, too: The federal government will pay $18,000,000 for one freaking Web site.

This has to be a joke right?

Intrinsic · 07-10-2009, 05:34 PM

yeah, spend 18mil to track spending, sounds about right

Rangermoore · 07-10-2009, 05:43 PM

Thats obama for ya...

SBJ · 07-10-2009, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/...ampaign=visits

This has to be a joke right?

gotta love the USA

TurboAngel · 07-10-2009, 05:56 PM

That's fucked up.

fris · 07-10-2009, 05:59 PM

18 mil for a website, that companies profits just went sky high

escorpio · 07-10-2009, 06:13 PM

Smartronix will probably sub-contract it to some kid in India for $200. Nice profit.

1200mics · 07-10-2009, 06:25 PM

LOL i bet it will be flash design :D

Farang · 07-10-2009, 07:52 PM

Go Obama Go !!

DWB · 07-10-2009, 08:04 PM

THAT is change we can believe in.

Libertine · 07-10-2009, 09:15 PM

From what it looks like, the money isn't just being spent on design but also on things like upkeep, hosting, in-house staff costs, data entry, data gathering, etc.

Nicky · 07-10-2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

From what it looks like, the money isn't just being spent on design but also on things like upkeep, hosting, in-house staff costs, data entry, data gathering, etc.

yaa but $18mILLLL

That's like 5x what I make per month, insane

hypedough · 07-10-2009, 10:59 PM

So $18 mil including hosting and upkeep? How'd he figure out the future costs of the site, this has to be a figure to just set it up.

Libertine · 07-10-2009, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hypedough

So $18 mil including hosting and upkeep? How'd he figure out the future costs of the site, this has to be a figure to just set it up.

The $18 million is the budget for the site until 2014.

As for figuring out future costs... every single government project has projected costs, according to which it is given a budget. You didn't think the government just does stuff on a "pay as you go" basis, did you?

rayadp05 · 07-10-2009, 11:53 PM

Holy fucking christ. That's ridiculous.

PornMD · 07-11-2009, 12:07 AM

Good time to be a web developer when the government pays that kind of shit for it. Too bad they have a whole extension to work with or I'd try to sell them some $500 domains for $50,000.

LoveSandra · 07-11-2009, 01:47 AM

so fucking lame ..

wootpr0n · 07-11-2009, 01:48 AM

Why don't they put AdSense ads or sign up for some porn affiliate programs, then they will make their money back.

I don't understand why government websites don't do this. They get tons of specific traffic.

bbm · 07-11-2009, 03:46 AM

so, its nice

Iron Fist · 07-11-2009, 04:46 AM

18 mil will set up a nice Tube site indeed.

DWB · 07-11-2009, 07:29 AM

I would run it for 1/2 of that.

jmcb420 · 07-11-2009, 07:37 AM

What a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars.

Fucking stupid.

WTF?

David! · 07-11-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libertine

The $18 million is the budget for the site until 2014.

As for figuring out future costs... every single government project has projected costs, according to which it is given a budget. You didn't think the government just does stuff on a "pay as you go" basis, did you?

Why do you feel the need to explain something that is UTTERLY RIDICULOUS?
Like the frenzy the media went to explain a funny picture that seemed to show Obama looking at a woman's butt?

StuartD · 07-11-2009, 07:49 AM

Somehow I doubt Obama was sitting there wondering what sizeable number he could drum up for a new site just to tick people off....

Anyway, governments have been over spending on stupid crap like this for eons, happens in every administration.. hell, they made a joke of $40,000 toilet seats in Independance Day.

Here in Ontario they spent over $200,000 to come up with this:

That being said, if he is or is made aware of that, he should step in to put a stop to that kind of spending on things that just should not cost that much.

bbobby86 · 07-11-2009, 07:55 AM

only USA...

Brujah · 07-11-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbobby86

only USA...

What did London pay for that Olympics logo? Just under $1,000,000 wasn't it?

Dvae · 07-11-2009, 08:21 AM

As government projects go so will this one.

It will not be complete til 2016 and cost will balloon to at least double that.

Serge Litehead · 07-11-2009, 08:21 AM

18 mil for 5ye budget sounds pretty normal.

I one time before internet bubble burst I was consulting for one Fortune 40 Co, by my rough and modest calculations just by judging how much staff have been employed to support that company's site i came up with +100k dollars per week, propably spending that much for much longer than single year.

lets say you have staff of 20 people supporting a website on all levels, from designers, admins to accounting and execs.
lets just assume that 15 of those people make 50k/y and other 5 make 100k/y
15*50k=750k
+
5*100k=500k
-------------
1.25mil/y only for HR expenses
add equipment, real estate, PR, advertizing and a bit of profit and you easily get plus or minus 5mil/y spending budget.

RadicalSights · 07-11-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicky

yaa but $18mILLLL

That's like 5x what I make per month, insane

you mean 1000x you make per month?

Tanker · 07-11-2009, 09:15 AM

Ill build them a few sites and a tube for that price

and then install CCBTools for them as a recruitment tool! :P

IllTestYourGirls · 07-11-2009, 09:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holograph

18 mil for 5ye budget sounds pretty normal.

I one time before internet bubble burst I was consulting for one Fortune 40 Co, by my rough and modest calculations just by judging how much staff have been employed to support that company's site i came up with +100k dollars per week, propably spending that much for much longer than single year.

lets say you have staff of 20 people supporting a website on all levels, from designers, admins to accounting and execs.
lets just assume that 15 of those people make 50k/y and other 5 make 100k/y
15*50k=750k
+
5*100k=500k
-------------
1.25mil/y only for HR expenses
add equipment, real estate, PR, advertizing and a bit of profit and you easily get plus or minus 5mil/y spending budget.

Minus the fact that someone is already giving the public the same thing for free and its only costing them 600k. And they are probably turning a profit.

Serge Litehead · 07-11-2009, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Minus the fact that someone is already giving the public the same thing for free and its only costing them 600k. And they are probably turning a profit.

yeah but from the article we know only 4 variables: 18mil, web site, 600k, similar technology

based solely on these factors there is no way to determine if 18mil budget is over and through the roof. we don't know how similar is the technology, we don't know what are the requirements nor we do not know how much resources are allocated the project. half of people on gfy never dealt in corporate business and probably very few dealt with government projects if any - and all act like experts that from these 4 variables it is determined that project is blown out of proportions cost wise - maybe yes or maybe not.

you cannot take 18mil put together with word "website" and say wow that's just crazy I can build 18,000 tubes or more for that cost. we don't have enough data to make any kind of logical conclution, just half-thought out assumptions.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-11-2009, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holograph

yeah but from the article we know only 4 variables: 18mil, web site, 600k, similar technology

based solely on these factors there is no way to determine if 18mil budget is over and through the roof. we don't know how similar is the technology, we don't know what are the requirements nor we do not know how much resources are allocated the project. half of people on gfy never dealt in corporate business and probably very few dealt with government projects if any - and all act like experts that from these 4 variables it is determined that project is blown out of proportions cost wise - maybe yes or maybe not.

you cannot take 18mil put together with word "website" and say wow that's just crazy I can build 18,000 tubes or more for that cost. we don't have enough data to make any kind of logical conclution, just half-thought out assumptions.

Fair enough

nation-x · 07-11-2009, 09:53 AM

It's obvious to me that you idiots have never dealt with a consulting firm or run a really large mainstream site. I am not really defending the spending... but $18M for a 5 year contract to build, service and maintain a website like recovery.gov is fairly common in the corporate world. About 9 years ago (right before 9/11) I was being payed almost $20k/month to build and run a site for Herman Miller and that didn't include hosting or data entry.... and I beat other bidders by almost 50% by bidding $125/hour @ 160 hours/month. $18M over 5 years is $1875/hour based on full time hours (160/month). If you add a couple of developers, hosting, equipment, data entry people and managers to run the project... those numbers are reasonable.

Zorgman · 07-11-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

What did London pay for that Olympics logo? Just under $1,000,000 wasn't it?

Is it my sick mind or are there two people fucking in thie logo ?

IllTestYourGirls · 07-11-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

It's obvious to me that you idiots have never dealt with a consulting firm or run a really large mainstream site. I am not really defending the spending... but $18M for a 5 year contract to build, service and maintain a website like recovery.gov is fairly common in the corporate world. About 9 years ago (right before 9/11) I was being payed almost $20k/month to build and run a site for Herman Miller and that didn't include hosting or data entry.... and I beat other bidders by almost 50% by bidding $125/hour @ 160 hours/month. $18M over 5 years is $1875/hour based on full time hours (160/month). If you add a couple of developers, hosting, equipment, data entry people and managers to run the project... those numbers are reasonable.

18 million for something we dont need is reasonable?

18 million to give the illusion that obama is for transparency while democrat leaders continue to block 1207?

I guess its not that bad then.

dissipate · 07-11-2009, 02:44 PM

Ugh, I need to leave this fucking country, permanently this time.

nation-x · 07-11-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

18 million for something we dont need is reasonable?

18 million to give the illusion that obama is for transparency while democrat leaders continue to block 1207?

I guess its not that bad then.

First of all... you should learn to read a little more closely... I clearly said I was not defending the spending... only making the point that the $18M figure was not an outlandish amount for the project.

H.R. 1207 is a political ploy with a great sounding name (it uses the "Transparency" buzzword). All it proposes is that the Comptroller audit the Fed and make a report to congress by a specific date in 2010 while striking audit exemptions from Title 31. The entire amendment is a paragraph long. It doesn't say anything about what Congress should do with the report... what the purpose of such an audit would be or anything like that. It is pure political theatre... if Ron Paul really wanted to introduce a worthwhile bill he should have added those details.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-11-2009, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

First of all... you should learn to read a little more closely... I clearly said I was not defending the spending... only making the point that the $18M figure was not an outlandish amount for the project.

H.R. 1207 is a political ploy with a great sounding name (it uses the "Transparency" buzzword). All it proposes is that the Comptroller audit the Fed and make a report to congress by a specific date in 2010 while striking audit exemptions from Title 31. The entire amendment is a paragraph long. It doesn't say anything about what Congress should do with the report... what the purpose of such an audit would be or anything like that. It is pure political theatre... if Ron Paul really wanted to introduce a worthwhile bill he should have added those details.

18 million for unneeded project is outlandish.

How can you know what to do with the audit when nothing is known about the FED and what the audit will find?

However, the constitution already says what should be done. It is rather simple. No need to bog down the bill with details that are already law

nation-x · 07-11-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

18 million for unneeded project is outlandish.

How can you know what to do with the audit when nothing is known about the FED and what the audit will find?

However, the constitution already says what should be done. It is rather simple. No need to bog down the bill with details that are already law

The comptroller does regular audits... I wouldn't exactly call that "nothing is known".

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/

http://www.federalreserve.gov/genera...faq/faqfrs.htm

Quote:

Are the Federal Reserve System and Reserve Banks ever audited?

The Board of Governors, the Federal Reserve Banks, and the Federal Reserve System as a whole are all subject to several levels of audit and review. Under the Federal Banking Agency Audit Act (enacted in 1978 as Public Law 95-320), which authorizes the Comptroller General of the United States to audit the Federal Reserve System, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has conducted numerous reviews of Federal Reserve activities. In addition, the Board's Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits and investigates Board programs and operations as well as those Board functions delegated to the Reserve Banks. Completed and active GAO reviews and completed OIG audits, reviews, and assessments are listed in the Board?s Annual Report (before 2002, the reviews were listed in the Board's Annual Report: Budget Review).

The Board's financial statements, and its compliance with laws and regulations affecting those statements, are audited annually by an outside auditor retained by the OIG. The financial statements of the Reserve Banks are also audited annually by an independent outside auditor. In addition, the Reserve Banks are subject to annual examination by the Board. The Board's financial statements and the combined financial statements for the Reserve Banks are published in the Board's Annual Report.

btw... I posted support on ADX for Ron Paul's bill on Feb.18, 2009 but have changed my mind about it because the purpose isn't clearly defined. The amendment should at least state a purpose and it doesn't.

IllTestYourGirls · 07-11-2009, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nation-x

The comptroller does regular audits... I wouldn't exactly call that "nothing is known".

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/

http://www.federalreserve.gov/genera...faq/faqfrs.htm

btw... I posted support on ADX for Ron Paul's bill on Feb.18, 2009 but have changed my mind about it because the purpose isn't clearly defined. The amendment should at least state a purpose and it doesn't.

The bill is very clearly defined.

Max - RiotDesign · 07-11-2009, 04:11 PM

pfft I don't even open photoshop for less than 20mil

collegeboobies · 07-11-2009, 04:20 PM

it includes maintaining it for years, probably servers and bandwidth to handle a ton of traffic as well.

seeandsee · 07-11-2009, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

What did London pay for that Olympics logo? Just under $1,000,000 wasn't it?

this is REALLLLLLLLLL???????????

Never saw such bad shit for logo

Socks · 07-11-2009, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

What did London pay for that Olympics logo? Just under $1,000,000 wasn't it?

That's a guy having sex with a dog, best I see it.

Lycanthrope · 07-12-2009, 05:00 AM

I see Lisa Simpson on her knees sucking cock

theS2O · 07-12-2009, 05:37 AM

that's a lot of $$$

Elixir · 07-12-2009, 07:50 AM

damn...fuck you obama

07-10-2009, 05:43 PM	#3
Rangermoore Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: EVERYWHERE Posts: 1,541	Thats obama for ya... __________________

07-10-2009, 05:59 PM	#6
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	18 mil for a website, that companies profits just went sky high __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

07-10-2009, 06:13 PM	#7
escorpio I love to racism, bro! Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA! USA! USA! Posts: 23,106	Smartronix will probably sub-contract it to some kid in India for $200. Nice profit. __________________ Unvaxxed, still alive.

07-10-2009, 06:25 PM	#8
1200mics Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: ICQ : 297-476-738 Posts: 5,131	LOL i bet it will be flash design :D __________________

07-10-2009, 07:52 PM	#9
Farang one sick puppy Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Where the worst of the West meets the worst of the East Posts: 11,565	Go Obama Go !! __________________ i sale uncensored chatbots

07-10-2009, 05:34 PM	#2
Intrinsic Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,589	yeah, spend 18mil to track spending, sounds about right

07-10-2009, 05:56 PM	#5
TurboAngel H.B.I.C. Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: NC Posts: 30,122	That's fucked up.

07-10-2009, 08:04 PM	#10
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	THAT is change we can believe in.

07-10-2009, 09:15 PM	#11
Libertine sex dwarf Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 17,860	From what it looks like, the money isn't just being spent on design but also on things like upkeep, hosting, in-house staff costs, data entry, data gathering, etc. __________________ /(bb\|[^b]{2})/

07-10-2009, 10:59 PM	#13
hypedough Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Now running NATS4: HypeDough.com! Posts: 3,743	So $18 mil including hosting and upkeep? How'd he figure out the future costs of the site, this has to be a figure to just set it up. __________________ Ricky D :: Hype Dough President \| XBIZ.net \| ICQ 172-939-826 AIM+Skype HypeDough \| [NATS4] Kayden420: ['09 '10 '11 XBIZ Nominee \| Exclusive & HD] \| ThePornScout: [Exclusive + Reality \| Amateurs Want to Become Pornstars]

07-10-2009, 11:53 PM	#15
rayadp05 TRUEAMATEURMODELS.COM Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: TrueAmateurModels.com Posts: 4,187	Holy fucking christ. That's ridiculous. __________________ TrueAmateurModels.com Twitter TrueAmateurModels.com Affiliate Program

07-11-2009, 12:07 AM	#16
PornMD Mainstream Businessman Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Diego Posts: 9,291	Good time to be a web developer when the government pays that kind of shit for it. Too bad they have a whole extension to work with or I'd try to sell them some $500 domains for $50,000. __________________ Want to crush it in mainstream with Facebook ads? Hit me up.

07-11-2009, 01:47 AM	#17
LoveSandra So Fucking Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Just Blow Me Posts: 10,551	so fucking lame ..

07-11-2009, 01:48 AM	#18
wootpr0n Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 250	Why don't they put AdSense ads or sign up for some porn affiliate programs, then they will make their money back. I don't understand why government websites don't do this. They get tons of specific traffic. __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

07-11-2009, 03:46 AM	#19
bbm So Fucking Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 3,710	so, its nice

07-11-2009, 04:46 AM	#20
Iron Fist Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 23,400	18 mil will set up a nice Tube site indeed. __________________ i like waffles

07-11-2009, 07:29 AM	#21
DWB Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Encrypted. Access denied. Posts: 31,779	I would run it for 1/2 of that.

07-11-2009, 07:37 AM	#22
jmcb420 So Fucking Drunk Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 2,155	What a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars. Fucking stupid. WTF? __________________ I'm funner than AIDS, and easier to explain to your parents.

07-11-2009, 07:49 AM	#24
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	Somehow I doubt Obama was sitting there wondering what sizeable number he could drum up for a new site just to tick people off.... Anyway, governments have been over spending on stupid crap like this for eons, happens in every administration.. hell, they made a joke of $40,000 toilet seats in Independance Day. Here in Ontario they spent over $200,000 to come up with this: That being said, if he is or is made aware of that, he should step in to put a stop to that kind of spending on things that just should not cost that much. __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

07-11-2009, 07:55 AM	#25
bbobby86 partners.sexier.com Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 11,926	only USA... __________________

07-11-2009, 08:21 AM	#27
Dvae Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: US Posts: 5,326	As government projects go so will this one. It will not be complete til 2016 and cost will balloon to at least double that.

07-11-2009, 08:21 AM	#28
Serge Litehead Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Behind the scenes Posts: 5,190	18 mil for 5ye budget sounds pretty normal. I one time before internet bubble burst I was consulting for one Fortune 40 Co, by my rough and modest calculations just by judging how much staff have been employed to support that company's site i came up with +100k dollars per week, propably spending that much for much longer than single year. lets say you have staff of 20 people supporting a website on all levels, from designers, admins to accounting and execs. lets just assume that 15 of those people make 50k/y and other 5 make 100k/y 1550k=750k + 5100k=500k ------------- 1.25mil/y only for HR expenses add equipment, real estate, PR, advertizing and a bit of profit and you easily get plus or minus 5mil/y spending budget. __________________ SilverCrocodile.com Adult web design since '05 Last edited by Serge Litehead; 07-11-2009 at 08:23 AM..

07-11-2009, 09:15 AM	#30
Tanker Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada Posts: 9,287	Ill build them a few sites and a tube for that price and then install CCBTools for them as a recruitment tool! :P __________________ Tanker ICQ 3427575 CCBTools Now featured in the CCBill.com APP STORE

07-11-2009, 09:53 AM	#34
nation-x Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Rock Hill, SC Posts: 5,370	It's obvious to me that you idiots have never dealt with a consulting firm or run a really large mainstream site. I am not really defending the spending... but $18M for a 5 year contract to build, service and maintain a website like recovery.gov is fairly common in the corporate world. About 9 years ago (right before 9/11) I was being payed almost $20k/month to build and run a site for Herman Miller and that didn't include hosting or data entry.... and I beat other bidders by almost 50% by bidding $125/hour @ 160 hours/month. $18M over 5 years is $1875/hour based on full time hours (160/month). If you add a couple of developers, hosting, equipment, data entry people and managers to run the project... those numbers are reasonable.

07-11-2009, 02:44 PM	#37
dissipate The Dirty Frenchman Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lost Angeles Posts: 8,904	Ugh, I need to leave this fucking country, permanently this time.

07-11-2009, 04:11 PM	#42
Max - RiotDesign Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Buenos Aires Posts: 246	pfft I don't even open photoshop for less than 20mil

07-11-2009, 04:20 PM	#43
collegeboobies So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 3,644	it includes maintaining it for years, probably servers and bandwidth to handle a ton of traffic as well.

07-12-2009, 05:00 AM	#46
Lycanthrope Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 4,517	I see Lisa Simpson on her knees sucking cock __________________

07-12-2009, 05:37 AM	#47
theS2O Adult Design Since 2003 Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: s2odesigns.com Posts: 4,784	that's a lot of $$$ __________________ EMAIL ME at [email protected] for Design Inquiries! \| SKYPE: s2odesigns \| ICQ: 280646555 Adult/Mainstream Website Designs \| Illustrations, Toons & Corporate Logos S2O Designs - Making Awesome Logos & Websites Since 2003!

07-12-2009, 07:50 AM	#48
Elixir CHECK MY SIG-AMAZING SITE Join Date: May 2006 Location: ICQ: 210-874-419 Posts: 12,870	damn...fuck you obama __________________ SIG FOR SALE ICQ 210874419