rugen wrote:
Your only justification for this remark is that I have previously stated that when pretty much every economist agrees that spending during a recession is expected by the government, and that the stimulus spending worked to help fend off much worse, I can only agree because I simply don't know enough about economies in a governmental sense to argue with them. There are posts here, that I know you've read, where I've stated that I wished the government worked the same way I do with regards to running my household.
Here's some reading for you. Try breaking out from your regular blog reading habits and research a little bit.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 026234.eceNote the signatories at the bottom. Not everyone is a huge believer in Keynes economics. Look at the results in the UK for fucks sake.
"The U.K. has been in Keynes overdrive for the past 18 months. The budget deficit is already more than 12 percent of gross domestic product, on a par with Greece. And while the Greeks are cutting spending, the British deficit is widening. Figures for January showed another fiscal blowout. At the same time, interest rates have been slashed to 0.5 percent. And the pound has slumped in value, which is supposed to boost demand for British goods, and help close the trade gap.
Just about everything possible has been done to encourage consumption. The results have been miserable.
Retail sales excluding gasoline in January fell 1.2 percent from the previous month, twice as much as economists forecast. The number of people receiving unemployment benefits jumped to 1.64 million in January, the highest level since April 1997. The yield on U.K. government debt is now higher than on Spanish or Italian bonds, a sure sign that investors are losing faith in the country’s ability to pay its debts. The inflation rate has also accelerated to 3.5 percent."
==
rugen wrote:
The best part about this whole thing is that I now have a much better appreciation for property value and location in London, and I can pretty guess exactly how this embassy thing went down from a cost/location standpoint. If I'm right? They did the smart thing. Sell off a worse property in a higher cost location to build a MUCH better location in a further out spot using the funds from the sale.
1) Selling off the old property was a great idea; 2) Using that money to build the most expensive embassy ever (by a wide margin) is NOT a good idea. Is this rocket science? Is there something I'm missing? I don't give two shits that they are building a new embassy. I appreciate and acknowledge the limitations of the current one. But when you're trying to sell the public on higher taxes, giong back on campaign promises, etc., it's not a good idea. Period. It's logic. How is this a hard concept?
It's like me having $100,000 in debt, selling off my old car for $25,000, and then going out and buying the best car I possibly can with all of that money. Common sense says to use some of that money to pay some of your debt off. Especially if you're asking someone else to give you a fucking loan to cover your debt. Even a tiny amount of that $25,000 can be used to reduce the debt.
It's a *symbol* you imbecile. It's a symbol that we, the government of the united states, are asking you, the citizens of the united states, to take on a higher burden, and that we will make commensurate sacrifices.
Besides, I thought your entire argument was that you don't give a shit about 1 billion, because - oh the humanity - we're wasting 700 billion in other areas.
rugen wrote:
A billion dollars that is a sum zero game rather than requiring additional taxes to pay for it (as you originally so wildly proclaimed)? You're right. I personally see that as WAY less important than the billions we have hemorrhaged into Iraq and Afghanistan, which is....wait for it....something I do hold Obama responsible for as we are still there, bleeding away. GASP!
This is the best part. How are you holding Obama responsible? How *will* you hold Obama responsible? This is the part I love the best about being able to vote against party lines, something you can't do, and will never do.