Bear = deficit
woodchuck = economy

Hence my issue with your statement: "The tax hike is a policy aimed at the deficit, not the economy."

_________________

Hey, why NOT pay higher taxes? It lets us spend a billion dollars on a new embassy in London.



I dunno about you guys, but I'm happy to do my part.

Had you ever seen the embassy in London, you might not be so quick to say this quite so sarcastically.

_________________

man I think that looks nice!

You laugh.. but spending like that *completely* invalidates your argument about the necessities of higher taxes.

Not really, no. But it is good to see you are as reactionary as ever. Jesus christ, lighten up. The US embassy in London has been a running joke among brits for a long ass time. They couldn't wait to show it to me and see my reaction to it. I personally didn't care. A building is a building is a building, but they seem to think it is shocking that we have such an "embarrassment" of an embassy.

When taken against our 700+ billion in military spending? I know which one I am more concerned about.

_________________

You don't see anything symbolic about us building a monument to our wealth and prosperity in a time when we're facing crushing debt?

A monument to our wealth and prosperity?

Looks a lot like a regular old building to me.

Er, ok. So I went and read up on it, and you were being completely serious when you said one billion dollars for it. I thought you were kidding.

Hm.

Ok, that is a little odd.

Seriously... that looks awesome.

Waste of money, but intended to boost confidence in the US economy, such as it is.

And I'll repeat...

_________________

If you read the rest of the article we sold the old bulding for a billion dollars so this is a wash i think.

Funny, weren't we just speaking about invalidating arguments, Jox?

_________________

lolz

I can't imagine why they would want to upgrade from the old 1960's building that looked like a closed-in pile of concrete to a larger, modern and environmentally-sound building. All in part to signify one of the closest and most significant relationships between two nations in the world. What were they thinking?

I, too, am going to have to default to the 700 billion military budget over the 1 billion that was already more than paid for by selling the previous building.

hehe... he's not going to give up!

We spend even more on military is a horrible argument to justify anything. Anything based on the premise that something else is even worse starts out as a flawed defense.

In the end it looks like it was sold, so we dodged the bullet on this one thankfully, but don't be fooled into thinking the original plan was a good one.

I don't recall using the miltary spending as a justification. I'm simply saying that unlike you and Jox, apparently, I'm far more concerned about the river rushing through the hole in the wall than I am at a crack that MIGHT be dropping water. There's a difference there, subtle as it may be.

And "original plan"? Dodged a bullet? Seriously? What might that original plan have been...to sell the old embassy and build a new one? Yeah, clearly we dodged a bullet on that traditional business model. *eyeroll*

_________________

Why would it need justification, Drajeck? It looks like a worthwhile business decision, especially given our government's track record in these kinds of situations to come out on the losing end of the deal.

Besides, even if it were a problem, Rugen's right that there's a distinction between justifying or even excusing something and suggesting that a bigger problem ought to be of more concern than a smaller one.

And frankly, I think it's occasionally worthwhile to look at the big picture when deciding if it's a worthwhile investment. 1 billion dollars... the most expensive embassy(cue the horror music and call up Chicken Little) for, again, one of the closest and most influential/important relationships in the world - which is replacing a half-century-old run-down concrete block building? Out of a 3.5+ trillion dollar budget? I'm sorry, I still don't see the problem.

Yes, your concern has been *readily* apparent on the board. You really do have a rationalization for everything this admin does, don't you?

Jox, you're trying way too hard at this point.

Why can't you just get off the soapbox, just say something like "oops, wasn't aware we sold the other building for a billion, too." and admit this entire topic has gone nowhere?

Or are you just going to keep running in circles, mumbling something incoherent about Obama and spending?

I always love it when professional trolls tell other people they're trying too hard. That's up there with "I don't care what you think".

Bazinga!

Seriously, Orme? You're making a post like that out of the blue and playing the troll card? Why, because I disagreed with you on a different thread?

Stone ------> Glass House

No, you just have a hard on to find something wrong with everything they do that is blinding you from being able to simply admit you are and were wrong on this topic and that has now led you down the path of "zomg, you just suck this administrations cock!!" rather than just admit you goofed.

It has gotten kind of pathetic.

_________________

I read your response as saying it's not a big deal to spend 1 billion on it because we waste so much more money on defense. That sounds like justification to me, but sometimes it's hard to get a thorough meaning out of a few sentences on a board like this. I personally feel we spend too much money on just about everything, including defense. I live by the motto that I don't spend money I don't have, and if that means doing without something I used to consider a "need", then I redefine need. I would like our government to follow that same rule, and while we are running at a huge deficit, we don't have the money for a billion dollar expenditure. I also want to cut spending on every other government program too (defense included), reduce it ALL until you are at a balanced budget.



As for it being a good business decision, that is unlikely. Government agencies do not (and should not!) speculate on what real estate transactions will be profitable (our banking system is doing a good enough job screwing that up by themselves). This was a lucky break, not an intended plan. Also, what does us having a great relationship with them have to do with how much we spend on an embassy? Is the implication there that if we buy a more elegant embassy we are better allies? I simply don't agree with that. I believe foriegn relations are critical to our country's success and that was one of the primary reasons I voted for Obama. I believe he was the best choice to improve the US image for the world, but I don't think he's going to do it with extravagent embassies.

What exactly have I been wrong on? That we're building the most expensive embassy ever? That it's a monument to our wealth and prosperity when we're facing crushing debt?

The problem, I think, is that you really have no earthly idea what fiscal responsibility is, the importance of symbols, or any ability to hold the people *you* vote for to the same standards as the ones you don't vote for. It's amusing and sad to see the effect the stimulus has had - a billion dollars means nothing to shitbirds like you, I guess.

It's sad.. I'd say that I can't wait for more economies to collapse under the weight of deficit spending just to disprove the wisdom of Keynes' theory, but I'm afraid that I'll wind up paying for its failure more than you. Maybe by the time England's economy goes the way of Greece we'll all be on the same page.

As an Independent, it's been super fun over the past years getting to see our nation undermined by GOP interventionism and Democrat deficit spending. Thanks ever so much for the fun memories!

See, you're doing it again. Going off on all sorts of tangents and pretty much just abandoning the current topic because you know you snafu'ed it by getting on a soapbox before you had all the info.

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.

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.



Yes, because I've never posted anywhere on these boards about how much this administration has let me down. Flail flail flail. You're just desperate for something to stick.



My favorite part about this sentence is that it is always easy to tell when you've lost an argument and actually know it but are stubbornly hanging on anyway. You always do exactly the same thing.

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!

Keep up the pathetic attempts to save face, Jox. You missed the mark on this one no matter how much repositioning you want to try to do. Oh well, if nothing else at least it will continue to give me some entertainment for a day or two.

_________________

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.ece

Note 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."

==

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.

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.

Actually, I won't. History will tell you why. The UK has historically always been hit harder and recovered slower from economic downturns. It isn't a good comparison for the US.




Clearly. Glad you're figuring it out.



We've already had this exact conversation 3x now. So forgive me the short form of the reply: You're wrong about this. I love the fact that you and Orme are so certain that the democrats have my vote lockstepped, but you were and are wrong about this.

_________________

Hmm. I wonder what Keynes' country of origin is. We might be on to something, Rugen. Let me go look that one up real quick.

Joking aside, would love to see you back that statement up. 10 minutes of research on my part doesn't really bear that out, but burden of proof and all that.

Bullshit.

And we're done. The moment you claim to know better than I do about what, how, why, and when I vote? You've gone off so far off the deep end it's not worth even trying to engage you. Enjoy your foamy, misplaced rage.

_________________

What I said is worse than what you've said to me, over and over? I see you ignored all of my points in the above post, too. Glad I could give you an out!

Worse? No. I'm not insulted or anything. It was just eye opening. Essentially it has dawned on me that you have such a vested interest in your own echo chamber, you've actually decided you know better than I do what and why I do the things I do, which is just ludicrous. As such, you're simply not worth the effort of an actual conversation because you apparently already know what and why I am going to say. And gosh, how could I argue with that?

So... enjoy your echo chamber, Jox.

_________________

Actually, it's mostly because I think you're lying. I asked you an open-ended question about how you would hold Obama accountable, and you haven't answered.

What do you expect him to say? He won't invite him to this week's disco bash? He'll cut his share of the doritos? Oh wait, no, those aren't things we can do. What's that one thing we can do? Oh yeah, there's that one thing.

It's no wonder he's not answering the question, it's a stupid question.

It was his statement, not mine.

My god, Joxur.

Rugen, just give it up. There is no hope for him-- he has made his mind up, and it doesn't matter what Obama does, it will always be bad. Hopefully this latest conversation has finally convinced everyone this is the case, and we can just start ignoring him.

That's a nice looking Borg cube.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

10 years later this argument with joxur is hilarious to me.