Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Big headline on drudge tonight taking a shot at Obama over a new $1 billion embassy in England. Drudge fails to point out though that most of the costs are covered by the $1 billion the US got for the land the current embassy is on.

Shall we just call it a wash?

How bout we build a $500 million embassy and keep the profit for the treasury? You can tell Democrats are in charge!

HI54UNI wrote:How bout we build a $500 million embassy and keep the profit for the treasury? You can tell Democrats are in charge!

No kidding. Make a Billion, spend a Billion (or a little more as it will probably come in over budget).

HI54UNI wrote:How bout we build a $500 million embassy and keep the profit for the treasury? You can tell Democrats are in charge!

That was my first thought as well.

BlueHen86 wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:How bout we build a $500 million embassy and keep the profit for the treasury? You can tell Democrats are in charge!

That was my first thought as well.

the goverment hates profits, why would they do anything that makes commonsense. I am sure they could downscale many fo the designs and office luxuries and make a large profit by building a new embassy.

dgreco wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
That was my first thought as well.

the goverment hates profits, why would they do anything that makes commonsense. I am sure they could downscale many fo the designs and office luxuries and make a large profit by building a new embassy.

I think the problem is that once a government department has money they are going to spend it, even if they don't need all of it. In fact, they probably feel that they have to spend it, otherwise they might face a budget reduction in the future. It's not so much a lack of common sense as it is a bureaurocratic problem.

Thread really not going like Travis planned.

89Hen wrote:Thread really not going like Travis planned.

Its fine, fair points have been made... I prolly agree with them too. The point though is Drudge leaves the impression that taxpayers are dishing out $1 billion for the embassy while in fact the costs are being paid for by the sale of the old embassy's land.

Heck in this day and age I am not sure I see the need for embassies at all. We have instant communication with the world, its not like the early part of our country when the only way to communicate with the world was a long ass boat ride.

Stick the ambassadors in a cubicle in DC.

UNHWildCats wrote:Stick the ambassadors in a cubicle in DC.

But then where are you going to put all the people you need to return favors to?

The real question is, "Where would you put all of your spies?" Embassies are largely covers for intelligence operations.

UNHWildCats wrote: Heck in this day and age I am not sure I see the need for embassies at all. We have instant communication with the world, its not like the early part of our country when the only way to communicate with the world was a long ass boat ride.

Stick the ambassadors in a cubicle in DC.

The embassies are also very helpful for those traveling/living abroad. Since my wife's father's death, we've had to deal with the proper disposition of his property in Spain. Everything has gone through the Spanish Embassy/Consulate. Otherwise, we'd have to travel to Spain to do it.

Of course, you don't need a one billion dollar facility to get that done, but I think the embassies are still a necessity.

UNHWildCats wrote:

89Hen wrote: Stick the ambassadors in a cubicle in DC.

Maybe if you've ever been out of the country, you could actually offer a valid opinion.

Personally, I was very happy to have the U.S. embassy by my side as I was held up by gunpoint at the Czech/Austrian border just after 9/11 because of a tiny rip in my passport. I was also happy to have the U.S. embassy on my side when I lost my driver's license and credit card in New Zealand.

bandl wrote:Personally, I was very happy to have the U.S. embassy by my side as I was held up by gunpoint at the Czech/Austrian border just after 9/11 because of a tiny rip in my passport. I was also happy to have the U.S. embassy on my side when I lost my driver's license and credit card in New Zealand.

Spy.

89Hen wrote:

bandl wrote:Personally, I was very happy to have the U.S. embassy by my side as I was held up by gunpoint at the Czech/Austrian border just after 9/11 because of a tiny rip in my passport. I was also happy to have the U.S. embassy on my side when I lost my driver's license and credit card in New Zealand.

Spy.

No...

[sidenote]
But I did find out recently that my grandfather was a spy for the CIA. Seriously. Straight out of the movie kind of stuff. One mission he snuck into Moscow during the Cold War, just to smuggle out a telephone. Why, I have no idea. My mother (and his wife) never actually knew what he did for a living until after he died. They only knew that he was required to travel for weeks at a time on a moment's notice and to not ask questions about it.
[/sidenote]

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote:Spy.

No...

If you were a spy you'd deny it. So...

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote: Spy.

No...

Sounds like a response a spy would give you about being a spy. Just man up and tell him what you do, nobody is really the CEO of a Douche Bag company Bandl, we all know your corporation is just a front.

BlueHen86 wrote:
I think the problem is that once a government department has money they are going to spend it, even if they don't need all of it. In fact, they probably feel that they have to spend it, otherwise they might face a budget reduction in the future. It's not so much a lack of common sense as it is a bureaurocratic problem.

We spend some silly money every September just to obligate all of the allotted budget, lest we return it to the treasury and lose that same amount from our next year's budget for not justifying previous year's budget. Every federal agency does it. Doesn't make it right, but it's a broken system and the only way to avoid phasing out your operation is to burn every cent of your budget each and every year.

89Hen wrote:

bandl wrote:
No...

If you were a spy you'd deny it. So...

But by NOT denying it, then...

bandl wrote:

89Hen wrote: Spy.

No...

[sidenote]
But I did find out recently that my grandfather was a spy for the CIA. Seriously. Straight out of the movie kind of stuff. One mission he snuck into Moscow during the Cold War, just to smuggle out a telephone. Why, I have no idea. My mother (and his wife) never actually knew what he did for a living until after he died. They only knew that he was required to travel for weeks at a time on a moment's notice and to not ask questions about it.
[/sidenote]

I believe you, at least the part about you having a grandfather...

CitadelGrad wrote:The real question is, "Where would you put all of your spies?" Embassies are largely covers for intelligence operations.

No they ain't.

bandl wrote:

UNHWildCats wrote:

Maybe if you've ever been out of the country, you could actually offer a valid opinion.

Personally, I was very happy to have the U.S. embassy by my side as I was held up by gunpoint at the Czech/Austrian border just after 9/11 because of a tiny rip in my passport. I was also happy to have the U.S. embassy on my side when I lost my driver's license and credit card in New Zealand.

Me too, somebody found my wallet after I lost it in Vienna , and they sent it back home for me.