[quote=justme][quote=sdduuuude]Our mutual rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness don’t, however, give the government the right to borrow money, spend it on stupid crap, then come after us and our grandchildren to pay it back.
In fact those very rights should prevent them from doing just that. Sadly, the constitution seems to no longer hold them back.
It is neither my borrowing, nor yours that will saddle future generations with massive debt. It is the government’s.[/quote]
So we have established the double standard that you have:
Monetary deficits are bad, energy deficits are not a problem.
In the end, your grandchildrens lives will be me much worse off from the energy deficit. All hail your special brand of personal freedom.[/quote]
I disagree that you have estabolished a double standard. Your argument can be run in reverse as well.
If the use of finite resources will leave our children worse off, then we should stop all use of them immediatly. But if we shut down our transportation industries, wont future generations be worse off as our economy implodes?
Wise spending, even deficit spending, will return future rewards in excess of costs. This improves the lives of future generations, making any remaining debts easily taken care of with extra to spare. The problem is when we go out and blow it all and have nothing to show for it. But who is to decide what ‘wise’ is? Is building a house out in BFE a wise decision, even if that person now needs to commute long distinces and use alot of gas? Well, it improved the value of the land in BFE, so maybe it is. At one time, Carmel valley was considered BFE, now it is prime RE, generating value for future generations.
What is wise and not wise if often far harder to figure out than you are making it out to be. (Carbon) Energy deficits are structural due to their limited amount of resource, Monitary deficits are not necessarly structural and as such not limited to the same constraints.
