America Is Driving Towards Disaster

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
The arguments made in this op-ed are the exact same arguments we've been hearing for almost a decade (in reality even longer than that, but 'peak oil' has become a mainstream concept within the last decade IMO). Oil has wrapped its tendrils around so many vital areas of our American lifestyle that only the shock of price surges have even moved people to begin whispering about the need for a dramatic change in the way we live our lives. Even now, with gas approaching four times the cost it was back in 2001, you would still be greeted with hostility if you told an average American to give up their SUV or light truck. You would still find resistance to people carpooling or taking mass transit to work. And politicians still aren't discussing implementing complete mass transit systems and urban planning revisions that would move Americans away from their vehicles in a permanent manner.

I'm also wondering what the airline industry will look like 5 years from now when oil prices are at least double what they currently are.

Text

By James Howard Kunstler
Sunday, May 25, 2008

Everywhere I go these days, talking about the global energy predicament on the college lecture circuit or at environmental conferences, I hear an increasingly shrill cry for "solutions." This is just another symptom of the delusional thinking that now grips the nation, especially among the educated and well-intentioned.

I say this because I detect in this strident plea the desperate wish to keep our "Happy Motoring" utopia running by means other than oil and its byproducts. But the truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future. We have to make other arrangements.

The public, and especially the mainstream media, misunderstands the "peak oil" story. It's not about running out of oil. It's about the instabilities that will shake the complex systems of daily life as soon as the global demand for oil exceeds the global supply. These systems can be listed concisely:

The way we produce food

The way we conduct commerce and trade

The way we travel

The way we occupy the land

The way we acquire and spend capital

And there are others: governance, health care, education and more.

As the world passes the all-time oil production high and watches as the price of a barrel of oil busts another record, as it did last week, these systems will run into trouble. Instability in one sector will bleed into another. Shocks to the oil markets will hurt trucking, which will slow commerce and food distribution, manufacturing and the tourist industry in a chain of cascading effects. Problems in finance will squeeze any enterprise that requires capital, including oil exploration and production, as well as government spending. These systems are all interrelated. They all face a crisis. What's more, the stress induced by the failure of these systems will only increase the wishful thinking across our nation.

And that's the worst part of our quandary: the American public's narrow focus on keeping all our cars running at any cost. Even the environmental community is hung up on this. The Rocky Mountain Institute has been pushing for the development of a "Hypercar" for years -- inadvertently promoting the idea that we really don't need to change.

Years ago, U.S. negotiators at a U.N. environmental conference told their interlocutors that the American lifestyle is "not up for negotiation." This stance is, unfortunately, related to two pernicious beliefs that have become common in the United States in recent decades. The first is the idea that when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true. (Oprah Winfrey advanced this notion last year with her promotion of a pop book called "The Secret," which said, in effect, that if you wish hard enough for something, it will come to you.) One of the basic differences between a child and an adult is the ability to know the difference between wishing for things and actually making them happen through earnest effort.

The companion belief to "wishing upon a star" is the idea that one can get something for nothing. This derives from America's new favorite religion: not evangelical Christianity but the worship of unearned riches. (The holy shrine to this tragic belief is Las Vegas.) When you combine these two beliefs, the result is the notion that when you wish upon a star, you'll get something for nothing. This is what underlies our current fantasy, as well as our inability to respond intelligently to the energy crisis.

These beliefs also explain why the presidential campaign is devoid of meaningful discussion about our energy predicament and its implications. The idea that we can become "energy independent" and maintain our current lifestyle is absurd. So is the gas-tax holiday. (Which politician wants to tell voters on Labor Day that the holiday is over?) The pie-in-the-sky plan to turn grain into fuel came to grief, too, when we saw its disruptive effect on global grain prices and the food shortages around the world, even in the United States. In recent weeks, the rice and cooking-oil shelves in my upstate New York supermarket have been stripped clean.

So what are intelligent responses to our predicament? First, we'll have to dramatically reorganize the everyday activities of American life. We'll have to grow our food closer to home, in a manner that will require more human attention. In fact, agriculture needs to return to the center of economic life. We'll have to restore local economic networks -- the very networks that the big-box stores systematically destroyed -- made of fine-grained layers of wholesalers, middlemen and retailers.

We'll also have to occupy the landscape differently, in traditional towns, villages and small cities. Our giant metroplexes are not going to make it, and the successful places will be ones that encourage local farming.

Fixing the U.S. passenger railroad system is probably the one project we could undertake right away that would have the greatest impact on the country's oil consumption. The fact that we're not talking about it -- especially in the presidential campaign -- shows how confused we are. The airline industry is disintegrating under the enormous pressure of fuel costs. Airlines cannot fire any more employees and have already offloaded their pension obligations and outsourced their repairs. At least five small airlines have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past two months. If we don't get the passenger trains running again, Americans will be going nowhere five years from now.

We don't have time to be crybabies about this. The talk on the presidential campaign trail about "hope" has its purpose. We cannot afford to remain befuddled and demoralized. But we must understand that hope is not something applied externally. Real hope resides within us. We generate it -- by proving that we are competent, earnest individuals who can discern between wishing and doing, who don't figure on getting something for nothing and who can be honest about the way the universe really works.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
But the truth is that no combination of solar, wind and nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry oil will allow us to power Wal-Mart, Disney World and the interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future. We have to make other arrangements.

I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
No offense, but when I saw who wrote this op ed I stopped reading. This is the same guy Renewable Energy Resources has debunked and accuses of fear mongering. This is also the guy that has ZERO formal training in shit he talks about. You should go back and read the fear mongering bullshit he wrote about Y2K lol.

He predicted the dow would crash to 3 or 4000 a few years ago. After actually reaching record highs he responded saying is was blind luck.

This guy is a fucking LOON.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.
He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (from any source, oil or 'future energy solutions').

We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

If we cant, why are we?

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (of any kind, oil or 'future energy solutions') in general.

And in general, when people actually CANT afford their lifestyle, they will change it. Until then...

Originally posted by: jpeyton
We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

Well, that much is true. Nothing is infinite. But, people in general dont give a shit what happens 20 years from now. History shows this, and it wont change now.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I guess we'll find out soon enough. $4/gallon is here, $5/gallon is on the horizon. This will be a fun summer.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: jpeyton
I guess we'll find out soon enough. $4/gallon is here, $5/gallon is on the horizon. This will be a fun summer.

Seeing how nothing *I* can do will ease other people's pump pain (lol) I couldnt care less what the price of gas was personally. I could afford $20/gallon with no problems. Its nice to live on 70% of your income
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,012
8,048
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

If we cant, why are we?

Same reason why have a $9 trillion debt. We spend everything we have at the time we have it, we do not prepare for the times with which we do not have it. We built our nation on $1 or less gas. The last 10 years above that price have not been easy. The next 10 years will not just be difficult for Americans, it will be fatal.

And in general, when people actually CANT afford their lifestyle, they will change it. Until then...

That is the point isn?t it? We?re reaching that day.

Nothing is infinite. But, people in general dont give a shit what happens 20 years from now. History shows this, and it wont change now.

I recon that ?20 years from now? is more like 2-4 years from now. Yes, people don?t care and do not see it. That is the entire point. Such fact as you state makes the event horizon an inevitable destination. We will not change course because we do not see or care.

The line of yours I quote is exactly why rough times are ahead.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jpeyton
He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

If we cant, why are we?

Same reason why have a $9 trillion debt. We spend everything we have at the time we have it, we do not prepare for the times with which we do not have it. We built our nation on $1 or less gas. The last 10 years above that price have not been easy. The next 10 years will not just be difficult for Americans, it will be fatal.

And in general, when people actually CANT afford their lifestyle, they will change it. Until then...

That is the point isn?t it? We?re reaching that day.

Nothing is infinite. But, people in general dont give a shit what happens 20 years from now. History shows this, and it wont change now.

I recon that ?20 years from now? is more like 2-4 years from now. Yes, people don?t care and do not see it. That is the entire point. Such fact as you state makes the event horizon an inevitable destination. We will not change course because we do not see or care.

The line of yours I quote is exactly why rough times are ahead.

Im not disagreeing here. Im just saying there IS more people can do to help themselves, if theyre willing to be creative and stretch out their comfort zone. I *do* disagree with the "fatal" comment, but we can agree to disagree I guess
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
I believe $4/gallon is where people stop "clinging to" their SUVs. :laugh:

BHO


(seriously, though, I remember reading that $4/gallon has been previously projected as the approximate price point that actually starts to curb driving habits)
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,617
4,708
136
Originally posted by: mshan
I believe $4/gallon is where people stop "clinging to" their SUVs. :laugh:

BHO


(seriously, though, I remember reading that $4/gallon has been previously projected as the approximate price point that actually starts to curb driving habits)


I have to agree.
SUV's just aren't selling anymore; Ford is actually suspending production for now IIRC.

As I look around, I've really noticed the increased number of "For Sale" signs on many of the older clunkers. I would do the same; if I owned an older, paid off gas hog that took $100 (and rising fast) each time I filled the tank, I'd start thinking about investing that money into something reasonably efficient, instead.
 

badkarma1399

Senior member
Feb 21, 2007
688
2
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

But where the logic fails, is where you assume we will over consume on this different energy source. There's plenty of usable energy all around us in the form of solar, wind, etc. More than enough to sustain our current lifestyles and then some. The problem lies in that we suck at harnessing them. For too long America has been living on easy oil while neglecting investments for these sources. Now that oil is in a crunch, the the world will be in hard times unless/until these technologies mature. Sure, we could change lifestyles and reduce our need for energy, but I prefer to hope that technology will allow us to harness the energy all around us so we don't have to. But that in itself will need a huge shift in investment and thinking about energy. Either way, change needs to happen.

 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,617
4,708
136
Originally posted by: badkarma1399
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

But where the logic fails, is where you assume we will over consume on this different energy source. There's plenty of usable energy all around us in the form of solar, wind, etc. More than enough to sustain our current lifestyles and then some. The problem lies in that we suck at harnessing them. For too long America has been living on easy oil while neglecting investments for these sources. Now that oil is in a crunch, the the world will be in hard times unless/until these technologies mature. Sure, we could change lifestyles and reduce our need for energy, but I prefer to hope that technology will allow us to harness the energy all around us so we don't have to. But that in itself will need a huge shift in investment and thinking about energy. Either way, change needs to happen.

Unfortunately, investment in alternative energy, as a category, is still too risky for most investors; whereas oil is making people richer than it ever has.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: badkarma1399
Originally posted by: jpeyton
We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

But where the logic fails, is where you assume we will over consume on this different energy source. There's plenty of usable energy all around us in the form of solar, wind, etc. More than enough to sustain our current lifestyles and then some. The problem lies in that we suck at harnessing them. For too long America has been living on easy oil while neglecting investments for these sources. Now that oil is in a crunch, the the world will be in hard times unless/until these technologies mature. Sure, we could change lifestyles and reduce our need for energy, but I prefer to hope that technology will allow us to harness the energy all around us so we don't have to. But that in itself will need a huge shift in investment and thinking about energy. Either way, change needs to happen.

Unfortunately, investment in alternative energy, as a category, is still too risky for most investors; whereas oil is making people richer than it ever has.

Probably because oil is STILL the most efficient fuel on the planet. Period. If it works dont break it. Sure, it'll deplete eventually. Not soon though.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
From blackangst1-

And in general, when people actually CANT afford their lifestyle, they will change it. Until then...

Seems peachy, except when you figure in enormous debt on both a private and governmental scale. Tomorrow is still being traded in for today, making what are bound to be lean times ahead even leaner.

And there's really no energy source on the horizon that'll really compete with petroleum- what took nature millions of years to create is being exhausted in a few hundred years, mostly blown out our tailpipes. Yeh, sure, there's energy all around us, but having it cheaply available in such a concentrated form is unique to petroleum and natural gas.

The answer, as the author points out, is really to make greater utility from energy in general, to reduce our energy footprint. And, of course, that seems discordant with the ROTW actually consuming more per capita, when it's not. They already obtain much greater utility from a gallon of gas, for example, than we do, and, as they become more affluent, will be able and willing to outbid us for what there is... A guy in India gets 100mpg from his scooter, while we get 10 form an SUV, even as we accomplish the same things with our different conveyances... even if he buys more, his personal consumption is a lot less, while being magnified by the enormous populations of developing countries...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From blackangst1-

And in general, when people actually CANT afford their lifestyle, they will change it. Until then...

Seems peachy, except when you figure in enormous debt on both a private and governmental scale. Tomorrow is still being traded in for today, making what are bound to be lean times ahead even leaner.

And there's really no energy source on the horizon that'll really compete with petroleum- what took nature millions of years to create is being exhausted in a few hundred years, mostly blown out our tailpipes. Yeh, sure, there's energy all around us, but having it cheaply available in such a concentrated form is unique to petroleum and natural gas.

The answer, as the author points out, is really to make greater utility from energy in general, to reduce our energy footprint. And, of course, that seems discordant with the ROTW actually consuming more per capita, when it's not. They already obtain much greater utility from a gallon of gas, for example, than we do, and, as they become more affluent, will be able and willing to outbid us for what there is... A guy in India gets 100mpg from his scooter, while we get 10 form an SUV, even as we accomplish the same things with our different conveyances... even if he buys more, his personal consumption is a lot less, while being magnified by the enormous populations of developing countries...

youre assuming a couple things incorrectly.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Seems peachy, except when you figure in enormous debt on both a private and governmental scale. Tomorrow is still being traded in for today, making what are bound to be lean times ahead even leaner.

And the American public doesnt have the means to reduce and/or eliminate their debt? lol Please. Americans in general are fucking lazy cunts who cant see beyond tomorrow. Its not that they CANT, its that they WONT. When I was in banking I sat down with couples with incomes between (mostly) $50k-$200k. You know what? 9/10 live paycheck to paycheck. Not because the economy fucked them, but because theyre fucking lazy and selfish. Now dont go preaching about exceptions. There's exceptions to everything. n general Im right.

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And there's really no energy source on the horizon that'll really compete with petroleum- what took nature millions of years to create is being exhausted in a few hundred years

The fact is, we have no idea whatsoever how much fossil fuel is in or on this planet. We may have tapped 90% of it, we may have tapped 9%. Do you remember the 70's? "Experts" were screaming we would run out of oil in 30 years. Guess what-2000 came and went. Now were back to what...20-30 years? ROFL Pretty damn conceited thing for you to claim.
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Problem is everything is so spread out in a lot of cities in America. Maybe not in cities like NY. But without cars in most cities, people would go nuts.
Car culture is part of American psyche, driving to places, showing off. Tell them giving up cars would be like telling them stop eating at McDonald.

 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,938
6
81
Oil is important, but talking about replacing oil with solar or wind or nuclear is absurd. The author is, IMO, right about this.
Something like 50% of the US' power supply comes not from oil, but from coal. Then there's nuclear etc.

Anyone talking about wind or solar as a replacement for electrical power makes no sense in relation to oil. Yes, it's cleaner, renewable etc, but it's not magically going to reduce oil consumption when most electricity isn't oil generated.

Yes, the US does consume more oil per head/power per head than it probably needs to, and yes, oil prices are affecting lots of thing. And yes, it should be possible to reduce the consumption without huge cutbacks in lifestyle, it just requires efficiency to be one of the key drives. More efficient transport networks, more efficient driving habits (e.g. no more SUV's). IMO the article talks a lot of sense, but it just says what needs to be done, and doesn't really offer much of a planned way to restructure everything. Saying "we need to reduce our reliance on oil" is one thing, but making it a reality is quite another, even if you have an eventual goal of what it should look like.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.
He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (from any source, oil or 'future energy solutions').

We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

actually we can, the technology just doesn't exist yet
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
Unfortunately Mans short sightedness is going to cause war famine disease and pestulance the world over.
Rich NA is going to be the last to feel it as there is so much over capacity in our current system that its a huge cushion.

The point is there is nothing like oil for the huge amount of portable energy it gives us. Too many ifs for alternatives and they may or may not scale up to the 85 MILLION BARRELS a day we consume.
 

JohnnyGage

Senior member
Feb 18, 2008
699
0
71
The author also doesn't take into account the role of enviromentalism in our energy crises. It has it's place, but if we want relief we are going to have to drill for new sourses (starting w/ ANWR), build new refineries, and build new nuclear power plants. A new refinery and new nuclear power plant haven't been built in 30 years--it needs to be done. It's the only way prices will decrease or level out and get ourselves off middle east oil.

We have a light rail system in Phoenix now, don't know how it's going to do but it will be interesting.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: blackllotus
I don't really understand this claim. Future energy solutions will be much more efficient than using oil. If the author is claiming that we will have to sacrifice some luxury in the short term then he is probably correct, but there is no reason that we cannot eventually become energy independent and enjoy a rich lifestyle.
He's actually saying we cannot afford our disconnected commuter lifestyle. We can't afford to drive so many commuter miles daily; we can't afford to transport immeasurable amounts of goods from one corner of our country to another.

We can lead rich lifestyles, but they will have to be reconfigured around a model that doesn't consume so much energy per person (from any source, oil or 'future energy solutions').

We seem to be consumed with the notion that we can simply replace our overconsumption of oil with an overconsumption of a different energy source, and both roads will eventually lead to disaster.

actually we can, the technology just doesn't exist yet
:laugh:

Thanks for proving my point.

:music::music:When you wish upon a star...:music::music:
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: JohnnyGage
The author also doesn't take into account the role of enviromentalism in our energy crises. It has it's place, but if we want relief we are going to have to drill for new sourses (starting w/ ANWR), build new refineries, and build new nuclear power plants. A new refinery and new nuclear power plant haven't been built in 30 years--it needs to be done. It's the only way prices will decrease or level out and get ourselves off middle east oil.

We have a light rail system in Phoenix now, don't know how it's going to do but it will be interesting.

LOL I dont know either Johnny but what I *DO* know is the fuckin construction makes it a PITA to go anywhere downtown! lol Thank God Im Peoria and work in North Phoenix

OK, OT. Sorry
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
People can often reduce personal debt, blackangst1- but it's a lot more difficult in an atmosphere of rising prices and stagnant earnings. Federal debt is another matter entirely- we'd have to run surpluses of $500B/yr for 18 years to break even on that- a turnaround of $1T/yr. Given the anti-tax and pro- big military sentiment you share with many Americans, chances of that happening are pretty much zero. The huge debtloads, balance of trade issues, and falling dollar value involved seem to indicate that we'll reach some sort of breaking point rather than experiencing any sort of gradual decline.

As for the whole bit about the availability of oil, I'll agree that there are undoubtedly undiscovered reserves, quantity unknown, but finite nonetheless. Very little of that, however, will be found in the US, so we'll have to compete with the ROTW to buy it... and much of that will be difficult to extract and refine, raising the price even further. The claim that such will increasingly be the case isn't conceited, at all, whereas the claim of infinite availability is obvious denial...
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
People can often reduce personal debt, blackangst1- but it's a lot more difficult in an atmosphere of rising prices and stagnant earnings. Federal debt is another matter entirely- we'd have to run surpluses of $500B/yr for 18 years to break even on that- a turnaround of $1T/yr. Given the anti-tax and pro- big military sentiment you share with many Americans, chances of that happening are pretty much zero. The huge debtloads, balance of trade issues, and falling dollar value involved seem to indicate that we'll reach some sort of breaking point rather than experiencing any sort of gradual decline.

As for the whole bit about the availability of oil, I'll agree that there are undoubtedly undiscovered reserves, quantity unknown, but finite nonetheless. Very little of that, however, will be found in the US, so we'll have to compete with the ROTW to buy it... and much of that will be difficult to extract and refine, raising the price even further. The claim that such will increasingly be the case isn't conceited, at all, whereas the claim of infinite availability is obvious denial...

And to that, I agree. The issue of national debt and personal debt are really two separate issues, although slightly linked.

In the case of personal, it really isnt as difficult as many make it out to be. I've beaten this point to death, but based on my travels to 13 countries, and spending alot of time with "average"families in these countries, Im telling you Americans are fucking lazy, apathetic, and greedy. Period. We as a country have come to EXPECT certain things which are actually luxuries. Ive mentioned before I live on 70% of my income in the 5th largest city in the US. I live IN the city, and comfortably. And I dont make huge money either. I could probably live on half my income if I wanted to. I know I know yipee for me. But, it took me 8 years to get to where I am now currently, and I know it takes time. But most Americans wont do it. Thats THEIR fault for living beyond their means.

The fed issue...yes, I am big military, but not anti-tax per se. I want a balanced budget as much as you do. BUT, I dont want more taxes to balance the spending, I want less spending. I know its a fucking pipe dream, seeing how there hasn't been a DECREASE in the federal budget since 1932, but thats what I want. Im not unrealistic. We need taxes to function. But this continued expansion of the federal government is BULLSHIT. And its not all Bush's fault, only a slice of the pie.

Ive said it before, but if you are appalled at our spending and our budget now, just wait till the next session of congress writes and our next president approves, the next budget. This year's budget will look attractive.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |