by jbrovont » Sun 19 Jul 2009, 03:22:20
Despite what has happened since the election, in some ways, both candidates tried to sell themselves as capable of "ending" the wars. On one side, McCain wanted to sell himself as the guy that could end it by winning it, and Obama on the other with a draw-down and leave plan - neither of which were feasible strategies for ending the war within a short time frame.
It is pretty surreal how many people believed their respective candidates had the right way to end the war. We'll never know what would ultimately have come of McCain's strategy - but he thought the way out was through, so expanded combat operations at least for the near future would have been likely. So either way, more war.
At the peak of the global economy in the late 90s, early 2000s, GDP was what - 20 some trillion? 23 seems to ring a bell, but I'm not certain. The more I learn about the state the US economy is in, the less real possibility I see for a realistic recovery. $4 Trillion in debt in 2 years - 8% of GDP - and that's when things were really humming along - who knows what GDP will look like in the near future - I just don't see how the US can spend 8% of all the production of the world and expect to pay it back. We don't make anything.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', '[')i]Meanwhile the U.S. government's budget deficit has jumped from $455 billion in 2008 to $2,000 billion this year, with another $2,000 billion on the books for 2010. And President Obama has intensified America's expensive war of aggression in Afghanistan and initiated a new war in Pakistan.
Why both the liberals and conservatives in the USA wanted more war is unfathomable. 98% of the US electorate selected the More War option last November. Completely surreal.
And the idiotic Wall Street bailout for the wealthy... wow ... I suppose any electorate stupid enough to fall for more meaningless war is stupid enough to fall for a trillion dollar handout to the rich. And those behind Obama know this very well.