Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

[samadhi]

I have been following the presidential campaign here in the U.S. since Barack Obama declared his candidacy back in February of 2007. If you are not familiar with him, here is an article ( http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama ) on why his running for president is offering our country something new and different.

I know this board has many members from other countries. I'm wondering how interested you are in our race here and how you think it affects you. Do you see Obama as different from the other candidates and as someone who can make a significant difference on the world stage? Do you think he can redeem the image of the U.S. after the disaster of Bush? Do you think the U.S. can once again be a nation respected for its leadership rather than reviled for it?

We are right now still in the midst of state primaries in which the two candidates (Obama and Clinton) are trying to win delegates to the national convention which will select in August the party's presidential candidate who will run against the Republicans in the fall. Obama has won the last eight primaries. There are two more tomorrow, Hawaii and Wisconsin, both of which favor Obama (although Wisconsin is not the sure thing Hawaii is). After that is the showdown in Ohio and Texas on March 4th. If Hillary loses there, it is most likely over.

I definitely am pulling for Obama. I have no particular dislike of Clinton but I do see Obama as the more inspirational, dynamic, and electable candidate. I am interested in the opinions of others, especially those of you from overseas. I'll keep you all informed of his progress.

Go Obama!

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I have no particular dislike of Clinton

The one thing she did that makes me hope she does not win was right around when it first came out that she was going to run for Office. In an email, she asked he supposed closest friend Oprah Winfrey to be her running mate. Oprah thought it was a joke and jokingly replied "No, I'm used to being in charge. How about if I run and you be my running mate?" Hilliary blew up and ended their friendship. If one can not communicate well with one's friends and can't take a joke, I don't want that person to have their finger over the button of a nuclear weapon. Actually, I wouldn't trust that woman with a handgun, much less trust her in the position of Commander in Chief over the US military.

[daybrown]

Ask me next november. A lot can happen to change my opinion. If we continue to muddle thru, Hillary will prolly be more effective with a Democratic congress than Obama. Like he voted against the corporate immunity the other day. Which looks good, but was a total waste of time. Course, that symbology is why a lotta folks like him.

But Hillary can get more done with congress than he can. Its not a case of whether we liike any of the candidates, but what the challenges will be. If Obama gets elected, and looks too dangerous to the power elite, the CIA will take him out just like they did JFK. Hillary has a better working relationship with the CIA.

You can give up the illusion that we have a functional democracy until we do something to disempower the CIA. And the person best situated to do that... is Hillary.

[samadhi]

daybrown,

Ask me next november. A lot can happen to change my opinion. If we continue to muddle thru, Hillary will prolly be more effective with a Democratic congress than Obama.

Hillary may know Congress a bit better than Obama but Obama is better at making coalitions to accomplish goals. Here is how he did it in Illinois ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802262.html ).

But Hillary can get more done with congress than he can.

See above. It's doubtful that she could be more effective than him given her polarizing profile and his as a unifier.

Its not a case of whether we like any of the candidates, but what the challenges will be. If Obama gets elected, and looks too dangerous to the power elite, the CIA will take him out just like they did JFK. Hillary has a better working relationship with the CIA.

Not sure what to say to this. If you think the CIA is running the country, then it really doesn't matter who is elected.

You can give up the illusion that we have a functional democracy until we do something to disempower the CIA. And the person best situated to do that... is Hillary.

The Republicans have already targeted Hillary. They are salivating to run against her. We need someone who can bring in the Republicans, not someone who will have to fight them tooth and nail over every vote. They tried to impeach her husband, do you think they would treat her any more kindly?

Elizabeth,

I hadn't heard that story but I have certainly heard many like it. For whatever reason, Hillary is a polarizing figure. Even if she managed to get elected (a very problematic possibility), we would simply be refighting the battles of the '90's all over again. I would vote for her if she is the candidate (McCain is tantamount to a Bush third term), but the enthusiasm and hope for the future wouldn't be the same.

[Unidian]

Obama isn't bad. I was a Kucinich/Gravel/Edwards type of guy, but Obama would be light-years better than a Repuke. So would Clinton, though.

I don't really have a huge preference for Obama over Clinton, but if pressed, I'd probably go with him.

[Nick Treklis]

People who support candidates based on their party affiliation have been duped, badly. It doesn't matter if the next president is democratic or republican, either way this country is in the midst of a downward spiral that would take nothing short of a complete 180 in order to save itself. It's the conquer and divide thing with partisan politics, it keeps people distracted from the root of the problem, i.e. over bearing government, or in my opinion having any government at all. Obama/Clinton/McCain, it's all the same, spend-spend-spend until in the words of Thomas Jefferson, we wake-up homeless on the continent our fathers conquered...

[Ryan Rudolph]

Yeah, the problem with the US is that a handful of powerful elites have bought up some of the most influential industries, and they have monopolies. IE: Banking, Oil and Weapons are the trinity I’m thinking of, and they control congress and the CIA. Many of the other industries are fairly reasonable because there is enough competition keeping their behavior in check. The major problem is that the business elites have bought off the front runners of both parties, and that is the why it has been for a while. Here is an interesting video by Noam Chomksy who is actually more liberal than libertarian, and he understands this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk8pxyAWTBk

[Unidian]

Obama/Clinton/McCain, it's all the same, spend-spend-spend until in the words of Thomas Jefferson, we wake-up homeless on the continent our fathers conquered...

About 800,000 Americans already do, Nick. But heaven forbid we do anything about that, because it would involve "spend-spend-spend."

I'm not fooled by this sort of thing. The real concern isn't waking up homeless. That's already happening to the poor and no one cares. The real fear that inspires the sources and promulgators of all this lofty rhetoric is waking up without the extra $200 in their tax rebate check they were planning to spend on leather seat-covers for the Astrovan. That is worth more to them than the well-being of the least fortunate among their fellow Americans.

Are you middle-class, Nick? If not, there's no reason you ought to be fooled, either. Don't buy into rhetoric designed to serve a class other than your own. There used to be some sense in doing so back when class mobility existed, and one could hope to someday join a class higher than their own. But it's a globalized world now and those days are over. We have to hang together, or we'll hang separately. Want to tell me which founding father said that?

[Shahrazad]

Sam,

Not sure what to say to this. If you think the CIA is running the country, then it really doesn't matter who is elected.

He didn't say the CIA is running the country, but the power elite. The CIA are just the hit men.

Just for the record, my favorite is Hillary, but Obama will do.

-

[Nick Treklis]

About 800,000 Americans already do, Nick. But heaven forbid we do anything about that, because it would involve "spend-spend-spend."

Forget the 800,000 homeless, we have tens of millions of Americans who are facing a lifetime of debt and will never have a chance of owning their own home, property, or anything else of solid value. 50% of the population is homeless in my opinion, and all you care about is taxing a population that struggles every day to make ends-meet. When the government spends it must either do one of two things, tax the people directly, or borrow the money at an interest from the Fed which hits the people with an indirect inflation tax. Right now the Government does both, but the direct taxes on us only provide a minuscule amount of the money that is actually spent by Government, the rest is borrowed from the Fed. This fiat system of money will be the end of our country, it has been proven through out history time and time again. Nothing will stop it, not with the attitudes that you and so many others have. You are just as bad as the war mongers, either way you are spending money that we don't have and it's all going to come crashing down. As it is already the checks people receive form the government aren't keeping up with inflation. What are you going to do when the little money you do get from the government can only afford you a loaf of bread and a half gallon of milk because of run-away-inflation?

I'm not fooled by this sort of thing. The real concern isn't waking up homeless. That's already happening to the poor and no one cares. The real fear that inspires the sources and promulgators of all this lofty rhetoric is waking up without the extra $200 in their tax rebate check they were planning to spend on leather seat-covers for the Astrovan. That is worth more to them than the well-being of the least fortunate among their fellow Americans.

That $200 wouldn't be going to any social service regardless of whether these people received a tax rebate or not. It's borrowed money from the Fed for the specific purpose of being spent. It's printed out of thin air, backed by nothing. The taxes the people pay probably makes up less than 5% of your welfare check, the rest is borrowed.

Are you middle-class, Nick? If not, there's no reason you ought to be fooled, either. Don't buy into rhetoric designed to serve a class other than your own. There used to be some sense in doing so back when class mobility existed, and one could hope to someday join a class higher than their own. But it's a globalized world now and those days are over. We have to hang together, or we'll hang separately. Want to tell me which founding father said that?

I'm probably lower-middle class, but that's the thing, it doesn't matter what class you are when the Government spends money that it borrows from the Fed. Inflation reduces everyone's purchasing power no matter how rich or poor they may be. Eventually the Government will have to deflate the money supply if they wish to save the dollar and then you end up getting double fucked because not only will there be less money to go around, the cost of living will still be astronomical.

[Carl G]

Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

We shall know this when the die is cast (when the Diebold vote is cast).

[Unidian]

Nick,

Without referencing popular conspiracy theories, YouTube videos, or other fringe elements, can you explain in terms of mainstream economic theory why the federal reserve system, fractional reserve banking, and Keynesian economics are fatally flawed in the disastrous, apocalyptic manner you suggest? Also, please explain how such a deeply flawed system has managed to stay afloat for nearly a century (using a conservative definition of its implementation). Something like "robbing Peter to pay Paul" won't do. You need to substantiate your doomsday views in legitimate economic terms.

As a start, you might try explaining what money actually is. Hint: it isn't gold, silver, diamonds, or any other hard currency. That is an irrevocably antiquated model of money, just as the geocentric view is an irrevocably antiquated model of the physical universe.

[Nick Treklis]

Nick,

Without referencing popular conspiracy theories, YouTube videos, or other fringe elements, can you explain in terms of mainstream economic theory why the federal reserve system, fractional reserve banking, and Keynesian economics are fatally flawed in the disastrous, apocalyptic manner you suggest? Also, please explain how such a deeply flawed system has managed to stay afloat for nearly a century (using a conservative definition of its implementation). Something like "robbing Peter to pay Paul" won't do. You need to substantiate your doomsday views in legitimate economic terms.

As a start, you might try explaining what money actually is. Hint: it isn't gold, silver, diamonds, or any other hard currency. That is an irrevocably antiquated model of money, just as the geocentric view is an irrevocably antiquated model of the physical universe.

The system will stay afloat as long as the elite bankers remain just that, elite bankers. It will continue to be a cycle of booms and busts, middle class evaporation, and rampant poverty. I mean, it's not the system I'm worried about, it's the American people, who in my opinion are far from staying afloat, it looks more to me like they are gasping for air. I'll focus specifically on the Federal Reserve, and never mind all the other corruption it breeds, the IRS, subsidizing dictators in other countries, and other wasteful spending which leads to well, you get the point. The Fed prints out Reserve Notes in the form of the American Dollar, at first this has a positive effect on the economy. More money being pumped into the system means more wealth and treasure for everyone, it's an economic boom, but eventually the market adjusts. With the demand for goods being so high due to increased spending, eventually the price of the goods will increase to reflect this, so enters an economic recession. Now the only way to get out of the recession under the current system is to pump more money into the economy so people can cope with the higher prices of goods, resulting in another boom. Keep in mind there is a significant amount of lag time between the level of money in the system and the booms/busts. Now you might think ok, this probably isn't the most brilliant way to go about things, but it seems to work. Not that simple. During these recessions people can barely afford the necessities of life, they are forced to foreclose on their homes, lose their property, or even their life savings. And guess who gets to buy all this up at a drop of a dime? Yep you guessed it, the Bank. Now how many major recessions can America take? In my opinion I don't think we can suffer another one. We had one in the 30's, the 70's, and now it looks like we are headed for strike number three. Each one of these recessions devastates the wealth of the American people and places it in the hands of the Banks, which serve the Grand Daddy of all banks, The Federal Reserve. Now I don't know how many recessions it's gonna take to break the camel's back, but with the middle class already teetering on the edge of poverty, I'd rather not take my chances with this kind of system anymore. Combine this with the fact that each generation is essentially born in to debt due to the National Debt that is higher than all the money that is actually in circulation and you have a nation of slaves.

After our next recession, which I foresee happening very soon, the only way the American Economy can survive under the current system is switching to an international currency of some kind. Most likely the Amero, which will enslave the USA, Mexico, and Canada (The NAU) until that currency is destroyed and then we will have to move on to another international currency, which will eventually lead to global debt with the Elite Bankers owning everything. BTW, this is no conspiracy theory, this is simply looking at the facts and arriving at a logical outcome. You can hide your head in the sand, but we will see the end of America in our lifetime unless we make fundamental changes.

[Unidian]

What are recessions and busts? Are they really catastrophic disasters which leave the bulk of Americans "gasping for air," or are they more accurately described as periods during which Americans are slightly less obscenely prosperous? As you might guess, I favor the latter view. Popular rhetoric depicting American recessions as breathtaking disasters which plunge the country's people into grinding economic oppression has little credibility with me. Since the 1940's, no boom or bust has made much difference with regard to the fact that America is consistently the most economically prosperous nation on Earth, and its people among the richest.

A real depression of significance, on the other hand, like the one of the 1930's, is exactly the sort of thing modern Keynesian economics was designed to correct and prevent - and it has done so quite successfully. You won't find me crying any tears over the minor economic slowdowns modern Americans refer to as "recessions." What they mean to most people is simply that HBO has to be dropped from the premium cable package. There have been no bread lines since the 1930's, and despite your concerns, we have modern economic ideas to thank for it.

And yes, before you bring it up, I'm aware of the theories that the Great Depression was artificially created in order to provide an opportunity for the "elite bankers" to bail us out with a system of economics which would eventually place everything under their total control. It is simply a conspiracy theory like any other - and beyond that, everything has always been under the total control of those who have the money, anyway. I'm sure you know the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the rules.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

You can hide your head in the sand, but we will see the end of America in our lifetime unless we make fundamental changes.

I don't believe there is too much "if" in that. I wonder if the political top dogs are simply expecting a global collapse (economic, social, environmental, etc.) and are just preparing the world for a one-world economy/government and "grabbing all the gusto they can" so to speak in the meantime.

[Unidian]

I'm not sure why you'd buy into that sort of Chicken Little doomsday-mongering, Elizabeth. What gives you the idea that America is very likely to end within your lifetime? It's been here for well over 200 years. The Roman Empire lasted many centuries longer.

Do things really seem that bad to you? I'm aware that we're facing big challenges, but don't you think the idea that America and the world are going to come crashing down during our lifetimes is a bit incredible?

[Tomas]

Nick Treklis - You can hide your head in the sand, but we will see the end of America in our lifetime unless we make fundamental changes.

-tomas-
I see it at my company, the housing market has collapsed. Many of my workers (who overspent) have the panic in their eyes. Republican Governor Schwarzeneggar spouts all these lies... the Democratic-controlled legislature spouts their lies..

All this borrowed money from China. Now, Japan is starting to sell the dollar, Iran opened its oil bourse on Sunday. Odd, it is on Kish Island, the one submarine (USS Jimmy Carter) snipped the undersea cables. And convenient, George Bush in Africa harping for even more worthless dollars. Saudi Arabia and Norway, refusing to ramp up oil production.



Elizabeth - I don't believe there is too much "if" in that. I wonder if the political top dogs are simply expecting a global collapse (economic, social, environmental, etc.) and are just preparing the world for a one-world economy/government and "grabbing all the gusto they can" so to speak in the meantime.


-tomas-
Obviously a controlled free-fall. The political sockpuppets come and go.

You know, Nick and Elizabeth, the first ones that will be cut off are the nursing homes, and welfare people who refuse to work. Big business will separate the wheat from the chaff. Simple economics.

It's great to have work, a house paid off.

More than anything, the necessary job skills to "survive".. The people who refuse to work will be the ones shut down first - it's just that way throughout history. Be sure to have the type of work to survive a crash, meaning a job skill that the bigwigs can not do without. We workers may be just "worker ants" but 'they need us' like we 'need them'. Tit for tat.

My dad was an adult when the depression hit - he said there were many-a-day that he didn't eat.

My mom (and her brothers, sisters) survived on bread and lard sandwiches weeks at a time.

A stove and a fridge ain't much good if there is nothing to put in it.

Germany as a test-run, thanks FDR.

Now, it's the USA on a test run, thanks Bush-Clinton-Bush.

They're all pond scum.

ps- Today is my fast day, I'm doing an every other "eat day" cycle till end of month. Cleanse the soul :-)


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Tomas]

Barack Obama, next president of the U.S.?

We shall know this when the die is cast (when the Diebold vote is cast).

Interesting that the undersea cables were cut to Kish Island, Iran (home of the oil bourse) and to Pakistan. The elections in Pakistan are obviously rigged there also. What better way to "tweak" the election results than to "splice in" the Diebold system?

Pakistan is about to break up, Balochistan, here we come.


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I'm not sure why you'd buy into that sort of Chicken Little doomsday-mongering, Elizabeth.

It's always the end of the world Nat. Today is the end of yesterday's world. Tomorrow is the end of today's world.

What gives you the idea that America is very likely to end within your lifetime? It's been here for well over 200 years. The Roman Empire lasted many centuries longer.

Yes, but we have more drugs, nastier weapons, more laws, more people, fast computers and much more rapid transportation now. Things can happen a lot faster today.

Do things really seem that bad to you? I'm aware that we're facing big challenges, but don't you think the idea that America and the world are going to come crashing down during our lifetimes is a bit incredible?

Well, "crashing" is your word, not mine. Could be a crash, but more likely to be like a plant that died, and all the sudden you just notice that it's dead. But, dead plants often have seeds for the next generation of plants.

[daybrown]

Even the best data we have is ambiguous. But some fundamentals come to mind. The boomers were the last generation raised on food produced by family farms still using what is now called "organic methods'. Every generation since has been exposed to increasing contamination with food grown on soil that has been treated only with Nitrogen, Phosphorus, & Potash, with all the trace elements needed for maximal mental development in childhood leached out.

The result is a population that is increasingly neurotic, dysfunctional, and amoral, suckers for demagoguery. There are, nonetheless, some talented people who grew up fairly rational despite dietary deficit and contamination. Things would be even worse were it not for the fact that so many other cultures have been feeding their kids the same kind of agribusiness junkfood.

Northern Europe has long been the most skeptical of agribusiness and has the most functional societies. The problems they've had recently with Islamic immigrants gets lotsa press coverage because it looks so much like minorities in the US, but there, the immigrants are a much smaller portion.

And while Obama shows that minority status does not preclude remarkable talent & charisma, we all know it aint the way to bet. The notion that he can bring the nation together will only work if he can maintain the economic properity. If there is economic crisis between now and the election, minorities will be scapegoated, as they always are by neurotic populations.

The boomers were raised in the only fully intact modern industrial culture in the world, and got used to unprecidented affluence. The competition has heated up since then, and the limit on oil and other global resources will challenge the ability of the politicians to maintain the American family consumer lifestyle. While there may very well be some visionaries out there who understand more fully what the problems are outside the group think of partisan politics, its unlikely that any could get elected. Of those we now think are in the running, Hillary will be most able to control minority scapegoating and keep congress on track to do something realistic.

Of course vice president Obama would be of enormous help. But in a crisis, a President Obama would be far more likely to see racist states seceed from the Union. I dont think that it would be a good idea for them to do that, but we are looking at the psychology, not the path to prudent policy. When you have an electorate this irrational, its the only useful point of view.

Elizabeth and many others have good cause to be concerned. If you read Gibbon, you see that there were several times when the Roman empire was near collapse, but some talented leader took over to pull it back from the brink. But that is not possible with a republic; you need the draconian power and rapid decisiveness of tyranny. Read Machiavelli; sometimes you need leadership that will sacrifce for the future. You cant ask people as neurotic as we now have, you have to tell them.

Instead this republic has been doing what Machiavelli said they always do, borrow from the future to enrich the power elite of today. And despite the 9 trillion Natl. Debt, it is manageable. As bad as American agribusiness is, if there is a crash, it will go out of business, and there are some in the national and global power elite who realize that'll produce famine. Which is also likely to get them all dragged out to be shot.

If things are to be stablized, the next president will have to seal the border. Look at the Roman empire. they had the same problem along the Danube, the most notorious example of which was Attilla. But again, if you read Gibbon, you find out he did not set out to invade the empire, but was simply the leader of a horde of desperate people. Just like the Mexicans.

If anything, econimic banking panic or plain old fashioned drought, interferes with the corn crop, and prices in Mexico rise futher, which have already casused riots, we could see hordes of Mexicans coming across looking for food. A charming President Obama is not going to successfully persuade the Mexican drug dealers and immigrant leaders any more than the Roman Emperor did with Attilla. To have any chance at all, we havta have the fence up.


Yes, Hillary is a bitch. And sometimes, that's what you need. A bitch.

[Unidian]

My diet was terrible all though childhood, and it still is. Nothing but processed food, if I can help it - I can't stomach vegetables or anything like that. I also grew up exposed to TV and all of that. That sort of thing doesn't necessarily condemn people to thoughtlessness. In my view, socioeconomic status is much more important. Unless they have a mental disorder, the wealthy will never think. They have no reason to do so and every reason not to.

[Nick Treklis]

What are recessions and busts? Are they really catastrophic disasters which leave the bulk of Americans "gasping for air," or are they more accurately described as periods during which Americans are slightly less obscenely prosperous? As you might guess, I favor the latter view. Popular rhetoric depicting American recessions as breathtaking disasters which plunge the country's people into grinding economic oppression has little credibility with me. Since the 1940's, no boom or bust has made much difference with regard to the fact that America is consistently the most economically prosperous nation on Earth, and its people among the richest.

The USA may be the richest nation on Earth, depending on how you look at it, but the average American is in debt by nearly $6,000, add to that the National Debt and we are hardly the economic power house you and others might think we are. Aside from that, the only reason the USA is the richest nation is because the elite bankers are allowing us the privelage of being the worlds reserve currency in exchange for our continued dedication to expanding and maintaining our Global empire. If it weren't for our military power the banks would have no use for us and would move on to leach off of another country.

A real depression of significance, on the other hand, like the one of the 1930's, is exactly the sort of thing modern Keynesian economics was designed to correct and prevent - and it has done so quite successfully. You won't find me crying any tears over the minor economic slowdowns modern Americans refer to as "recessions." What they mean to most people is simply that HBO has to be dropped from the premium cable package. There have been no bread lines since the 1930's, and despite your concerns, we have modern economic ideas to thank for it.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that every American has a mansion, drives around in a hummer, and has stacks of cash waiting to be spent on the next fashion. Americans may love to spend and live a materialistic life style, but the vast majority of the Americans I know are in debt up to their ears or unemployed, it's especially bad up here in Michigan. All it's going to take is one more bad recession and we may see the end of the middle class for good. The United States of Debt can not, and will not last much longer.

And yes, before you bring it up, I'm aware of the theories that the Great Depression was artificially created in order to provide an opportunity for the "elite bankers" to bail us out with a system of economics which would eventually place everything under their total control. It is simply a conspiracy theory like any other - and beyond that, everything has always been under the total control of those who have the money, anyway. I'm sure you know the "Golden Rule" - he who has the gold makes the rules.

Are you saying you find that theory unlikely?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Unidian,

What are recessions and busts? Are they really catastrophic disasters which leave the bulk of Americans "gasping for air," or are they more accurately described as periods during which Americans are slightly less obscenely prosperous? As you might guess, I favor the latter view. Popular rhetoric depicting American recessions as breathtaking disasters which plunge the country's people into grinding economic oppression has little credibility with me. Since the 1940's, no boom or bust has made much difference with regard to the fact that America is consistently the most economically prosperous nation on Earth, and its people among the richest.

I want to examine the facts as a means to discover whether or not America is heading towards a total economic collapse.

First of all, the national deficit in the US is the highest in the world – 8.9 trillion, and the last two presidents had to take the money from the social security fund just to pay off the interest payments. And Bush is running another budget deficit this year, so god knows where he’s gonna get the money to pay off the interest, he’ll probably just order the FED to print it and create more inflation.

The American economy has only been prosperous under the illusion that a credit/debt economy can function over the long term. It can’t, if governments do not balance budgets and pay down their deficits, the deficit eventually becomes unmanageable and grows to such a monstrous figure that it takes all ones energy just to pay off the interest payments. That is the predicament American politicians are in, they are scraping by just trying to pay the interest on the principle because the principle has reached such an outlandish number. And eventually, they won’t even be able to pay the interest on the principle, and that will be the beginning of the end for America. They will resort to inflating the currency even more when China won’t lend them anymore money, or the Arabs, and when the American public loses trust in the dollar, they’ll stop buying government bonds, which the government is highly dependent on.

So there is massive debt at the government level, and at the individual level, it isn’t much better. The average credit card debt for each family in the US is between $6000-7500, and then that total doesn’t include house mortgage debt and car debt.

It is also important to note that 70% of the US GDP is based on spending, so as the individual has less and less disposable income, the GDP will continue to decrease, and unemployment will drastically increase as well. Such a strain will ultimately do the government in who are dependent on high spending (taxes) to pay for their high expenditures. Basically, the US is a house of cards that is destined to tumble, and tumble hard it will.

Unidian, your fundamental assumption is wrong – you see, in a technological society, the stakes are higher because every time the government does anything, the costs are much higher. Projects don’t cost thousands of dollars anymore, they cost millions or even billions. The Iraq war is costing $12 billion/month, so everything is sped up. The Romans fell much slower because they used swords and marching soldiers, whereas the US uses tanks, stealth jets, air-craft carriers. And not to mention that soldiers now are paid much more for their services, and to arm each solider costs much more. So comparing the US with Rome isn’t all that relevant as far as finances are concerned.

In my estimate, we will see an inevitable collapse of the American economy in the next 3-5 years (maybe sooner), and I hope that when the Canadian economy is on the ropes too, that the elites don’t use their sway to convince our government to merge as a unified currency (Amero) because giving control of the Canadian currency over to the Federal Reserve will mean that the Canadian middle-class will get stuck paying for future wars of the elites as well, and suffering future recessions at the ends of corrupt imperial powers.

[daybrown]

I dont claim that dietary deficit and contamination made Americans thotless, but more generally neurotic and subject to group think. They can, and do, still perform well within certain limited settings like job performance. But few consider the effect on the economy or environment in the way they make their living, and what they spend it on.

More than anything else, it was the cost of WWI and the reparations payments by Germany that hindered the recovery of the European economy and set the stage for the Great Depression, which began in Europe before it hit the USA. But both WWI and WWII were entered into late by the USA, and with its infrastructure intact, produced the American global economic empire.

I dont think we have the unbaised data to go by now to suggest what'll happen next. The numbers- such as those outlined by the Comptroller General of the USA, David M. Walker, are certainly frightening. But a longer view of the way empires operate suggests that what we are seeing now is the shedding of less profitable provinces, like the failed states, so that critical resources- like oil, can be redirected to the great power centers.

Deliberate incompetence in fighting the war on terrorism will result in more failed states. Everytime one goes down, money gets shifted twards the USA, supporting both Wall Street and the US Treasury notes. Its worth remembering as well how much food the US produces, and if economic crisis interferes with agribusiness global famine will spread. Solving the global population problem exacerbated by the Christian dogma of "be fruitful and multiply".

Neither Obama, Hillary, or McCain talk much about their faith in Jesus. One way the US leadership can keep it together is with a blind eye to the shedding of unprofitable provinces of the global American economic empire to anarchy and religious warfare, and instead focus on domestic problems like the illegal immigration. Which will get worse as the undeveloped world gets worse.

Lets not forget that the US still produces a third of the oil it consumes, which is enuf to keep the agribusiness infrastructure going. Which means that they will be able to maintain food stamps, or at least bread lines in the cities. But with a population this irrational, its a moot point whether they can be kept in the urban areas out of way while the food to feed them is managed in the rural areas. Panic could spread uncontrollably on the Internet, and initially gratify the doomsayers. But they will stave also.

[hsandman]

Panic could spread uncontrollably on the Internet, and initially gratify the doomsayers. But they will stave also.

Heh. The conundrum of a suicide bomber , I thinks? George Carlin will be happy for one, though. :-/