Presidential elections, primaries in USA. What does it actually matter here? Would it make any difference what candidate wins?
It is not a simple matter of funding an election campaign in the US primaries, it is what the fundraisers would expect from the person they back that makes the difference. The ties that hold the candidates with their backers. And it is obvious that the big money would back the candidate that would follow a policy that favours their schemes. And usually these schemes do not include the welfare of individuals. It will be the schemes which will ensure that profits for industry do not suffer setbacks.
A recession, it was proclaimed yesterday, looming in the world, as it is deduced by the recent fall in the stock markets.
"Stock markets in London and Europe recorded their biggest one-day falls since Sept 11 yesterday, as concerns about global credit market turmoil and a looming US recession sparked panic selling amongst investors."
A global recession that is driven by a recession in USA. What does that actually mean? Would the recession deduced by the stock markets, involves or is it about the individual in the world? Would be a matter of concern for the individual? Or is the recession the result of the change of mind in the individual? The myth of terror in the world, that the US has to defend the world from, is crumpling. Nobody believes President Bush and the Americans. The global view of the US is going from bad to worse:
" A poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries show the global view of the U.S. role in world affairs is deteriorating.
• 73% disapprove of U.S. role in Iraq
• 68% believe that the U.S. military presence in the middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents
• 49% believe the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world."
The bubble is bursting. If Bush and the rest of the Americans that their livelihood depend on the proliferation of wars and the creation of tensions in the world to bring forth new wars, if they can not convince the individual about the necessity of the wars they start, that would have an effect on their industry, the GDP and so forth, and if the industry doesn't do well, you bound to have recession. Would that be a bad thing? No, not at all.
Is that what actually happens? How can not be? What effect would a 51% of the total current US budget allocated for military purposes would have in an economy? What would happen if the common sentiment around the world is against wars? That economy is bound to go into recession, or nearly collapse? Is that a bad thing? Certainly it is not.
And what is the position of the candidates in the recent US presidential primaries? According to sources all republican candidates have proclaimed they are in favor of troop increase and against a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, apart from Ron Paul, the representative from Texas. As for the democrat candidates they are all opposed to troop increases and in favour of troops withdrawal ranging from immediate to within 16 months, apart from Hilary Clinton who sees troops withdrawal to conclude by the end of 2013.
Over the years it has become a lasting impression of the US as a war nation and that notion is hitting home. And the repercussions are felt and reflected on the American individuals and in the positions put forward by their candidates. True, the republicans did not concede. They continue on supporting war efforts. They are the ones that have direct links with the war involved interests. Their backers and funding partners are representing the war industry. But, as there is the widespread belief that the republicans do not have a chance to win in the presidential elections, that they are fighting a loosing battle, what it matters comes from the positions of the democrat candidates.
They are responding to the change in the minds of the american individuals, all apart, as it is obvious by the prolonged withdrawal procedures put forward, from Hilary Clinton. It brings about notions that her backers are representing the war industry and the prolonged troop withdrawal is translated to a continuing war related business cycle and the hope that, in the meantime another war would be prepared to ensure the war industry would not go out of business.
