To continue on my previous post, the financial meltdown is hurting us all. As CNN made clear in their recent article. Placed in 1989, the sign at Wall Street shows the total national debt of the United States. Last week, it ran out of numbers: the national debt is now about $10.3 trillion, a fifty-year record. When the sign was placed, it only showed about 2 trillion.

During the regency of George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush, the national debt increased. Bush II did this by doing the following things: he decreased the taxes on the rich, he invaded Iraq instead of winning in Afghan-Pakistan and loosened the controls on Wall Street.

Already some time ago, both presidential nominees have published their financial plans. McCain, a republican, like Bush, wants to make even bigger cuts for the rich, is enthusiastic about the Iraq war and doesn’t want any regulation on Wall Street. Obama, however, is against the tax cuts for the rich, the Iraq war and wants more control on Wall Street.

As you might notice, I’m a supporter of Obama. Not that I really like all of his ideas, but in my opinion, he’s the best person for the job. Not in the last place because I trust his financial plans more then McCain’s. Most Dutchmen agree with me, as the vote match of the Dutch actuality program EénVandaag points out. About ninety per cent of the participants comes to the conclusion they would have voted for Obama. By the way, Obama (or his campaign managers) goes along with the time, as he’s advertising in a computer game.

I should note that Europeans don’t get most ideas of the USA. Death punishments and the right of owning a firearm are not-done in Europa. The vote match tries to take care of this by quoting both candidates, but for such issues, in our opinion, both options are poor. Luckily enough, we don’t have to choose.

In my country, however, we don’t get much information with respect to content of both candidates. We mostly get information about the campaign (like Obama’s massive commercial at seven tv stations), but you really have to search for the ideas of both candidates.

In fact, the campaigns of both candidates are news in The Netherlands. Despite the fact that we don’t actually have one person who ‘leads’ our country we can choose (we have our queen, but she can’t be choosen, and we have our prime minister, best comparable with the president of the USA) and we almost never have two ‘real’ options, we can’t imagine that someone blackens another candidate at a tv commercial. Or that someone buys for some millions a half hour of broadcasting time. So the campaigns of both candidates are news for us.

In my opinion, however, that shouldn’t be the case. In four years, the USA has to choose again for it’s next president. Then, the current president, again spends many millions of is money and much of is time to the campaign. Is it weird to say that all that money should be put to minimize the effect of the financial meltdown? And is it weird to suppose that a incumbent president should be worrying about his country more then about his presidency for the next four years?

Seen in this light, all those running candidates are doing is getting attention. In fact, I don’t really see when they have to govern their country besides all those campaigns, working visits and spare time. The next president will be called ‘the most important man of Earth’, but maybe that’s just some lame excuse to give him more attention.

Please feel free to comment to my point of view and to change my opinion.