I will keep you posted on events and what I will try to do.
Nat shares your viewpoint that the U.S. financial crisis was started and mostly caused by tax breaks for the rich and U.S. involvement in "unnecessary and needless wars". While I don't discount that those things helped add to the economic woes, I think the problem has been, as much if not more, that U.S. manufacturing (and increasingly U.S. services) were outsourced due to consumers demanding lower and lower prices for goods and services.
This has been at least a 20 year process, and now we face the consequences. When U.S. companies cannot sell their domestically-producted goods and services -- cannot compete with the slave labor costs and production in cetrtain countries -- it set up a downward spiral. First, U.S. jobs declined, and next whole factories and offices were moved overseas. U.S. workers had to take jobs with lesser pay and benefits, which meant lower incomes, less spending and paying less income taxes to govt. And, the businesses that moved facilities overseas and purchased less from other U.S. companies, and then paid less income taxes, also resulted in less money to support the U.S. economy and less money for govt. Add to this the large and aging U.S. population, with fewer younger works to support them and their pension and medical costs, and a system in decline is burdened further.
It is not that I disagree that tax breaks on the rich or our military expenditures (wars or no wars) are not also factors. But, when I hear educated people say that certain countries (including some in Europe) already levy a lower tax upon business (20% was stated), while U.S. has a higher level of taxation (35% was stated), then I see the point that raising taxes upon wealthy individuals and corporations will simply result in more taxable assets being moved out of U.S. and into these lower-tax countries. So, instead of getting the tax revenue from the wealthy that U.S. currently receives, we end up getting LESS tax revenue due to taxable assets being moved out of U.S. I am not an expert on economics -- far from it -- but these observations that I have seen and read make sense to me -- bash the rish and the rich leave.
Had U.S. not entered Iran or Afghhanistan, what would have been the outcome? bin Laden probably would not have needed to leave Afghanistan, and so U.S. would not have eventually killed him or other al Quaeda leaders. Al Quaeda could have stated, "We attacked the mighty U.S. and they could do nothing!", and they could recruit even better and continue their terrorist attacks in U.S. And, if U.S. pulls back from military involvement around the world, this would hasten China's rushing in to fill the power vacuum and thus increase its world-wide influence. This would further reduce U.S. influence around the world, and promote China that much faster as the dominant power and U.S. as a declining power. I think that happens regardless, but to make they unfortunate day come even quicker is not something Americans should favor.
I don't pretend to know the way out of this current mess, but I think U.S. needs to look ahead for solutions and not backward to assign blame. If there is something to be learned from mistkes, so be it. But we can blame all we want and that does not help U.S. to get out of its current problems.