You assume the Iraq War served only the purpose of sequestering natural resources.  I suggest that the resources have proved to be secondary to the more immediate task, which was to oust a known enemy of the US from his perch, and to introduce the concept of open government and society to an area of the world that espoused violent interpretations of Islam which fomented maniacal behavior towards our country.  The oil and wealth extracted from Iraq is dwarfed by the cost of lives and material expended to secure Iraq.  A nobler cause is afoot, one that undermines every claim of unworthiness and futility that cloaks the American Left's view of current foreign policy.

You assume, perhaps, that all 100,000 deaths are attributed to American military action.  I suggest many, if not most, of those deaths are actually attributed to factional in-fighting and suicide missions against Americans and Iraqis alike.  The historical division begun by Britain and exacerbated by the Hussein regime was dormant under a totalitarian who fed his enemies to wild dogs.  Of course, removing such a dastardly individual who threatened not only the US, but the entire world with the technology able and available to exact harm across a wide range of countries affecting millions of people, was in the best interests of all free nations.  When there is evidence of use, there is expectation of recurrence.  The evidence abounded, and was documented and known throughout the world.  The 'neocon' agenda of regime change was supported by Bill Clinton, until it was no longer politically expedient.  Political expedience shouldn't factor into securing the nation from threats, both real and reasonably perceived.

The anti-American sentiment may have been somewhat louder after the Iraqi invasion, but it was not a new phenomenon, particularly in the Middle East and Western Europe.  Ironically, the closest relationships our nation has forged politically were with these two regions, each of which failed America in stupendous fashion in the years leading up to 9/11 and thereafter.  With fickle and imprudent allies, the US had little choice but to manage its own interests without a stamp of approval from the necessary world bodies, who'd already resolutely condemned Iraq 18 times for its transgressions, but failed to enforce those resolutions at almost any cost.

The collective sacrifice of over 3,000 Americans was offered on the morning of September 11, 2001, paying for decades of ignorance on the part of both parties, in terms of the threat of Islamic Terrorism.  Without ample response, that terrorism would have continued to be exacted on the American public without prejudice.  Perhaps other nations may or must live that way.  Fortunately, for YOU as well as I, Americans don't have to.  There is no shame in defending your nation, not guilt associated with securing our borders or freedom of movement or religion, no regrets for doing what all sovereign nations do, which is to deter enemies with every means possible.  Or did you forget France's, Germany's, Russia's interests in Saddam's Iraq, that precluded the involvement of those nations in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein?  Each nation sought its own benefit, but somehow the world, including many Americans, can only manage to wag a finger at the US.  That's too convenient to be a plausible defense.

The US trade deficit rises because its consumers (including you and I) demand cheaper goods.  Part of this is due to the income gap that has widened since the 1970's forcing many Americans to stretch their dollars.  A greater part is due to the wider array of product sources and selection.  Consumers flock to the greatest value, and in this generation, that value is derived from China.  Another REALITY that cannot be escaped regardless of the RHETORIC.  The world economy is at one's fingertips, and the overriding influential factor is PRICE.

The fact is, the US economy has grown by almost twice the rate under Bush as under Clinton.  Neither man can claim credit solely, but the tax reduction actually increased tax revenues under Bush, and recent information shows the US economy GROWING by 3.3% on an annual basis during the quarter just ended.  There is psychologically imposed fear, and there is fear of reality.  The American public is sorting that out currently.

This nation survived for nearly 150 years without income tax.  There is merit in the reduction of government intervention into the economy.  There is also merit in legislation that ensures an above board and transparent economy.  Bailing out Bear Stearns or Fannie or Freddie only masks the issue of overindulgence in debt, and only prolongs the restructuring of the economy on a new, firmer basis in reality.  Should the government have engaged in those rescues?  At what cost?  Should the government draft legislation safeguarding the public, and the firms themselves, from their own ignorance, greed and lack of discipline?  This places the government firmly in a position of steerage and caretaking.  Again, unconstitutional and uncalled for.

Does providing guarantees via tax revenue and government debt for bad loans and non-performing balances in checking accounts make fiscal sense?  No.  It provides comfort, until it doesn't (like recently).  That comfort has led to excessive indebtedness, inflated asset values, depressed shareholder value and subsequently, greater unemployment and reduced consumer spending.  WHY?  Because government got involved when it felt it needed to, but in a much larger way and for a much longer time than was necessary.  We are, undoubtedly, asking government to 'fix' perceived problems and further stagnate the economy, because we're too stupid to assess risk, and too blind to see catastrophe when it is clear and imminent.  We have grown fat and lazy because government is serving as an overpaid gatekeeper for undereducated and incompetent investors and account holders.  That is the bottom line.  

A final note, on public works projects:  When debt and tax revenue is sucking vital cash and assets out of the economy at a critical juncture in our history, what good does it do to redistribute those funds to the very demographic least likely to spend, invest or otherwise circulate those confiscated or borrowed dollars?  To reduce unemployment?  Your suggestion inches toward a 100% employment figure that was ballooned artificially by a hollow and economically inept Soviet Union for 75 years.  It didn't work for them, it won't work for the USA.

I strongly recommend that you, and all Americans, look deeply into the role the government has played in our lives, and assess where the quality and productivity of those roles resides?  You pay into a social security and government-mandated medical care system that you will never reap benefits from.  You pay into a tax structure that redistributes BILLIONS of dollars to other nations who in turn vote and act against the best interest of their benefactors.  You support artificially deflated unemployment figures for the sole purpose of improving society's psyche without curing the underlying problem.  You suggest a presidential candidate seeking to earkmark $800+ billion of tax revenue over the next 10 years to cure WORLD hunger is fiscally competent.  The evidence suggests otherwise.

This is a global economy.  To survive, the US worker and the US company must remain competitive...on wages, prices, quality and service.  What you suggest is penalizing the successful American in order to subsidize, patronize and immobilize the unsuccessful American.  That's not how our economy works well, and it is DEFINITELY not what grants the American Way of Life its exceptional and cherished character.

The government can do good work, when it is best positioned and uniquely capable of the work needing to be done.  Unfortunately, the REALITY is, the government is inept, shortsighted, unimaginative and irresponsible when it comes to the well being of the American public.  The RHETORIC suggests government is a cure-all, an ultimate equalizer, capable of addressing any of society's ills, and doing so effectively, by all measures.  There are fundamental changes that the next president ought to make, to financial markets legislation, to tax structure, to economic policy, to foreign and military policy, to many areas where America can stand to improve.  The reality is, those changes may or may not occur, and may or may not work, but with every effort exerted by the government, an imposed indifference festers within the public, who'll look to government for assistance, guidance and patronage that the public does not truly require.  This breeds a largely ignorant, dependent public, and causes attrition in our mores and our intellectual capacity.  The government should empower people it serves, not enable them.  I think that is where there is fundamental contrast in our views.  Should all Americans seek their own efforts and skills to address their needs first, the volume and immediacy of governmental assistance would drop dramatically.  Unfortunately, the trend of government intervention, however small, serves to disable the public from thinking and doing for themselves.