Bush re-elected - so what?

Remove all ads!

After Kerry reportedly has capitulated to George W. Bush the big question is "WHAT NOW?"

Well, after all it isn't all that bad, for a number of reasons:

• Bush is happy he eventually bested his daddy. That may calm him down!
  .
• For Europe Bush's second term is handy -- no readjustment in foreign policy needed. Europe still doesn't have to sent troops to Iraq because Bush is still what he is and his neo-con advisors will continue to mess up Iraq and the Middle East with their blundering.
  A pity for the inhabitants of the soon to be flattened cities of Fallujah, Sadr City, Najaf, etc. but for now that's not our concern -- neocons like V.D. Hanson or Charles Krauthammer think the Iraqis have just not been defeated sufficiently and that the US have been much to weak, so bombs away! A pity for the troops who have to execute their moronic orders, but the line was "my country, right or wrong", right?
  .
• The pacifists can take a deep breath: Bogged down in Iraq Bush still will not have the troops required to take on Iraq or Syria other than with airstrikes. That means, further wars are rather unlikely. Great news, it just stays as bad as it is atm.
  .
• That also means Bush will restrict his revolutionary fervor on screwing up America domestically, that means for a change: auto-agression.
  Bush gives tax cuts for the most wealthy on the pretext that deficits don’t matter; then - when it turns out that they do matter somewhat - you increase taxes and “voluntary” contributions such as health insurance, higher education fees and childcare.
  Bush will aim on general privatisation of social services -- you know: The market settles everything, but then, so does death.
  
  Americans will have to pay for things that used to be free and will pay more for the things they had to buy anyway. Bad for them, but hey, blame the 40% non-voters. Federal spending priorities in the end will be prisons, military and security.
  .
• Bush will predictably roll back enviromental protection to the level of the 1930s. Except for that the ozone hole is a global problem, the US screwing up their envirment is first of all their problem. When they don't get it to understand and pursue their actual interests one can't help them.
  .
• And Bin Laden can still rely on the support of his best recruiting sergeant.

So in the end everyone's happy: Bush Jr., the Europeans, the neo-cons, US industries and Bin Laden too ...



[ November 03, 2004, 22:32: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Hey Rags, what took you so long? I expected to see your first post-win Bush-bashing thread a couple of hours ago!

 

Damnit -I had been keeping thumbs-up for Kerry.

Ah, well; yankees are getting what they deserve. Time for China to rise and take the position of economic powerhouse while Bush keeps wasting all the money to silly wars.

(And I have always wanted to see Asia rather than America. )

 

China, the ball is on your field.

 

Which has nothing to do with the global oil crisis, right?

 

Meh...I dunno.

@Ragusa: I could hug you right now. In a non-homosexual way of course...

Aye...I believe that too...the American's will be getting what they voted for...

 

I'm surprised at you, Ragusa. I expected more thought out arguments.

It is a baseless accusation that Bush was ever trying to one-up his father.

And their reasoning for that viewpoint has nothing to do with the constant bombings against Americans and Iraqi police, right?

I would rather have my family members killed by Iraqi suicide bombers rather than survive behind the protection of airstrikes.

Actually, the U.S. does have the military strength to go after Iran and Syria...

What do you define as a screwup? The stock market has improved drastically since Bush took office, professional Americans enjoyed an earnings hike. The job market has actually been growing. The only people that have severely suffered are the industrial workers and other blue-collar workers due to outsourcing. That is hardly Bush's fault.

Which improved the economy...

Healthcare is privately funded in America. Bush had nothing to do with that, at all. Education is handled by state governments, not the national government (Read the U.S. Constitution if you don't believe me). Taxes didn't increase.

Actually, Kerry's economic policies would have increased prices and the national trade deficit pretty steeply. American workers get paid more than the workers in other countries. That increases the cost of production to manufacturers, who pass this on via higher prices for consumers. These higher prices will decrease the price of imported goods in relation to the cost of domestic goods (possibly making the equivalent foreign goods cheaper than domestic ones). All other things being equal, consumers will purchase the cheaper goods.

The American president does not have the authority that you think he does. Environmental protection is handled by government agencies and regulations are passed by Congress.

You have got to be kidding me. Spending on welfare and other social services currently dwarfs all other expenses incurred by the United States government combined (55%, last I checked). Frankly, I would rather my tax money go to support the military, prisons, and security than social services.

The Middle East actually doesn't have as much oil as the media wants you to believe. The United States and Russia have much more. Oil prices in the United States are hardly that high, anyway.

 

Well, normally I steer clear of Ragusa's posts, but I couldn't resist this one, however as I finished typing my response that I have been working on 2 or three minutes at a time today, I decided to check back and see what had been said prior to posting mine. I am glad I did, Rastor has already posted almost verbatim what I was going to say. Since the differences between our posts were minor, I decided to just congratulate Rastor and delete mine.

Great minds think alike!

 

I'm not sure about that. Are you implying my school atlas lied to me ? Could you please back your claim with a source ?

http://www.energyinst.org.uk/education/natural/3.htm

 

That has the U.S. having 3.7 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

You want proof that is inaccurate? Here: http://www.doi.gov/news/030312.htm

That takes the U.S. up to 14,100 on that chart of yours, which is more than any country listed except Saudi Arabia.

 

No, the chart is not in barrels, it's in million tonnes. It has the US with 3'700 million tonnes of oil.

Tonnes of oil into barrels of oil would be (thumb times pi) 9 barrels ~ 1 tonne. (Aldeth or any one else could make that surely more accurate). That would make 20.7 billion barrel ~ 2'300 million tonnes. So, they say they've discovered approx. 50% more in Alaska (I think it is) then previously thought. If true, it would raise the US from 3700 to 5000 millon tonnes. Still no comparision to the Middle-East.

And no contradiction to the chart I posted. Actually, their numbers are quiet the same.

Edit: I add a chart with reserves in barrels:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html

Edit: After giving more thought to it, how about the CIA-Fact-Book, another European propaganda outlet:

2 Saudi Arabia 261,700,000,000 1 January 2002
3 Iraq 113,800,000,000 1 January 2002
4 Kuwait 97,680,000,000 1 January 2002
5 Iran 94,390,000,000 1 January 2002
6 United Arab Emirates 80,310,000,000 1 January 2002
7 Venezuela 63,950,000,000 1 January 2002
8 Russia 51,220,000,000 1 January 2002
9 Libya 29,750,000,000 1 January 2002
10 Nigeria 27,000,000,000 1 January 2002
11 China 26,750,000,000 1 January 2002
12 United States 22,450,000,000 1 January 2002
13 Mexico 15,110,000,000 1 January 2003
14 Qatar 14,510,000,000 1 January 2002
15 Algeria 13,100,000,000 1 January 2002
16 Norway 9,859,000,000 1 January 2002

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

[ November 08, 2004, 00:33: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

I wouldn't mind seeing anyone's counter-argument to the "prison spending" part of Ragusa's comments (being a criminologist and all). Last I heard, there were more Americans in jail than in college (a couple of million, IIRC). If I'm not mistaken, justice systems would probably fit under the definition of social services expenditure as well - please correct me if that is inaccurate.

Which is dominated by the Republicans... and I hardly think that everything would be put to a conscience vote, Rastor. The same problem applies in Australia - everyone in the House of Representatives/Senate votes along party lines at the risk of severe censure or disavowal by the party. The official power of the President may not be so absolute as Ragusa says, but through unofficial mechanisms it must run much closer than you would suggest, as a Republican-controlled government is not likely to provide a check or balance on Bush.