Venezuela’s choice... America's too.

Venezuela’s choice: Chavez forever or no more
By Alexander Boyd, Sunday Reflections Contributor
- | 2/13/09 5:12 PM

On Sunday, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez pitches another referendum on removing his term limit so that he can continue his fantasy of 21st Century Socialism. But whatever the result, this decade-long experiment is already a failure.

Chavez put the same vote to Venezuelans in December 2007. It failed. But the final results were never announced and the opposition was said to have won only a “narrow victory”--but Chavez told CNN last week: "there's no limit in the constitution regarding the number of times that an amendment can be attempted," adding it could be every year.

The constitution may not be much help to anyone else. Chavez has banned political opponents from running for office. El Presidente expelled representatives of the campaigning Human Rights Watch (HRW) last September.

Jose Miguel Vivanco of HRW said “in the more than 20 years that Human Rights Watch has worked in Latin America, no government has ever expelled our representatives for our work.”

Last month, Amnesty International said: "By rejecting a ruling by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and calling on the government to reject the Inter-American Convention of Human Rights, the Venezuelan Supreme Court is sending a dangerous message that human rights are optional.”

The rights group’s worst offense was to touch Chavez's rawest nerve - his support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

"Email messages found on laptop computers reportedly recovered from a FARC camp by Colombian security forces in March 2008 describe meetings in which Venezuelan officials also appear to have offered assistance to the Colombian guerrillas, including safe havens, weapons procurement, and possibly even financial support," HRW reported.

The HRW report added that "Interpol announced on May 15 that its forensic experts had verified that the computer files were authentic."

Disregarding public demonstrations and international pressure, Chavez banned Radio Caracas Television from the airwaves in 2007, accusing it of sympathizing with an attempted coup.

Chavez’s domestic and international defenders claim the Socialist Revolution has indeed revolutionized people's lives, with state-spending sprees bringing cheap energy, free healthcare and schooling for everyone in the barrios, the slums.

“A trip to one of many new community facilities showed how millions of people have been given access to a new free healthcare system, including dentistry. Illiteracy has been eliminated to UNESCO standards,” said Chavez fan and former London Mayor Ken Livingstone recently.

Never mind that healthcare has been free in Venezuela for over 40 years and that UNESCO denied Venezuela’s literacy claims.

The numbers we do have paint a very bleak picture of social disintegration and economic chaos. Inflation is the highest in Latin America, at over 30 per cent, with prices for the bare necessities increasing at over 50 per cent.

Crime is rising fast and murders are 2.5 times higher since Chavez took office in 1999, the respected US journal Foreign Policy says. Caracas is now the murder capital of the world, worse even than Johannesburg or Sao Paulo. Poverty is still rampant and official figures are, at best, suspect.

When faced with such problems in the past, the government would simply throw money at them. But now with oil prices down around $40 a barrel, even if briefly, and with more than 90 per cent of export revenues coming from petroleum, the government’s hostility to business has left the country addicted to petrodollars but short of a fix.

Having kicked out most of “Big Oil,” the pressure is on Venezuela’s state-run oil company, PDVSA. But a culture of mis-management and political manipulation is making things difficult.

Production has fallen to a quarter of what it was a decade ago. The company’s debts--over $10 billion by one estimate--are mounting. Workers and contractors complain of unpaid salaries and unpaid invoices.

PDVSA said in January that Venezuela produces 3.3 million barrels-per-day. Bloomberg estimates the figure at 2.32 million, while OPEC put it at 2.34 million in its May report.

With nowhere else to turn, Chavez has invited the multinationals back. But, having had their contracts breached in the past, these companies are understandably hesitating.

With the list of demands for state handouts growing ever larger, but without the cash to pay for them, Venezuela’s damaged credit rating is coming back to haunt El Presidente.

Chavez wants Venezuelans to believe they are under attack from external enemies: "I believe Obama comes with the same stench,” he said at a political rally in January, referring to George W. Bush, whom he once accused of smelling of sulphur, like the Devil.

But his real enemies are right there in Venezuela, protesting in the streets: “spray them with gas and dissolve any disturbance,” he said last month.

Venezuela’s enemy is the Chavez policies. Whether he wins or loses the referendum, the credit crunch may put an end to Chavez's oil-fuelled, statist fantasy. And the sooner the better, so Venezuelans can get back to work re-building a real economy.

Link

Why can't people see how socialist policies destroy a country?

There are many things in this article that are not only disturbing, but seem very similar to the direction that the Obama administration and the democrats in Washington are trying to take us.

First, and most obvious, is the financial bailout and stimulus package. The bailout is the first step in our government starting a take over of the banking and auto industry's, similar to how Chavez took over major industries in Venezuela. The stimulus package is what is going to send inflation through the roof. It is presented as a means to provide jobs and financial relief for middle class America, but it's long term effects are going to end up screwing us all. Does the 70's ring a bell for anyone?

The article stated "Chavez has banned political opponents from running for office", and though Obama has not, and could not do such a thing here, he and his democratic allies in congress are working hard to shut out republicans in future elections. Here are 3 examples:

1. One of Obama's first moves as president, was to order the director of the U.S. Census Bureau, who has yet to be named, to report directly to White House senior management. The Census Bureau has always worked independently, to keep politics out of their report. The reason for it's independence, is because congressional districts are determined by the census numbers, and having them report to the White House allows political manipulation of the data.
2. The democrats have earmarked 5.2 billion dollars of the stimulus money for ACORN. An organization that's dedicated to getting democrats elected, and breaks any and all election laws to do so. ACORN has been tied to an unbelievable number of election fraud cases, in a dozen different states over the last 8 years.
3. The democrats are soon going to try and reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine" to silence conservative talk radio. This law would force radio stations (not television networks or newspapers) that feature conservative opinion shows, to broadcast an equal amount of liberal opinion shows. Since liberal opinion shows have few listeners, and conservative listeners would tune out, it would kill station ratings, an in effect force stations to abandon the political talk show format all together, or go out of business. It would be the same effect, if the government told a successful country music station, that they had to play equal amounts of heavy metal and hip hop. They would lose their listeners and the station would go bankrupt.

Another thing that struck a similarity with the Obama administration, was this line from the article that said "Chavez banned Radio Caracas Television from the airwaves in 2007". The reason he did that was because Radio Caracas dared to publicly question his policies and political philosophies. Of course, Obama can't do such a thing here, but he is taking steps to stack the deck in his favor. The fairness doctrine is one move he will likely make to silence his critics, but as his first White House press conference demonstrated, he has another way to manipulate public opinion. He has given White House press credentials to the far left blogs the Huffington Post and Media Matters. This attempts to pass these partisan, far left (and in some cases, lying) blogs off, as being credible news outlets to the American public. It's basically a White House sponsored advertising campaign to get more people to embrace partisan opinion as being legitimate news. That's exactly why Obama called on both of them in his first press conference.

Also in the article, it talked about the government owned (or should I say "stolen") oil industry. It stated that "Production has fallen to a quarter of what it was a decade ago". This to me, is a ghost of our liberal past, as well as a warning of our future if we embrace a socialist, Obama agenda. The reason their production is so low, is because it's government run. When you take personal "profit" out of the equation, there is no motivation for people to go the extra mile, and so they don't. Efficiency and hard work cease to exist, just as Fidel Castro learned the hard way when his government took over the sugar cane industry years ago.

Today, we are suffering the consequences of what happens when government gets involved in private industry. I'm talking of course about the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. Our government strong armed lenders to loan billions of dollars to people who couldn't afford to pay that money back, and told them that they would back those bad loans up. Now because of that government intervention into the private sector, our economy is on the brink of collapse. So what's our governments solution? In essence, it's to take over an industry that their interference screwed up in the first place.

Now think about Obama and the democrats plan, for the government to take over the health care industry. Do you really want the efficiency of medical care to go down? Do you want your doctor to go the extra mile, or do you want a doctor who is just waiting for 5:00 to arrive so he can go home? Do you want a doctor who will give you every test and treatment necessary to restore good health, or a medical system that will base how your tested and treated, on statistics and financial budgeting?

Folks, the writing is on the wall. Obama is taking steps toward turning us into a socialist nation, and doing everything in his power to turn the US into a nation ruled by one party.

Is this what you want America to become?

Geez... Doesn't anyone have a comment on at least what I wrote after the article?

This is a discussion board.

Grim17 wrote:Geez... Doesn't anyone have a comment on at least what I wrote after the article?

This is a discussion board.

Actually, I think that most off those that voted for obama are still mesermised by him and believe he can do no wrong. And a lot of others just don't care any more. By the time that they wake up it will be to late.

Grim17 wrote:Geez... Doesn't anyone have a comment on at least what I wrote after the article?

This is a discussion board.

Hi Jimmy,

I read this last night, and was giving it some thought today.

Here is what I think.

1) Perhaps people think it would be a futile debate, esp as we have been over this again and again?

2) Perhaps people take one look at the political section, see that you have pretty much dominated that section, and are put off?

3) Perhaps no one is that interested?

One of those.

Maybe noone is responding because you sound like a delusional doomsayer that thinks the sky is falling because "that Negro is screwing up our country".

Please, spare us with the end of the world bullshit. Obama, is not trying to turn the country into a socialist state. All you paraniod fanatics are saying the same thing people were saying about Roosevelt in the 30s. "Oh, the New Deal is facist. Roosevelt is trying to turn the country into a communist country." Whatever.

If it's such a good thing for the government to have no part in business, then when they deregulated the airlines, why have ticket prices been on a steady rise? I thought less regulation meant more competition and better prices for the consumer. Why have so many airlines gone bankrupt?

When they deregulated electricity in California and Texas, why have the prices skyrocketed?

You act like the government went in and took over the banking and auto industry. They were on the brink of collapse and the government bailed their sorry asses out. If you ask me they should have let them go under. These perfect businesses you defend were being run into the ground by their own people. Astronomical labor costs, questionable lending policies, and scetchy accounting were sending all these companies out of business. But no, let's give them more money so they can keep doing what got them in trouble in the first place. Obama shouldn't give them any more money. Bush should have never given them anything. They should have let them fall.

But since they didn't, and they gave these companies money, you're bitching because the government expects a return on their investment? What is so wrong with that? Of course the govt. will claim ownership. That's essentially what the bailout was. They bought however many billions of dollars in stock to raise capital for the companies. The companies agreed to pay that money back to the government who would then return ownership back to the company. Did you just expect the government to just give them money and not expect anything in return?

You also claim socialism has never worked in any society...isn't it working right now in Canada? Isn't the fastest growing economy in the world right now a socialist economy (China)?

The failures you refer to failed because of the dictatorship, not because of the socialist economy.

So I'll end with this, since this was originally about Chavez. What would you suggest happen? Should the US invade them because we don't approve of his government? Should we send covert troops down there and start a revolution by the indiginous people? Maybe a Che Guevara figure will emerge to overthrow Chavez? What do you think should be done?

You act like the government went in and took over the banking and auto industry. They were on the brink of collapse and the government bailed their sorry asses out. If you ask me they should have let them go under. These perfect businesses you defend were being run into the ground by their own people. Astronomical labor costs, questionable lending policies, and scetchy accounting were sending all these companies out of business. But no, let's give them more money so they can keep doing what got them in trouble in the first place. Obama shouldn't give them any more money. Bush should have never given them anything. They should have let them fall.

If you only knew how much I agree.

For what it's worth, I am personally bored out of my tits reading threads here about Obama.

He has been in the job, how long, um, a month.

Why not review his efforts at the end of his first term?

As I mentioned in the 'suggestions' section today, I have invited people on here who are really switched on politically. I have one person that looked at it (they are from Holland), and another, they are from Canada, and both said the same thing (more or less) - "I'll pass - the political section has too many threads about Obama, and too many threads about Obama, made by one member".

That is the outside perspective.

Just something to think about.


Best wishes,


Steve

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:For what it's worth, I am personally bored out of my tits reading threads here about Obama.

He has been in the job, how long, um, a month.

Why not review his efforts at the end of his first term?

As I mentioned in the 'suggestions' section today, I have invited people on here who are really switched on politically. I have one person that looked at it (they are from Holland), and another, they are from Canada, and both said the same thing (more or less) - "I'll pass - the political section has too many threads about Obama, and too many threads about Obama, made by one member".

That is the outside perspective.

Just something to think about.


Best wishes,


Steve

So why don't they start a topic about something else? Maybe give some sources of info on foreign politics or things other than US politics. I can't speak for anyone else but it's not so much that I wouldn't be interested in it as much as I've lived a sheltered life and really don't know that many trust worthy sources of info on it. Tell em to toss a seed in our dirt and see if it will grow.

Frankly I agree about the to and fro about Obama. He's in there now and not much to do until he jams his pecker into the dirt (or a intern... hehehe), and screws up. Which will take at least a year or two to see the consequences.

Venezuela and the US aren't comparable. Apples and oranges, Grim. You have to make assumptions to try and make your point, which doesn't work. Plus, there are numerous countries which are more socialist than Venezuela and are happy and successful. So your attempt to say it's the fault of socialism that Venezuela is having these problems doesn't work - or else all other socialist countries would be having the same problems as well. (But they're not.)

lisan23 wrote:Venezuela and the US aren't comparable. Apples and oranges, Grim. You have to make assumptions to try and make your point, which doesn't work. Plus, there are numerous countries which are more socialist than Venezuela and are happy and successful. So your attempt to say it's the fault of socialism that Venezuela is having these problems doesn't work - or else all other socialist countries would be having the same problems as well. (But they're not.)

Out of curiosity, could you name those countries that are both socialist and a working, free and profitable place where the people, not the governments but the people would rather have that than a democracy?

Denmark is the happiest country in the world, also probably the most socialist with an incredibly high income tax rate. (I think it's in the 70% range.) Canada has more socialist policies than the US, and they are also happier. Most European countries practice socialism successfully, not entirely, but then again Venezuela isn't practicing socialism in it's entirety either, and probably not as much as Denmark.

I think the problems stem more from a broken political system in Venezuela than socialism.

Old Timer wrote:

lisan23 wrote:Venezuela and the US aren't comparable. Apples and oranges, Grim. You have to make assumptions to try and make your point, which doesn't work. Plus, there are numerous countries which are more socialist than Venezuela and are happy and successful. So your attempt to say it's the fault of socialism that Venezuela is having these problems doesn't work - or else all other socialist countries would be having the same problems as well. (But they're not.)

Out of curiosity, could you name those countries that are both socialist and a working, free and profitable place where the people, not the governments but the people would rather have that than a democracy?

OT, obviously noone can speak for someone else, so you can't assume what the people want versus what the government wants. Having said that, Canada and China would be 2 examples of stable profitable economies working under socialism. (That was in my earlier post, btw)

CarolinaHound wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:For what it's worth, I am personally bored out of my tits reading threads here about Obama.

He has been in the job, how long, um, a month.

Why not review his efforts at the end of his first term?

As I mentioned in the 'suggestions' section today, I have invited people on here who are really switched on politically. I have one person that looked at it (they are from Holland), and another, they are from Canada, and both said the same thing (more or less) - "I'll pass - the political section has too many threads about Obama, and too many threads about Obama, made by one member".

That is the outside perspective.

Just something to think about.


Best wishes,


Steve

So why don't they start a topic about something else? Maybe give some sources of info on foreign politics or things other than US politics.

I have fella, as you know. Both here, in the political section, and in all other sections, as it goes.

Anyway, never mind that.

Are you doing that audition for Brokeback Mountain, this week, as you mentioned?

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

CarolinaHound wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:For what it's worth, I am personally bored out of my tits reading threads here about Obama.

He has been in the job, how long, um, a month.

Why not review his efforts at the end of his first term?

As I mentioned in the 'suggestions' section today, I have invited people on here who are really switched on politically. I have one person that looked at it (they are from Holland), and another, they are from Canada, and both said the same thing (more or less) - "I'll pass - the political section has too many threads about Obama, and too many threads about Obama, made by one member".

That is the outside perspective.

Just something to think about.


Best wishes,


Steve

So why don't they start a topic about something else? Maybe give some sources of info on foreign politics or things other than US politics.

I have fella, as you know. Both here, in the political section, and in all other sections, as it goes.

Anyway, never mind that.

Are you doing that audition for Brokeback Mountain, this week, as you mentioned?

You offering to help me rehearse Mr. Ben Dover.

Not me fella. Strictly a front door guy.

I think you two love birds are getting a little off topic...

Big Slick wrote:I think you two love birds are getting a little off topic...

Lol, he is the Lord of the Gays, not I!

To prove my non gayness, I am going to have cyber sex with the next femme to add to this thread.

Big Slick wrote:I think you two love birds are getting a little off topic...

I agree. But he won't stop hitting on me.

My husband is out of town until friday!! lol

lisan23 wrote:My husband is out of town until friday!! lol

It's you then!

*Here's a warm up*

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6b8_1234685721

Do I want to click on that... part of me is really scared! haha

LOL!!!! Wow... I can't believe they do commercials for those.

lisan23 wrote:LOL!!!! Wow... I can't believe they do commercials for those.

Know what it reminded me of? Those really cheap and cheesy tv 'programmes' for truly awful jewellery, the like of which not even Mr T would wear. Usually found on some obscure tv station.

Anyway, what one are you ordering?

Ok, take it to another thread.

Back to the topic at hand...

Hey's where's Grim? I noticed he was online today and even posted in here begging for attention to this post and then he doesn't post on it.

What's up with that Grim?

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

lisan23 wrote:LOL!!!! Wow... I can't believe they do commercials for those.

Know what it reminded me of? Those really cheap and cheesy tv 'programmes' for truly awful jewellery, the like of which not even Mr T would wear. Usually found on some obscure tv station.

Anyway, what one are you ordering?

Lol the last one... but I won't pay over $50 for a vibrator. So I'd have to pick it up from the local shop.

lisan23 wrote:

The Ghost Of Yeah Well Fi wrote:

lisan23 wrote:LOL!!!! Wow... I can't believe they do commercials for those.

Know what it reminded me of? Those really cheap and cheesy tv 'programmes' for truly awful jewellery, the like of which not even Mr T would wear. Usually found on some obscure tv station.

Anyway, what one are you ordering?

Lol the last one... but I won't pay over $50 for a vibrator. So I'd have to pick it up from the local shop.

This is off topic, but hey ho, all good.

I understand that some men feel 'offended' if their ladyfriend wants to use one. I can't see why, unless they are really insecure.

Mind you, while I find that acceptable, I would never ever, not ever, use one of those faux vagina's that you can get!

And yet....isn't it much the same thing?

Start a sex thread and take it over there.

I'm more interested in why Grim hasn't responded. You post it, clamor for attention and then disappear when you get kicked in the nuts.

Why are you ducking me Grim?

Slick man, we're just passing the time until Grim comes back.

Anyway fella, don't fall into the same trap as him.

Grim might be sick? Might be away for a few days? Something like that.

By 'falling into the same trap', what I mean is that Grim often starts a thread, wanting a specific person to comment on it (me for example), and I am totally unaware that he wants me to, until, at some later stage, I happen to stumble across it.

If you see what I mean.

Yea I know what you mean and it kind of seems like this one was directed at me because we have recently had disagreements about Chavez and other South American figures like Che Guevara.

I saw he posted this, then came back and begged for attention and finally got it. I know he's been online but he conveniently looks over this thread that he was so desparatly wanting to get noticed.

It could be that while he may be pretty well versed in Israel and Middle East politics and current events, he finds himself out of his comfort zone with South American politics and simply sees Chavez as a target because of his anti-American stance. When in reality he doesn't know crap about S. America and just falls back on the argument of "Chavez is socialist, he hates America. He must be evil then"

I'm just saying, don't beg for attention and then duck away from it when you get it and find yourself out of your league.

Big Slick wrote:It could be that while he may be pretty well versed in Israel and Middle East politics and current events, he finds himself out of his comfort zone with South American politics and simply sees Chavez as a target because of his anti-American stance. When in reality he doesn't know crap about S. America and just falls back on the argument of "Chavez is socialist, he hates America. He must be evil then".

Oh come on!

As if Grim would do that.

Franktruth and Grimtruth, well, you can take either of those to the bank, fella.

bumping this for Grim.

He's not been posting much this week, due to a personal issue.

I know. I addressed him in your Loaded Question thread.

Big Slick wrote:I know. I addressed him in your Loaded Question thread.

I know. I just saw it.

Big Slick wrote: Please, spare us with the end of the world bullshit. Obama, is not trying to turn the country into a socialist state. All you paranoid fanatics are saying the same thing people were saying about Roosevelt in the 30s. "Oh, the New Deal is facist. Roosevelt is trying to turn the country into a communist country." Whatever.

All I did was point out some of the similarities between Chavez/Venezuela and what Obama is doing, or has planned to do. Obama won't turn this country into a socialist state like Chavez did down there, but he is taking steps that are laying the ground work for a gradual change to socialism. You have to admit, the similarities are there, whether you see them as a big deal or not.

I understand how you would see my post as being "paranoid" or "far reaching", but it has to be that way. If people like me don't make a big deal out of these things, most Americans won't realize what's slowly happening to our country until it's too late to do anything about it. Most see the socialist programs and policies Barack Obama is bringing to the table as being "OK". That's because on paper, socialism looks like the perfect system to adopt. The problem is, people either can't see, or refuse to see, the long term negative effects socialism has on a countries economy, as well as how it effects society as a whole.

If it's such a good thing for the government to have no part in business, then when they deregulated the airlines, why have ticket prices been on a steady rise? I thought less regulation meant more competition and better prices for the consumer. Why have so many airlines gone bankrupt?

I didn't say government should have no part in business. There are exceptions to the rule. The government should be a watch dog over big business, but that doesn't mean they should control it, or over regulate it.

As for the airlines, when the government deregulated them, fares came down. For years there were ticket wars that took flying from being only for the wealthy, to something everyone could afford to do. What screwed things up was 9/11, but that's another topic... The reason ticket prices have been going up the last few years, is in part because of the fuel prices that spiked last summer, less competition, higher safety standards, aging fleets, more government regulations since 9/11, and inflation.

The point is, government needs to oversee private industry, not try and control or regulate it at every turn. You would think that the current credit crisis, would serve as an example of why government needs to stay out of private industry. It's the regulations they imposed on lenders, that is directly responsible for the mess we're in today.

When they deregulated electricity in California and Texas, why have the prices skyrocketed?

Don't know... Haven't researched it.

You act like the government went in and took over the banking and auto industry. They were on the brink of collapse and the government bailed their sorry asses out. If you ask me they should have let them go under. These perfect businesses you defend were being run into the ground by their own people.

I agree that they should have let the auto industry fail. As for the banks, our entire economy hinges on them... and besides, it's the governments fault they failed in the first place. The government forced banks to extend credit to people who couldn't afford to pay that money back, and told banks in essence, that they would back those loans up. Well, they failed, so Uncle Sam doesn't have much choice but belly up to the bar.

Astronomical labor costs,

Thank the unions for that. And remember... Obama is pro-union.

questionable lending policies,

Policies that stemmed from government regulation.

and scetchy accounting were sending all these companies out of business.

I agree with you there.

But no, let's give them more money so they can keep doing what got them in trouble in the first place. Obama shouldn't give them any more money. Bush should have never given them anything. They should have let them fall.

The only ones who should get any help are the banks, for the reasons I stated above. Every other industry is on it's own, and shouldn't get one dime from the government.

But since they didn't, and they gave these companies money, you're bitching because the government expects a return on their investment? What is so wrong with that?

Nothing at all... But that doesn't mean the government should take them over. They should oversee how the funds are spent, but not become a proxy CEO for these companies.

Of course the govt. will claim ownership. That's essentially what the bailout was. They bought however many billions of dollars in stock to raise capital for the companies.

That's what I'm against. The government should stay the hell out of the day to day operations.

The companies agreed to pay that money back to the government who would then return ownership back to the company. Did you just expect the government to just give them money and not expect anything in return?

The government is the bank, not the owners of those companies.

You also claim socialism has never worked in any society...isn't it working right now in Canada?

It isn't working very well. Their economy is mediocre at best, and they have a budget deficit. Do you realize that 45% of the income of the average family in Canada, goes toward taxes? And no matter how little you make there, everyone pays federal and state (territorial) taxes. What does paying out 15% more for taxes get them? It gets them sub-standard medical care, from a system that is on the verge of financial collapse.

Here in the US, the average family pays out just over 30% of it's income to the government, and nearly half of all workers don't pay federal taxes at all. If Americans took the tax savings we have over Canada, they could use it to buy quality medical insurance and still have several thousand bucks left over.

Isn't the fastest growing economy in the world right now a socialist economy (China)?

The reason China's economy is booming, is because they have loosened up their grip, and adopted more of a capitalist, free market approach. India has done the same thing, and it's paying dividends.

The failures you refer to failed because of the dictatorship, not because of the socialist economy.

The dictatorship does have something to do with it, but it's still the socialism that's at the root of their economic mess. Since the government took over their oil industry, a socialist policy, they are only producing 30% of what they used to when it was a private enterprise. They have free health-care, but as it is with all socialized medicine, it's sub-standard. Since the Chavez takeover, Venezuela has cut their poverty rate in half. But at the same time, the violence there is out of control. They have the highest murder rate of any country in South America by far... It isn't even close.

Socialism attempts to balance out society, by not letting anyone get too rich or too poor. That's why government takes over the major industries... So that theoretically, the government (the people) make the profit, and everyone gets a fair wage. Problem is, when you take away the ability for people to accumulate wealth by working hard, caring about their job and going the extra mile, your left with a society of unmotivated, lazy people.

So I'll end with this, since this was originally about Chavez. What would you suggest happen? Should the US invade them because we don't approve of his government? Should we send covert troops down there and start a revolution by the indiginous people? Maybe a Che Guevara figure will emerge to overthrow Chavez? What do you think should be done?

I suggest we do nothing... What he does is none of our business as long as he stays clear of us and our interests.

He is merely the latest example of what happens when a country adopts socialism. His continued failures will hopefully be a reminder to everyone, that socialism is not the way to go.

Grim17,

What you are stating is what happens in a third world country. Also what you posted is what is happening in a completely different culture than ours. So in my humble opinion this really does not apply to us. I feel you are using fear as a mean to an end, to justify your argument. Also for some reason you brought up the fairness doctrine. This to me is a non argument. Not even worth talking about. Why you may ask?
Many years ago before cable, the internet and everything else we have to communicate. We had the public airwaves. We had a very limited means with our levels of communication. So a fairness doctrine was demanded by the people. In todays world a fairness doctrine does not make sense at all. Even if they were to pass some kind of fairness doctrine. It would never work because so many of us pay for accessing the information we do have. If they could pass it. The fairness doctrine would not effect many markets at all. Those it did effect would cause anger, and the people would never listen to something forced upon them. So your fairness doctrine argument is a non issue, as far as I am concerned.

Also remember you can vote. I know after the bush years you are worried about the president being a dictator. Who were the people who were so dead set on shifting power to the executive, and forgoing the constitution?

You know I could almost laugh if it was not for the last eight years of bushco that left this country in shambles. Not only that but the poor decisions of bushco has affected the whole world.

Obama has only been in office a short while. Chill.

I have something I would like you to look up. If you do not after a period of time, I will look it up.

How much money did bushco spend while he was in office. What tax increases did he implement to offset such high spending.

Always nice arguing with you. Your responses are always thought provoking, and well thought out. Though darn it you make me mad at times.

I learned from HP to attack the subject, and not the person.

I hope I did a good job here of doing that.

But attacking the person, in person, is always so much more rewarding!

Cartoon Head wrote:But attacking the person, in person, is always so much more rewarding!

To look someone in the eye, and argue your point does change things. I made this post as if I was looking Grim17 in the eyes. I made the argument attacking the issue. Grim17 makes me angry at times. Yes. Though I really don't feel he is a hate filled person. Not like some I could mention over there at the other place.

howdy wrote:

Cartoon Head wrote:But attacking the person, in person, is always so much more rewarding!

To look someone in the eye, and argue your point does change things. I made this post as if I was looking Grim17 in the eyes. I made the argument attacking the issue. Grim17 makes me angry at times. Yes. Though I really don't feel he is a hate filled person. Not like some I could mention over there at the other place.

I would like to see Grim dip into some of the other sections, from time to time.

I would like to read his views on non political matters, occasionally.

Just a thought...

Cartoon Head wrote:But attacking the person, in person, is always so much more rewarding!

I was drinking coffee when the humor of this came to me, and I started laughing. That's really funny.