The previous Venezuelan governments never had the extreme amount of extra money to spend because of the dynamic growth of world energy prices. Chavez got lucky and took power in the midst of the strongest energy market in decades. This allows him to use Venezuela's money to build infrastructure which is great, but his giving fuel to Cuba and other governments that are more socialist/communist is a complete waste and they should be harvesting those gains and not using it for his fancy.
A free democratic Iraq is a good thing in the long run for the US. The global benefits from the domino affect of freedom throughout the middle east would be amazing for global energy prices. A deflation of animosity in this region and stability in Isreal will benefit the US much more than the cost of the war. Chavez giving oil to people to go along with his failed ideologies is simply a wrong to the people of Venezuela.
so where did Bush spend our $250B surplus? and now we have a $300B deficit.. to give taxbreaks to the wealthy? is that for the interest for the american people? to democratize iraq? isn't that wasting american taxpayers money?
Of course, it remains to be seen if any of these things can even be achieved - even the administration has substantially lowered expectations of any of these things happening. He's not giving oil to people, from what I understand. His work with Cuba is in exchange for doctors and other personnel from Cuba, no? Besides which, all countries do this type of thing to build influence within a given region. If he's able to build a number of useful allies in South America, it will be worth it for Venezuela.
Firstoff, this is a thread on Venezuela. But if you insist.... I don't agree with much of Bush's spending. I think much of the spending is unjustified and a political move to take bullets out of the DNC's gun. The expected surplus was also based on huge capital gains from the run-up in the stock market. When the market came down much of those 'gains' were written off as losses and deducted from income and lowered the amount going to the government. Regarding reducing taxes for the 'wealthy', taxes were reduced across the board which increased consumer spending which is one of the reasons why we are out of the recession and our economy is doing great. I think that a free Iraq has a great deal of economic true benefit to the US in the long run. I've highlighted these points on many occasions. I think people in other nations will see the democracy and force their own dictators to follow suit. Elections are now being held for the first time EVER in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is even allowing some parties which were outlawed into the election process. I think the effects will ripple for quite some time and i'm hoping the result will be a more free stable middle east with a stronger economy and liberty will not drive people towards extremism. That limitation of extremism and a more free middle east will promote regional stability that will bring down global energy prices which increases consumer discretionary spending which helps the US. Also the rebuilding of certain regions and economic strength will be capitalized on (in a free, bidding manner) by US companies eager to reach the tastes of more people.
But he isn't giving fuel to Cuba, he is trading it to them because they have a surplus of doctors and medical staff. He is using that staff to provide health care to the poorest citizens of Vevezuela. He isn't using the gains for his fancy, unless his fancy is providing health care to the poor and previously exploited.
Well obviously Venezuelan doctors don't feel that way and are upset they are losing their jobs and claim they are political agents. Its just a means for Chavez to show his support for another communist regime. I'm sure he respects how Castro has been able to be a military dictator of Cuba for as long as he has and wants some lessons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4688117.stm Sustainability of government and extreme socialism do not go together. I would imagine after the financial collapse of the entire soviet block and the means that europe must subsidize eastern Europe made that evident.
If Venezuelan doctors don't like it, they should have been giving health care to the poor long ago. Now it is too late. The poor are finally getting health care that they haven't had for a long time. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than the complete lack of health care they used to get? Most definitely. Chavez doesn't have to respect any military dictatorship since he has been democratically elected almost 10 times now. The doctors aren't the only ones upset with chavez. Others who are wealthy and used to hold power are very upset with him as well. However the majority of Venezuelans are happy with the man, and he is providing services to people who haven't had them before.
so we have spent $300B and 1800 has dies for maybe a good thing? I don't think an unsure good thing is worth that much.
well you criticized chavez of spending for political reasons which I think (and so do you) our own president has done as well.. so I think its not a big deal to you becaue a lot of people do it.. [/QUOTE] so basically you're admitting that Bush is not any different from Chavez.. they both spend people's money for their own political agenda..
300 Billion and 1800 lives could mean the difference between an eventual conflict that would cost much more lives and much more money. The 300 billion would be made up in sheer months if the stability in the region allowed the risk premium on oil to fall by a third. I honestly felt that unless something drastic was done a few years ago then there would be a greater war between the US/West and the Muslim World. I feel bringing democracy to Iraq and allowing them to incorporate their Islamic principles will have a ripple effect that could end a possible future war that would take many, many more lives.
I don't know why Bush enacted certain bills, but I simply do not agree with it. I understand that giving concessions to the other side is part of politics and the medicare bill is an example of trying to appease the democrats/their voters. Every bill and spending would then be a bribe, which is silly. I'm talking about sending funds abroad with no economic benefit, the only benefit Chavez has is a recognition of his leadership and communist leanings. That benefits him and not Venezuela. In the same respect it annoys me that the US subsidises countries around the world like Egypt, Israel and Jordan.
Khan: Do you think it was a good idea to go into iraq, at the time it was done, in the way it was done? Seems i could agree with most of the stuff you say...but still think the path to the invasion was one of the greatest SNAFU's in US foreign policy in recent memory. Plus it made the objectives you site harder to achieve. Not quite sure this has anything to do with Chavez...
Chavez is the West's biggest supporter of Extreme Islamism (tm). Pat Robertson thinks so; thus, it must be true.
I was originally very much against the war in Iraq. I felt there was not much of a threat and that Saddam was more secular in nature and though he probably had ties to terrorism, I wasn't sure if that warranted invasion. Now my feelings about the situation are more that containment was not an option. I feel its better to go in and push for change then to slowly starve a country with UN Trade Embargo's and the such. I think we must correct the problem in the region and not simply put band-aids on it. I think much of the problems lie in the fact that post-colonization, we were not as willing to play active roles to push for democracy in these new countries and what happened was a vicious cycle of totalitarian dictators whether they were called president, king, shah or general. We in the US really didn't care who ruled as long as the precious oil kept flowing. As our dependance grew, we needed to maintain those open lines and probably supported those that did not deserve it. Those rulers oversaw there people with an iron fist and attempted to limit freedom of speech, thought and democracy. These people today are the result of a generation that has been held down by a thumb. We all know that human nature will force us to survive and fight. The result is religious extremism which is a means to fight those who enslave the people. These dictatorships are corrupt and inefficient (not ruled by the most intelligent or for the people but for their family or own wallets), therefore the society's were economically deprived as well. I think the administration realized that drastic steps were neede to correct past wrongs. They saw Saddam as a threat, and that though we have a short attention span now days, they wish to do things right. Push for democracy and let the people speak. Use Iraq as an example that if people have a voice, they will not have to use a bomb. I think we are starting to see the signs of democracy throughout the region and the freedom and capitalism will allow people to live and have families and not vent in despair. Its not the easy solution, or the quick solution, but I believe it could be the right one. Just my opinion of course.
I am finding Chavez more and more interesting every time I hear about him. I was listening to the Tavis Smiley show and they were talking about Chavez and the reasons for people hating him and his connections with Cuba etc. The poor in Venezuela have had their standard of living increase by 33% as a result of Chavez' plans and use of his oil reserves. It is pretty interesting and actually a bit inspiring. Anyway I wasn't going to pay for a transcript but you can listen to the show by connecting from this link. www.wfyi.org/nprNews.asp
Chavez and other populist leaders (like the Brazilian president) are the future of Latin America, we better get used to it. Those quasi-socialist regimes are being demanded by the people, and if you support democracy ONLY when it produces desirable results, then you don't really believe in democracy. Chavez was elected multiple times, we have to deal with him if we really respect the idea of democracy, and not all of a sudden be alarmed and take actions to undermine a regime that espouses socialism rather than cut-throat capitalism.
Well, he's extended his offerings... http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050829/wl_afp/usweathervenezuelaoil_050829235602 <I> CARACAS (AFP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez offered to send food and fuel to the United States after the powerful Hurricane Katrina pummeled the US south, ravaging US crude production. The leftist leader, a frequent critic of the United States and a target himself of US disapproval, said Venezuela could send aid workers with drinking water, food and fuel to US communities hit by the hurricane. "We place at the disposition of the people of the United States in the event of shortages -- we have drinking water, food, we can provide fuel," Chavez told reporters. Chavez said fuel could be sent to the United States via a Citgo refinery that has not been affected by the hurricane. Citgo is owned by Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). In the Gulf of Mexico, which accounts for a quarter of total US oil output, 92 percent of crude and 83 percent of natural gas production were shut down due to Hurricane Katrina, which slammed Louisiana and Mississippi, according to US government data. Venezuela is the fourth-largest provider of oil to the United States, supplying some 1.5 million barrels a day. Last week, Chavez offered discount gasoline to poor Americans suffering from high oil prices and on Sunday offered free eye surgery for Americans without access to health care. </I>
I thought it was all talk. I didn't see how he could possibly target only certain communities in order to implement this plan. But it looks like Chavez is following through with his pledge.
