Venezuela Reaches Landmark 75% Debt Retirement

[AGENDA21]

Caracas, Venezuela, April 18, 2006—After almost a year of buying billions of dollars in Argentine bonds, Venezuela moves to buy back its own, saving, according to the Ministry of Finance, $676 million in debt repayments in 2006.

Venezuela announced in late February it would retire 3.9 billion dollars in Brady bonds, which would have matured in 2020. Last week the Ministry of Finance announced that 75 percent of the purchase had been made. The remaining sum is expected to be bought back by the end of May.

According to the Ministry, the retiring of bonds will lead to the reduction of total public debt as a percent of GDP to 32 percent, falling over a three and a third percentage points. This, along with the payback of $779 million to multilateral organizations, is part of Venezuela’s overall plan a 15 percent reduction in external debt to 21 percent of GDP by the end of the year, the Minister of Finance told the press in February. At the end of 2005, external debt stood at 23 percent.

“The goal of this plan to reduce public debt the freeing up of monetary flows which will be used to increase the disposable resources for public investment, support of private sector activity, and, even more importantly, the possibility to expand the programs of social spending in education, health and food access,” said an April 12 Finance Ministry press release.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1944

[Oversea Visitor]

1. He doing a good job

:)

[AGENDA21]

3. Bush can learn alot from him!!

[LoZoccolo]

9. I think Chavez is learning a lot from Bush*, actually.

Such as keeping your people intimidated with fake foreign threats.

[Terran1212]

27. It's not fake in Latin America's case; don't soil chavez with bush's name!

[LoZoccolo]

35. Oh, OK, I won't. Just cuz you said so.

Actually yes I will.

[Terran1212]

39. Well you'll just be wrong my friend

Poverty down by 1/3

1.1 million more people can read

Chavez = the anti-bush

[LoZoccolo]

43. By their own government's measures of poverty.

Meanwhile, he keeps telling his people we're going to attack him, the way we were told that Saddam was going to pull tricks against us. We couldn't if we wanted to. We're fighting two wars already and might get into a third. Demagogues need a threat to protect their people from.

[Terran1212]

44. The US is now engaged in more activities against Latin America

than since the Cold War.

You and I both know US-Latin American relations. Why do you think they WOULDN'T attack him with someone?

[LoZoccolo]

50. Document or retract.

Also, I don't have to prove a negative.

[manic expression]

58. As in the coup against Chavez?

it's well known to be supported by the US.

Face it, the US has been very, very belligerent towards Venezuela. That is indisputable. Venezuela and its government face very real threats, and Chavez is speaking out against them and countering them.

[LoZoccolo]

67. You didn't prove that.

You sent me on three wild goose chases.

[manic expression]

76. Those 'goose-chases'

cite a coup against Chavez. One explicitly proves that at least one foreign government supported the coup. That documented what you wanted, and now you are trying to deny it, in vain.

[LoZoccolo]

81. No it didn't.

US involvement in the coup, or "I'm sorry, I was playing games with you."

[manic expression]

92. Once again,

"Venezuela coup linked to Bush team"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

Secondly, the original claim that you objected to was that "foreign governments" were involved in the coup. The third link shows that beyond any doubt, which makes you incorrect, again.

[Terran1212]

61. Is the most-read voice on foreign policy on the world enough for you?

From professor chomsky:

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20060307.htm


"And the US is pretty naturally playing its strong card which is military and in military force the US is supreme. Military expenditures in the US are about half of the total world expenditures, technologically much more advanced. In Latin America, just keeping to that, the number of the US military personnel is probably higher than it ever was during the Cold War. The US is sharply increasing training of Latin American officers.

The training of military officers has been shifted from the State Department to the Pentagon, which is not insignificant. The State department is under some weak congressional supervision. I mean, there is legislation requiring human rights conditionalities and so on. They are not very much enforced, but they are at least there. But the Pentagon is free to do anything they want. Furthermore, the training is shifting to local control. So one of the main targets is what's called radical populism, we know what that means, and the US is establishing military bases throughout the region."

[LoZoccolo]

68. This has nothing to do with invading Venezuela.

And the most-read political leader is Mao Zedong, which means nothing to me in terms of credibility.

I'm sorry you gotta go through this kind of paradigm shift, but I don't need to be far-left to be against the Republicans.

[Terran1212]

158. So now it's just the Republicans, eh?

It's not like LBJ or Carter ever helped butcher Latin Americans.


Oh wait they did.

It's not "far left" to respect people's rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it's American.

[manic expression]

59. By this government's, and the previous government's

measures. Nothing in the way poverty has been counted has been changed, and it is falling.

Meanwhile, we HAVE supported a COUP against him. Don't you think that is cause for some concern? You are very mistaken if you think we would attack by military force, because we would much rather do the old Latin American job: covert operations. The US poses a very real threat to Venezuela, its government and its people, and Chavez is rightly guarding against a clearly aggressive foreign power.

[LoZoccolo]

69. Document or retract. n/t

[manic expression]

75. pitiful

"...(Chavez) began to create the “missions”—emergency health, education and welfare programmes. The missions provide public services and subsidies to the poor. They are paid for out of a parallel budget, controlled directly by the president without going through the social ministries.

“Inside the Barrio” builds primary health posts, staffed by Cuban doctors. The “Robinson Mission” teaches people to read. “Mercal”, a fast-expanding network of shops and supermarkets, sells staple foods at a 40% discount, boosting the purchasing power of the minimum wage. There are more than a dozen other missions: the latest, named after Simón Bolívar's nanny, is intended to look after street children, drug addicts and the homeless.

Thanks largely to the ever-expanding oil windfall and a huge increase in public spending, the economy recovered strongly from the strike, growing 18% in 2004 and almost 10% last year. Given such growth, it would be remarkable if poverty had not fallen. And indeed it seems to have done. According to an estimate by the national statistics office, in 2005 poverty at last fell below its level of 1998."

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5526589

And that is a VERY conservative source in terms of economic policy. Nowhere in the article does it mention a manipulation in the way poverty is measured. However, it DOES mention how poverty has decreased through various programs.

[LoZoccolo]

79. Do you think Exxon is overcharging people for oil?

Yes or no?

And still, if I didn't call him authoritarian I would have to apologize to Bush*, and I won't do that.

[manic expression]

85. What I think

is that you are hiding from the issue. Please explain what the question has to do with the topic at hand.

You have clearly ignored undeniable evidence that poverty is indeed dropping in Venezuela.

On your consistent fallicous charges of authoritarianism, you have provided no valid argument to support this. I have, on the other hand, shown many reasons why Chavez is FAR from authoritarian (the opposite of authoritarian, in fact). Start looking at the situation instead of the sand your head is firmly buried in.

[LoZoccolo]

89. Yeah but he's piggybacking on what you would probably say...

...is American companies overcharging people for oil!

Sure he gives it out cheaply to a few neighborhoods here as a token gesture (I mean come on, am I supposed to respect him more for publicity stunts like that), but otherwise...

And ruling by decree is not authoritarian??!!?!!!!! And censoring the media?

You have an authoritarian figure as your avatar, of course you're not going to agree to my standard.

[manic expression]

96. First,

He gave a good amount of oil to people who really needed it. It's called doing something about a bad situation, something Americans seem incapable of. Of course the effort wasn't epic, but what do you expect when Venezuela isn't the richest kid on the block? The effort was AT LEAST commendable and very indicative of what Chavez' intentions are.

The "rule by decree" sees the domination of anti-Chavez opinions in the media. The media is completely owned and run by the opposition, and taunts, insults and bigotry against Chavez are more than common. Treating slander like slander is more than reasonable. Furthermore, the opposition is quite free to political activity (they even launched a coup without any significant punishments). All of this and more, however, goes unnoticed by you.

This "authoritarian figure" saved hundreds of thousands of lives when the world was content to see Tutsis and dissenting Hutus butchered at a rate not seen since Cannae. But since when did you care about facts?

on edit: I didn't expand on this because this shouldn't be a discussion about Rwanda and the RPF, but Kagame has been careful to keep control on the political situation. Why? BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORTED AND CARRIED OUT THE MASSACRES COULD ACHIEVE CONTROL. Furthermore, he has been pretty forgiving when it comes to the most heinous genocide since the 40's, as many murderers are now living their lives outside of prison. In the aftermath of one of the most disgusting and base atrocity in the last century, Kagame has started to rebuild Rwanda not as a Tutsi, not as a Hutu, but as a Rwandan. His reluctance to let bigots and bloodthirsty monsters into the political arena is MORE than justified and necessary. You might do well to know one or two things about something before making such preposterous and wrong claims.

[Judi Lynn]

100. Democratic Congressmen went to 5 large American oil companies

to try to negotiate cheaper heating oil prices prior to the winter. They were completely blown off. At THAT TIME, and not before, THEY CONTACTED THE GOVERNMENT OF VENEZUELA. This was NOT some grandstanding gesture Hugo Chavez pulled out of his ass. Originated with DEMOCRATIC Congress people.

After many meetings and communications these Democratic Congressmen, and representatives of some Native American tribes worked out a method to deliver oil to some northeast American states, and reservations.

[DrGonzoLives]

142. Document or retract

Sure he gives it out cheaply to a few neighborhoods here as a token gesture (I mean come on, am I supposed to respect him more for publicity stunts like that), but otherwise...

[DrGonzoLives]

140. What does Exxon have to do with Citgo?

Which is Venezuela's oil company, by the way.

[TheBaldyMan]

46. fake threats like both coup attempts?

So Chavez was only pretending to be kidnapped by CIA backed military, that's news to me. If Chavex has learned anything from Bush it's how not to run a country, conduct a war or win international influence.

[LoZoccolo]

49. Document or retract. n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

52. here is one ...

Warning to Venezuelan leader brought to you by the guy that broke the story of the 2000 election theft, investigative reporter extraordinaire Greg Palast

check out his site to find lots of dirt on big oil in South America.

[LoZoccolo]

65. He the guy who happens upon crucial documents...

...flying out of limo windows? Yeah, I read the book.

[TheBaldyMan]

83. so you think the source is unreliable ?

I would rather have Greg and his mysteriously obtained documents over most other reporters because he actually checks and double checks his sources.

He must have got this story about the coup off the back of a limousine as well.

Be honest, nothing I could say will convince you that the Nov. 2002 coup was staged or at the very least aided by the US. Even if I produced a signed affadavit from the head of the CIA you'ld dismiss it as a forgery.

[LoZoccolo]

91. He said some other one fell out of a plane or something.

No, I don't take the friend of someone who wants people to believe that he's being attacked by the US as a credible source, even if Greg Palast reports it.

[happydreams]

54. Already done Bacchus, er

Lozo. A thousand f*&king times!!

[happydreams]

55. self-delete

[manic expression]

56. Document?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1929498.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2011596.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4059555.stm

Please...

[LoZoccolo]

66. None of these link the coup to the US. n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

87. no just the coup in Venezuela like you asked for in #49

"Document or retract" post

[LoZoccolo]

93. I guess you'll just have to show me where.

I didn't find it.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheBaldyMan]

107. go back and look closer, it's there, you just need insight enough

not much ... just enough

[LoZoccolo]

108. I looked already. Document or retract.

The complete text of the article is available to you. I do not have to prove a negative (that it's not there).

[manic expression]

122. I suggest

you look again. If you're talking about the coup and the US, here you go, again.

"Venezuela coup linked to Bush team"
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

[LoZoccolo]

124. Cite the text, I couldn't find it. Document or retract.

Actually proof of all of what I said can be found here:

http://www.google.com

I suggest you read it, or you are not looking hard enough.

[manic expression]

160. You are either lazy or lying

Forgive me for thinking the latter.

I cited the text elsewhere. However, if you cared to read the title, you would have seen "Venezuela coup linked to Bush team" from a very reliable source.

If this were a chess game, I would be required to say "checkmate" at this point.

[ThomCat]

156. "Document or retract"

What is your problem? Just because you refuse to read, connect the dots, or accept evidence doesn't mean that anyone has to retract anything. I don't see you saying anything except that you're a nit-picking devil's advocate.

Telling people to Document (to your satisfaction) or Retract is hostile and rude.

I'm sure we'll all be given a lecture now on standards of proof or something, but you aren't the judge. If you don't like the evidence then say so, but don't go making demands on other people.

[TheBaldyMan]

167. not a case of 'connecting the dots' as much as reading the plain text. n/t

[TheBaldyMan]

168. plaese make this clear document or retract what?

Everything you have asked to be documented has clearly been documented, unambiguously and clearly. Go back to all the answers to your terse reply and read them again. The information is in there. I am not going to spoon feed you every quote.

Sticking tour fingers in your ears and singing, "La, la ,la, I'm not listening." is the response of someone who can't bear to hear the plain truth.

b-0-d

[Judi Lynn]

171. Thanks for pointing it out. It's a relief seeing someone describing

the problem. We're not dealing with an upright, responsible person here. Pity.

[manic expression]

90. First of all,

the coup was supported by the US.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

Secondly, the third link shows that the coup was supported by a foreign government, which is the charge you objected to. That proves the original claim, rendering you, once again, completely and utterly wrong.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LoZoccolo]

155. Am I really that /what/?

I'm putting you on ignore for insulting me; I don't tolerate that.

[manic expression]

53. Fake?

Salvador Allende, Chile; Bay of Pigs, Cuba; Fuentes, Guatemala; Contras, Nicaragua; Death Squads, El Salvador.

Need I continue?

Yes, I do, for I have ommitted one aggressive US action in Latin America off the list. What is it? That's right, the US-backed coup which OVERTHREW HUGO CHAVEZ. Thankfully, the people opposed it and Chavez was restored to power.

Oh, and Chavez IS under threat from the US.

Get a clue.

[tom_paine]

62. LoZoccolo, I am pretty neutral on the Chavez issue

(still haven't made up my mind whether he is devil, saint, or something in between...)

But you asked "document or retract" and so it was documented.

And you CAN'T be crazy enough to be thinking any of these "Salvador Allende, Chile; Bay of Pigs, Cuba; Fuentes, Guatemala; Contras, Nicaragua; Death Squads, El Salvador" are fake, though undocumented on this thread, a child of four could Google their way to REPUTABLE documentation in three mouse-clicks.

Can you?

In either case, bud, you got

SPANKED!

[LoZoccolo]

70. That's inductive reasoning, a common feature of conspiracy theories.

Which is what he's pushing on his people, and what Bush* pushed on his people in bringing up the gassing of the Kurds and the fact that Saddam had WMD's way back in 1998.

[manic expression]

80. Only

this is not a theory. The US has been involved in coup after coup after covert operation after junta support in Latin America. This includes the coup against Chavez. This also includes the belligerent manner in which the US has been addressing Venezuela. This constitutes a very real and previously realized threat that the US poses to the country and its people. Chavez has countered this by standing up to the Bush administration, as well as instituting many measures to defend against a(nother) potential foreign action.

Chavez is pushing nothing on his people, unless you mean the countless instances of social improvement in Venezuela. In terms of false charges, it seems that you, not Chavez, are quite guilty of that.

[LoZoccolo]

82. It is inductive reasoning.

There are no plans to invade Venezuela, and Chavez reaps plenty of demagogue benefits from his people (and oddly, ours) from it.

Saddam gassed his own people (real) and had weapons of mass destruction a long time ago (real), so we might be facing a mushroom cloud in the US if we didn't invade Iraq yadda yadda...

I don't tolerate it from Bush*, and I don't tolerate it from Chavez or his lackeys.

[manic expression]

99. Just

as there were no plans to invade a country in the middle east?

Back to the point, the US has been involved in an attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government. That much is quite proven (see bottom of post). Chavez has countered this belligerent stance, and has spoken against the aggressive government responsible for it. That much is only right of him to do.

The difference that you fail to see is that Venezuela has seen the cloud of foreign injustice, and is wary of the potential storm on the horizon. By the way, Chavez did NOT significantly punish those responsible for the coup, and has won LEGITIMATE ELECTIONS signed off by international observers. Furthermore, there is very much free speech and free press and other civil liberties. This is all to make no mention of the incredible social improvement happening with Chavez.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,688071,00.html

[LoZoccolo]

110. This is all I see.

Now officials at the Organisation of American States and other diplomatic sources, talking to The Observer, assert that the US administration was not only aware the coup was about to take place, but had sanctioned it, presuming it to be destined for success.

This is as valid as you or anyone else "asserting" it.

[manic expression]

123. No, that is all you want to see

from the article:

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established....
-snip-
It also also deepens doubts about policy in the region being made by appointees to the Bush administration, all of whom owe their careers to serving in the dirty wars under President Reagan.

One of them, Elliot Abrams, who gave a nod to the attempted Venezuelan coup, has a conviction for misleading Congress over the infamous Iran-Contra affair....
-snip-
The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich."

There's more.

[LoZoccolo]

125. "Assertions" from anonymous sources from an organization...

...that includes a representative from Venezuela. Oh gee.

No proof.

[Solon]

129. So does the US...

What the fuck is your point, you seem to be unqualified to even offer an opinion considering you have NO CLUE what organizational bodies either the US or Venezuela belongs to for this Hemisphere. Its like saying that any opinion offered by a UN delegate, even anonymously, disqualifies the source because China had a representative there. Idiocy, plain and simple.

In fact, here is the list, ALL nations of North and South America are members, except Cuba and Colonial possessions or commonwealths of European Powers, they are members of the EU.

http://www.oas.org/main/main.asp?sLang=E&sLink=http://www.oas.org/documents/eng/structure.asp

[LoZoccolo]

131. I don't know how they "know" it.

I only know that they "asserted" it. How did they come to "know" that this was CIA-backed? I don't even know who said it!

There are people on here who assert that the DLC set up Dean so that his microphone would sound weird during the speech where he screamed, and distributed the tape to the media. They don't know that. They assert that, but they don't even give how they'd know that.

[Solon]

133. You apparently don't know Journalism at all...

at least, honest journalism, being a freelancer myself, who is also published, let me tell you something, you quote people as sources and do NOT publish their identity without explicit permission. Also, if they make an assertion, it is on you to prove whether it is true or false, otherwise you are to present it as their opinion only, removed from you publication. The Observer is a respected publication, and therefore follows these rules(the US National Enquirer doesn't), so here is an example of what I'm talking about.

"The failed coup in Venezuela was closely tied to senior officials in the US government, The Observer has established....

Now this tells me something, the first, the word established is authoritative, plus the paper in question just indicted themselves in a good libel suit if the accusation is untrue. That tells me they have at least 2, possibly more, independent sources that lead them to this conclusion. Now, it isn't a court of law, and yes, even papers get bad info all the time, however, the lack of response from the US, except outright denial, seems to be odd, to say the least.

BTW: You were trying to discredit the source simply because of who is associated with it, I imagine you would have been just as skeptical of the OAS if the article went the other way and exonerated the US of any involvement in the coup, after all, isn't the US a member as well?

[LoZoccolo]

134. It depends on what other evidence there was.

He-said she-said without anything about why they said it or how they'd be qualified to know doesn't constitute evidence.

That's hilarious though, that you are a freelance journalist and write stuff like:

What the fuck is your point, you seem to be unqualified to even offer an opinion considering you have NO CLUE what organizational bodies either the US or Venezuela belongs to for this Hemisphere.

Do you ever blow up like that when your questions aren't getting answered?

(You made this about you when you played the freelancer card.)

[manic expression]

159. What you are constantly ignoring

is that this IS evidence. This is a credible story, to say the very least. It cites officials from an organization that the US is a part of, no less. This kind of story is called "On Background" in the journalist world, and is VERY valid and constitutes VERY real evidence.

Your pathetic denial grows more desperate with each post.

[LoZoccolo]

137. And the irony is...

...if you offered the same amount of evidence for something about a political figure in Venezuela, you probably wouldn't even be allowed to print it!

[Solon]

172. Document or retract...

Have any reports from Venezuela been scrubbed by the government there, you made the assertion, now prove it, if you can.

[DrGonzoLives]

141. Try reading the whole article

The visits by Venezuelans plotting a coup, including Carmona himself, began, say sources, 'several months ago', and continued until weeks before the putsch last weekend. The visitors were received at the White House by the man President George Bush tasked to be his key policy-maker for Latin America, Otto Reich.

Reich is a right-wing Cuban-American who, under Reagan, ran the Office for Public Diplomacy. It reported in theory to the State Department, but Reich was shown by congressional investigations to report directly to Reagan's National Security Aide, Colonel Oliver North, in the White House.

North was convicted and shamed for his role in Iran-Contra, whereby arms bought by busting US sanctions on Iran were sold to the Contra guerrillas and death squads, in revolt against the Marxist government in Nicaragua.

Reich also has close ties to Venezuela, having been made ambassador to Caracas in 1986. His appointment was contested both by Democrats in Washington and political leaders in the Latin American country. The objections were overridden as Venezuela sought access to the US oil market.

Reich is said by OAS sources to have had 'a number of meetings with Carmona and other leaders of the coup' over several months. The coup was discussed in some detail, right down to its timing and chances of success, which were deemed to be excellent.

On the day Carmona claimed power, Reich summoned ambassadors from Latin America and the Caribbean to his office. He said the removal of Chavez was not a rupture of democra tic rule, as he had resigned and was 'responsible for his fate'. He said the US would support the Carmona government.

I suppose, though, that since no U.S. government official (the onyl true source of information) said this directly on live television, there's no way it can be true.

[Touchdown]

147. Somebody just took a debate class.

I'm impressed. Now try debating instead of identifying debate tactics. The others are fascinating to read. You're boring. Unfortunately I have to go past your insipid demands to get to them. :eyes:

[grottieyottie]

161. Document or Retract

There are no plans to invade Venezuela

Document or retract please

[K-W]

64. It is the superpower that needs to invent threats.

Nations that defy the superpower have no such luxery.

[KingFlorez]

2. Now only if we can pay down our debt

Paying down the debt and still providing services to the people, that's proper management. This is a true leftist leader.

[LoZoccolo]

8. We could easily do that...

...if only we gave Bush* the same kind of authoritarian power that Chavez has! Wouldn't that just be great?

Bush* should totally criminalize libel and slander against government officials, the way Chavez did, because that would keep our government running smoothly, for instance.

[KingFlorez]

11. Hold up a minute

That has nothing to do with anything you said, I'm talking about good government. You seem to buy into the Freeper view of Chavez and that's not the way to view this.

[LoZoccolo]

13. Bah, this conversation is over and I'm putting you on ignore.

My argument is what it is. The FReepers have nothing to do with this. I do not talk to people who use manipulative tactics like that. So you're gone.

MODS: Skinner made it clear a few months ago that it is OK to tell someone you are putting them on ignore so long as you do it.

[Bridget Burke]

29. Must.Not.Hear.Disturbing.Words

[LoZoccolo]

30. That's a fucking lie.

I do not argue with people who use manipulative tactics like comparing me to FReepers. My time is MINE to use however I want, and I do not want it spent listening to people who are going to pull tricks like that.

Or accuse me of not wanting to hear disturbing words for that matter.

[manic expression]

60. Lie?

Like the "lie" that there was a coup in Venezuela?

:rofl:

Please, you are utterly wrong if you are trying to say Chavez has anything approaching authoritarian power. He's won LEGITIMATE elections that have been signed off by INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS. The funny thing is how virtually the ENTIRE media in Venezuela is owned by the opposition (the elite). Keep ignoring the truth about Venezuela (not to mention US policy toward it), just like you ignore the people who tell you it.

[LoZoccolo]

71. Yes, I am the sole authority on that lie.

I know what I was thinking, she didn't, and that settles it.

[manic expression]

73. In case you missed it:

"Please, you are utterly wrong if you are trying to say Chavez has anything approaching authoritarian power. He's won LEGITIMATE elections that have been signed off by INTERNATIONAL OBSERVERS. The funny thing is how virtually the ENTIRE media in Venezuela is owned by the opposition (the elite). Keep ignoring the truth about Venezuela (not to mention US policy toward it), just like you ignore the people who tell you it."

Try responding to most of what I wrote. Then maybe, just maybe, we might have a chance to actually "settle it".

[LoZoccolo]

74. He ruled by decree for a year!

Would you allow the President of the United States to do that??!!

Or decide what you can say about public figures?

Chavez actually sounds like a rampant pusillanimous figure in my book, being able to dish it out but not take it in, and have his defenders use disingenuous talking points and send people on wild goose chases.

[IChing]

84. What the hell do your posts have to do with orginal topic of the post?

Nothing, absolutely nothing
Start your own OP thread if you wish,
you continually highjack threads on Chavez.

[LoZoccolo]

88. Sure it does.

Chavez is able to do a lot because he's given himself all this power, that's my point. Debt retirement and more.

[IChing]

94. So why didn't your right wing Venezuelian government do this before?

They had the money and power to do that.
Is Debt retirement is a bad idea in your mind or only because a left wing elected President is doing it?

[LoZoccolo]

111. "My" right wing Venezuelian government?

Explain.

Is Debt retirement is a bad idea in your mind or only because a left wing elected President is doing it?

This is a presumptuous question. Ask me nice if you want an answer.

[IChing]

113. So why is this a bad thing?

It seems your enabling of the status quo, half baked anti establishment response to other issues that tries to peg yourself as a Progressive and non responses to the questions of documentation of proof on your tirades.

answer the question
Is Debt retirement is a bad idea in your mind or only because a left wing elected President is doing it? Like the rest of South America is trying to do which has turned Leftist and not Right.....there is no middle here especially when it is defined by who?

So answer the question

[LoZoccolo]

118. You give me two choices which are both bunk.

I told you to ask nicely or I wouldn't answer the question. You just typed the same thing again after I told you not to. I have put three people on ignore for being manipulative. I am not here to play games.

[IChing]

128. Yeah, I am on an "ignor"e from an" ignor"ant.

I am here not to play your games either,

you were tested and you lost.
My manipulative conspiracy is only a logical attack on your statements.


If you can't stand the heat
you can not ignore the the burners on the stove
that are burning your statements,
and making the heat in the kitchen of your logic
to be too hot ....sorry you invested on the wrong side.


Of course,
I am on your ignore list,
so you will never read this" because in a way

it is not a bad thing.".............

[IChing]

114. Repeat, So why is this a bad thing? Is that "nice enough for you?"

Answer the the question and I will be "nice"

I await your stellar logic .......and I meant that in a "nice" way.

[LoZoccolo]

119. In and of itself, it's not.

But he does these things at the same time he's disregarding freedom and human rights, which makes me question how it's getting done. Give me rule by decree and censor the media and I could get a lot of things done.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

139. Whose Freedom, Sir, And Whose Rights?

A government has a right to defend itself against attempts at coup, and to act against those who foment or participate in such.

[LoZoccolo]

148. To what degree?

Would passage of the USA PATRIOT Act be justified under that principle? I think we all have an opinion of how much power is justified, and for me I don't think that a blank check and a policy of letting the government decide what libels and slanders itself inspires trust or establishes accountability.

[Imperialism Inc.]

151. Oh the rule by decree guy.

I should have known it was you. Since your horse shit about how wikipedia says he ruled by decree got demolished last time you tried to pass off your disinformation you had to switch to another name this time?

There was no rule by decree. Permission was given, by the legislature to pass laws on limited subject matter to establish a broad program of economic and political recovery. It was not unique in Venezuelan history since the previous President had been give the same opportunity. The legislature was fully functional during that time. There was no dictatorship there was no "rule by decree".

You lost that debate completely. Your position was slanted disinformation and you were called out and proven wrong. But, you still won't let go of it? Come on now, do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you position was so completely demolished and yet here you are still spouting it?

[LoZoccolo]

152. I am not the rule by decree guy.

I am a Wikipedian, but my input there has not touched political matters.

[TheBaldyMan]

177. document or retract n/t

[killbotfactory]

120. Yeah, he was allowed to rule by decree a year after a new constitution

was implemented. Previous presidents had done that before.

Then he stopped. As we all know, dictators love to give up powers like that.

[LoZoccolo]

78. And wait wait wait wait...

Is this the same media that allows him to go on for hours every Sunday morning to air Aló, Presidente! to deliver official state propaganda? The media that's totally owned by the opposition?

[manic expression]

102. No me digas!

Whole HOURS of non-opposition opinions? WOW. Talk about OPPRESSION! :sarcasm: :rofl:

It's called a presidential address, and it is practiced in many countries by many leaders. It is not repressive at all. Those speeches are pretty much the only time non-anti-Chavez opinions get aired. The rest of the week, it's back to vile (and racist) anti-Chavez hate.

OH MY! LOOK AT THIS DEMAGOGUE! STATE PROPAGANDA I SAY! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE TOPPLE THIS DICTATOR?!


:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

112. You can view it here.

http://www.alopresidente.gob.ve

It's a fully produced block of programming, not an event staged for external coverage. It's state propaganda.

[manic expression]

121. I'm quite familiar with it

it's a presidential address. It's something that happens in many countries, and it allows a head-of-state to address the people directly. FDR was an innovator of this with his "fireside chats".

[stepnw1f]

135. Good Job Manic

you have much more on the ball with this subject than I do. But I could tell the poster you slammed was full of it, just by his/her debating tactics. You didn't fall for it. Good job!

[1932]

144. I second stepnw1f's comment. You are doing exaclty that. Well done & thnks

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

146. OK that is it you two

I'm throwing a little hissy fit, fainting on my huge 1940s couch and putting y'all on ignore. I ain't playing no games mister. :evilgrin:

[1932]

164. G.W.C., olá!

GWC's bringing exactly what needs to be brought in a situation like this. A laugh. Gracias.

[SeattleRob]

153. Good job indeed!

You have a lot more patience than I would have, dealing with someone who has their mind made up and who ignores the documented evidence you present.

[Imperialism Inc.]

154. It is a Chavez political show to be sure.

Like others pointed out though... so what? A Politician having a show to put out his message is unusual to you? It is on state TV not every station.

I honestly cannot believe that your position is serious. I cannot picture anyone who is so stupid as to call a dictator a man who has been elected by large majorities, had his programs and changes to the Constitution (which was what he was elected to do) ratified at the polls, survived a recall attempt, his party has picked up seats in every election. The only people I know who are that ignorant are freeps. You sure argue like one. Making bizarre claims (like "rule by decree") that have no basis in fact. Completely ignoring the repeated posted evidence that refutes your every position. What a joke you are. Do you really think you re convincing to anyone? Or is your goal merely to disrupt?

[1932]

176. !

!!

[Flanker]

178. The 5 hour block is for state television only

Private media can air whatever they want during its course, as a matter of fact there is a lampoon of it on Globovision of two hours called alo ciudadano, I guess the private media loves to propagandize too.

[killbotfactory]

117. There is one state run TV station.

The rest are owned by the opposition.

During the 2002 coup, the state run channel was the only one reporting that Chavez had not resigned, then somebody cut their feed. Wonder who that was?

Chavez did not, in fact, resign. He let himself be kidnapped because the coup leaders where threatening to bomb Miraflorez if he didn't leave. That didn't stop every other news channel in the world from saying he had resigned. Coincidently, The US was the first to acknowledge the "new government", spreading the lie that Chavez had resigned, had known about the coup attempt in advance, and even met with a couple of the leaders of the coup in Washington a week or two beforehand. But hey, that's all coincidence, there's nothing to the story that we were partially behind the coup attempt. Nothing at all... :eyes:

Unfortunately, the people didn't like the hard won changes to the government they had fought for completely overthrown by the elite haves and have mores. So they rallied around the palace until sympathetic figures in the Venezuelan military stopped the coup and brought Chavez back and arrested the "new" governemnt officials.

[ContraBass Black]

116. Nice pic.

:D

[KingFlorez]

36. I really don't care

[Rex]

41. I 2nd that.

Ignorant people are a waste of time.

[Cha]

42. Viva Chavez! Someone who actually

gives a damn for the people in his country. It's creepy how many buy into the fascist wing picture of Chavez. Like con rice saying when someone advised them to make nice with Chavez..rice said.."we just don't like him" snark snark




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=952282

[pnorman]

130. Put me on IGNORE also, buster!

For as long as I've been following DU (now a major part of my daily internet diet), I've supported the right of "contrarian" opinion to be aired --- even given a measure of respect. But YOU go well over the line, as a pettifogging obstructionist of rational discourse. You DEMAND strict Rules of Evidence from the other side, but you hold yourself to NONE of that "foolishness". You bring about as much useful information to this group, as Snotty Scotty did to his.

As an admirer of Chomsky andv other libertarian socialists, I too loathe authoritarianism. But reading the deplorable history of US intervention in that part of the world (actually almost everywhere), I can see how it inevitably develops. We (Corporate America) have made democratic dissent illegal, wherever it got in the way (or even "set a bad example"). So WHAT can one expect? (Actually, the "authoritarianism" seems to be far less than where our Death Squads ruled supreme).

pnorman

[druidity33]

132. ignore you too...

I'm not even going to reply to your argument, because it seems like you're not willing to do the barest hint of research to support YOUR case. It's apparent to everyone here that you've made up your mind about who Chavez is and what he stands for. I think you bought into a lie... but that's just my opinion. I've seen no manipulative tactics here... just people trying to open your mind a little.

I've decided to make you the first person i ignore!

[LoZoccolo]

138. Oh yeah?

Made you look!

[Robbien]

12. The news stations in Venezuela call Chavez a dirty low class pig. 24/7

Chavez's law says any on-air comment has to be based on fact not opinion of the owners.

Venezuela television is Faux News on speed. Chavez's law says if you are a news station you have to report news, not slander.

The US pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into the news media of Venezuela. Of course they slander Chavez, BushCo orders them to do so.

[LoZoccolo]

14. So?

Free speech or no? You with it or not?

Would you let Bush* get away with that?

Or rule by decree for a year?

[Robbien]

16. I would love it if Bush demanded News had to be based on fact not opinion

Isn't that the definition of what News is, or what it use to be before Fauxification.

[LoZoccolo]

18. I can't believe this.

You would trust the government, run by the Bush* administration and the Republicans in all three branches, to determine this?

[Robbien]

20. BushCo doesn't do fact, they do subversion and misdirection

That is why they would never ever demand facts be the basis for media reports.

But Chavez does demand facts be the basis for media reports.

And you state Chavez is the bad guy.

Humpf.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Our government has released it's own "facts".

They do reports on global warming and put out stories about Jessica Lynch. Would you give Bush* the power to shut down any media whose story doesn't match the official version? Why would you give any government the power to do that?

Yes, Chavez is a dictator who doesn't believe in free speech. I think that, yes. Plus he ruled by decree for a year.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Robbien]

25. Seems to me you are putting a lot of people on ignore

Agree with you or they go on this ignore list of yours.

Well, you are not on my ignore list even though you write in huge bold shouting print.

I wish you well.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[manic expression]

63. FACT remains

the media is completely anti-Chavez. The ONLY measures the government has taken is to make restrictions on outright slander, something that is not unreasonable at all. Even then, the media continues with its vile and racist insults against Chavez (yes, racist).

There is free speech in Venezuela. Not only is the media wholly anti-Chavez (not to mention bigoted and elitist), but the opposition is allowed to operate fully. After the coup, Chavez did not even go after most of those involved, and those who were convicted (about 8, IIRC) faced mere jailtime (as opposed to the torture and murder you would get if the same thing happened in the "US-approved" Latin American countries; ever hear of Pinochet?). The person who usurped the office from him was allowed to leave and go to Colombia. How does that come close to a shred of authoritarianism? Hint: IT DOESN'T.

Would you like to show us some examples of this lack of "free speech", as you call it?

On the coup convictions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3744994.stm

[LoZoccolo]

72. Slander as determined by the slandered.

He's a dictator, hello.

Would you or would you not support a similar measure enforced by the Bush* administration and the Republican courts and congress?

[manic expression]

104. Slander is when

the media consistently insults Chavez personally, oftentimes evoking racist sentiments (he's not European enough for the elite). I would also love to have some examples of this dictatorial policy, especially when the media persists in its slanderous ways.

Slander is not legal in the US, either.

[paulk]

95. I would rather slander was determined in a courtroom

not by the government.

Giving the government, any government, the right to determine what is slanderous and what not, especially when that "slander" is directed at said government is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

I don't see how such a policy can be honestly defended.

[K-W]

97. So are you claiming Venezuala does not have courts?

Slander is a legal term. Of course it is determined by the government, all laws are determined by the government. We have slander laws in this country, and there are slander laws in europe and throughout the world.

[paulk]

98. what are you babbling about?

Does it have anything at all to do with what I posted?

[K-W]

103. I'm sorry, I assumed basic reading comprehension.

But perhaps I should have derived from your theory of authoritarianism where slander laws lead to dictatorship and the laws and courts arent a part of the government that this was optimistic.

[TheBaldyMan]

47. could you supply any proof

like links to news stories, eye-witness accounts or anything like that? Most of the coverage I have seen has been fairly flattering to Chavez, could you please give me an example of an anti-Chavez story.

[LoZoccolo]

51. From a generally left-wing source.

The so-called "libel" and "slander" law is called the "Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television".

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/11/30/venezu9754.htm

The act that allowed him to rule by decree for a year is called the "Enabling Act".

Heck, you could look at all the Human Rights Watch articles on him here:

http://www.google.com/search?domains=hrw.org&sitesearch=www.hrw.org&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=chavez&GO.x=0&GO.y=0

The larger lesson here is that just because someone says things about Bush* that you like doesn't mean that they value all the same things you do, like human rights and dissent. The reason you see so much positive things about him is because for some reason people feel insecure about criticizing someone who criticizes Bush*, and take it out on other people, which is witless and irresponsible.

You might want to look up what Amnesty International has to say about him too.

[1932]

145. HRW doesn't have a great record in Latin America

They generally crticize anti-neoliberal governments and, for example, never made a peep when Fox's government was going to imprison the Mexico City mayor for building a road to the hospital and didn't say a damn thing during the Venezuelan coup.

I'd be impressed if you could find any example of HRW backing up anti-neoliberal government south of the texas border.

[Douglas Carpenter]

57. Hugo Chavez and freedom of speech

First of all according to Amnesty International there are NO political prisoners listed for Venezuela. That is something not even the U.S. can claim.

If anyone of us tried to practice the degree of freedom of expression that is openly expressed in Venezuela 24 hours a day/7days a week -- we would be in jail very, very fast.

In spite of the fact that the local private elite-owned media is overwhelmingly hostile to the point of having supported force and violence against the popular democratically elected government. This is something that would never be allowed in the U.S. media or almost anywhere else for that matter

link:

http://mondediplo.com/2002/08/10venezuela

snip: "Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force."

snip:

"After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations."

snip: ""Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion."
__________________


I would be very suspicious of all this U.S. media concern about Chavez's human rights record which incidently has improved dramatically since his government took office. And for the record Chavez's record with any credible, independent human rights groups is no worse and probably not as bad as the U.S. and many other western democracies and far worse than that of the leading receipients of U.S. Aid.

link: http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Propaganda/Venezuela.asp

"Reporting on the ongoing issues, such as the protests and Chavez’s economic policies in Venezuela have shown similar signs of one-sidedness, from both the mainstream media of western countries such as the U.S. and U.K., and from Venezuela’s own elite anti-Chavez media, which “controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and ... played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chavez, in April 2002.... The media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president — if necessary by force.”

And let's compare his record to the largest recepients of U.S. aid
Here are the three largest receipient of U.S. aid (after Iraq) in order. Feel free to compare them with Chavez's record which is not perfect but a lot better than any of these three.

link for Venezuela: http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=venezu

1. Israel - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=isrlpa

2. Egypt - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=egypt

3. Columbia - link:

http://hrw.org/doc?t=americas&c=colomb


and here is the report on the U.S.'s own human rights record:

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=usa
__________________________

Also the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin did a special program regarding Hugo Chavez and the media on 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832
_______________


http://www.dontattackiran.org

[ThomCat]

157. Your turn to prove it.

You are making accusations without siting even the slightest shred of proof. Pony up laughing boy. Document or retract.

[TahitiNut]

4. Compare that to the USA's federal debt which is about 70% of GDP.

... and rising by millions as you read this.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

7. OUCH

And it's not ANY country's GDP we're talking about, it's the UNITED STATES OF FUCKING AMERICA!

[mobyss]

17. Wow - that chart shows some incredible things

I knew the total Federal debt was growing, but as a percentage of GDP it is no higher now than in 1953? Probably all the WWII bonds being paid off then.

But more interestingly, the "Held by Federal Government Accounts" part is amazing. Does everyone know what that really means? It means that the Social Security Trust Fund which spends its surplus on US Treasury Bonds holds about 45% of the public debt - the government owing the government! A simple adjustment in Social Security policies can enlarge or wipe out that debt. If the Social Security funds incoming never require that those "IOUs" be paid back, they can just be written off (and will be - watch and see). It's just like owing yourself money - "debt forgiven". In reality, the "real" debt - held by investors, Japan, China, etc is only 40% of GDP now - about what it was in 1965 (Kennedy and Johnson era), and much less than in the mid-1990s, when the great "Clinton economy" was going, right?

Pile on if you want - but those are the facts as shown in this chart. I don't feel so bad about the debt anymore - I really don't.

BTW - France and Germany have public debts over 100% of their GDP - and growing.

[sandnsea]

28. Excuse me???

You don't have a problem with the govenment taking your social security money all these years and then renegging on that obligation in order to give tax cuts to the rich??? That's okay with you as long as it relieves the national debt?? And you think the economy in this country could survive seniors being cut off their social security??

[TahitiNut]

33. May it R.I.P.

Nothin' but neocon talking points mythical economics. :shrug:

[sandnsea]

26. questions questions questions

How does interest and federal debt work. Considering our highest interest rates were when our debt was lowest. Is there any correlation and what would that be? Is there any economic benefit to keeping interest rates low through a high debt ratio, stave off inflation, etc. If there is some correlation, is there a way to keep interest rates low, besides debt.

Is there a chart which has a different color on it to signify military spending as part of the GDP and debt.

What's the difference between those two orange colors.

[TahitiNut]

37. Interest is paid on the debt, no matter who holds it.

If it's held by the Social Security Trust Fund, then the Trust Fund receives interest revenues. The following graph portrays the efffective simple interest rate obtained by the trust fund.



The 'management' of the interest rate is only slight. It's determined by the market. As government borrows, they compete to a large extent with all other borrowers, including mortgage borrowers and municipalities issuing bonds.

My charts depicting slices of the (on and off) budgeted federal spending aren't current.

The slightly different colors are intended to show the internal versus the external debt. The internal debt is held by various government accounts, including the Social Security Trust Fund - which is the majority, but not the entirety.

[sandnsea]

38. Okay

But my perception has always been that interest goes up when private borrowers have to compete with the government. A higher debt would mean a higher interest rate. But the debt to GDP chart doesn't seem to indicate that, at least not in the 70's. Am I looking at it wrong or was there something else at play there.

[TahitiNut]

40. There's something else at play -- Inflation.

Interest rates in the late 70's were symptomatic of high inflation. Lenders knew they'd be paid back in dollars of lesser value so they bumped interest rates to cover it. The middle class was also at it's largest in the late 70's - consumers, not savers. Exit from Vietnam freed up both young men and federal spending.


I should warn you, though ... I'm not an economist. ProfessorGAC is ,,, and he's terrific. I'm just a fella with a compulsion to analyze.

[sandnsea]

45. Right

And I thought inflation was either/or/and tight job markets that put upward pressure on wages that increased spending that increased prices. Or, high interest rates that caused prices to rise which pushed inflation. So I'm trying to figure where the inflation in the 70's came from in the first place. I thought it was high debt due to Vietnam and the Great Society, pushing up interest rates, that pushed inflation. But we didn't have high debt, contrary to popular opinion. Your chart just got me all confused. I'm quite obviously not an economist either, hehehe.

[TheBaldyMan]

48. funny how it goes up with Reagan and both Bush presidents but

goes down when 'fiscally irresponsible' democrats are in charge. I am referring to post 1980.

[The Wielding Truth]

5. That's leadership!

That's what a federal administration should be working towards.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. Which, of course, proves he's an evil dictator.

:sarcasm:

It could be reported that Chavez said he likes chicken more than pork, and the usual suspects would present that as proof of Chavez's tyrantness.

You know who you are. Eat my shorts.

[manic expression]

105. So true n/t

[Sinti]

10. This administration believes debt is good for the economy

As is outsourcing, and tax cuts for the wealthiest 10%. :eyes:

As per the National Review:

"Few economists recognize that the budget surplus inherited by President Bush was an albatross around his political neck. In fact, the faster he got rid of it, the better off he and the economy would be. Unfortunately, politicians were gleeful that budget surpluses could be used to eliminate the national debt. However, the problem with budget surpluses is that they collapse private-sector savings. Budget surpluses are a sign of excess taxation, and when the government sector saves, the private sector saves less."

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_nugent/nugent200405110817.asp

Debt reduction is strictly for third-world, tin-pot dictators and commies. :sarcasm:

[rman]

15. k & r

[SoCalDem]

19. This is precisely why "formerly poor" people make better leaders

Rich folks love debt..they finance their own companies with "other people's money" and just call them "investors".

People who grew up poor, or who have BEEN poor, understand that DEBT is DEBT..They set out to PAY down or pay OFF the debt, so they are their own master.

Anytime you borrow money, you have to play by someone else's rules...even the USofA.

We are beholden to all our foreign investors, and because we now owe SO much money, we will have to look the other way on many issues that we should stare down.

Chavez knows that it's better to have money than to owe money.

He's doing what most poor people do who suddenly get money,.they pay off their bills FIRST..and THEN they buy some "stuff"..

With the money Chavez is saving on interest alone, he can help many of his own people, and those of his neighbors too.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

106. You know, you may have a point. Case in point: Lula.

Stronger currency. Less debt. Higher minimum wage*. Oil self-sufficiency. The fucking works.

* Still a pittance, but higher -- in real terms too, not just in face value.

[Raster]

21. Viva Chavez! Viva la Revolucion!

[Bridget Burke]

32. A fiscally prudent revolution!

(Old time conservatives are scratching their heads.)

[Neil Lisst]

34. if we don't get energy independent, we are headed for trouble

[stepnw1f]

77. BRAVO.... Look at Who Benefits?!

The people of Venezuela, not just a small greedy ill spirited bunch of nut bags, who for some strange reason equate wealth with superiority and privilege. Wonder who made those rules..... hmmmm?

[1932]

109. ...and the debt holders lose. VZ will have more money to help people

and will be free from the restrictions imposed by holders of debt.

[stepnw1f]

136. I Wouldn't Mind Living in Venezuala

with the leadership they have. I consider Chavez a Humanist. My own definition of a man that believes in the people.

[1932]

143. I have two titles of books you should read:

Chavez : Venezuela and the New Latin America (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1920888004/103-0913486-6351016?v=glance&n=283155


Hugo Chavez: The Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela (Paperback)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1844675335/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/103-0913486-6351016?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[stepnw1f]

149. Thank You (nt)

[Douglas Carpenter]

169. Here is one more great book on Chavez and Venezuela

The Venezuelan Revolution : 100 Questions-100 Answers

by Chesa Boudin, Gabriel Gonzalez, Wilmer Rumbos

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560257733/sr=1-1/qid=1145697377/ref=sr_1_1/002-1846545-3744063?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books

One of the authors gave a very good interview on FAIR's (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) weekly radio program Counter Spin:

link to download or stream online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Jacobin]

86. That is a good move

Keep Wolfowitz and the World Bank off your forking assets

[Vidar]

115. In light of our dictatorship, I suggest Chavez is the real leader of the

free world.

[stepnw1f]

165. I Believe you are Right About That

When you compre what he has done for his people compared to other leaders, I have to agree with you.

[northzax]

127. imagine how much more they could have paid off

if the national oil company didn't 'misplace' $12 billion last year!

[NobleCynic]

162. I've read through the entire thread and my take here...

is that some people here are making the error of believing an evil man like Chavez can do no good. And others are thinking that a good man like Chavez can do no harm. Given the reality lies somewhere in between, I'm hesitant to side with either group.

However, my take on the situation is that some people are being more rude and less scholarly in their writings than others, LaZoccolo being the prime offender. The double standard regarding evidence you possess is outright absurd. The tone you take with anyone who disagrees with you is disrespectful to say the least.

[Walt Disney]

163. I don't know about the "good and evil" thing; but one thing's for sure...

Venezuela has become an extremely dangerous place under Chavez.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/ap/world/mainD8H4ENIO0.shtml

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Venezuela

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/04/19/1541192-ap.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

170. Venezuela like the rest of Latin America does indeed have a high crime

rate. This was true before Chavez. It unfortunately remains true still.

It is certainly true that the Chavez government has not so far succeeded in all of its goals. But it is well ahead of all of its neighbors. It is very difficult to democratically shift the power balance of his society from the rich minority to the poor majority. He is leading the country out of several decades of dictatorship to a truly representative democracy. And the wealthy few who benefited in the past from dictatorship don't like it one bit. It will take time to correct all the evils brought on by past dictatorships that that had no concern for the bottom 80%. Democracy is messy. When South Africa became a democracy in the early 1990's the crime rate actually went up. Now things are stabilizing there and the crime rate is falling. It takes time for real democracy to work. And President Chavez deserves a lot of credit for what he has accomplished. Hopefully, like South Africa, the concrete result of a declining crime rate will fall as the system evolves into a government that represents all the people.

I would recommend this special produced by the good people at FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) on their weekly radio program Counter Spin regarding Hugo Chavez and Venezuela from 3 March 2006.

Here is the link for downloading or listening online:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2832

also this is a good article from Common Dreams:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0823-13.htm




http://www.dontattackiran.org

[Judi Lynn]

173. Enjoyed your Common Dreams link. Thank you for posting it. n/t

[Just Me]

166. All I know is, Chavez's compassion for empowering his people,...

,...is an inspiration to me. He's trying to lift the whole without sacrificing the individual,...a feat for any true democratic leader.

In my view, he is advancing towards democracy while we are losing ours. I'd move there, if I could, even knowing that the imperialists' are salivating to dominate that nation. At least, there is more unity there, than here, to buck those who exploit people and democracy for profit.

[Douglas Carpenter]

175. actually what you don't know is that Mr. LZ is really a leftist mole

working underground to make the pro-Chavez crowd look smarter :rant:

[muriel_volestrangler]

174. See also: Nigeria makes final payment in debt relief program

Nigeria ordered a final debt repayment to rich lending nations on Friday, completing Africa's biggest debt relief deal that will free up billions of dollars in coming years to fight poverty.

Under an agreement reached last June, nations belonging to the Paris Club of creditors wrote off $18 billion they were owed by Nigeria, which is using windfall earnings from high oil prices to pay off $12.4 billion in arrears and debts.
...
Nigeria is the world's eighth biggest exporter of crude oil and its earnings have soared thanks to high prices on world markets, allowing it to build up $36 billion of foreign reserves.

But it is also one of the world's poorest countries, with the majority of its 140 million inhabitants getting by on less than $1 a day.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/04/21/Nigeria.debt.reut/index.html