So Norway is now Saudi Arabia? Norway has a ridiculously high tax rate. That is how they can afford to offer all their social services. Go look up how much of their money comes from oil. Chavez isn't ruining their country. Their country was always crap and now instead of the poor being screwed the elites are getting screwed.
Norway produces more oil than any country outside of the middle east. It's a full 25% of their GDP, and it's almost totally state controlled. They also make a crap ton of money from the holdings in their social security program......that was funded by oil revenues. I'd probably be willing to pay ridiculously high taxes if I lived in a country that could already afford to provide me with such great social services.
All well and good, but what about Sweden? You know, the net importer of oil right nearby that runs the same model even better?
the world would be great without shady politicans who treat war like business and don't give a damn if innocent children and women get in the way. Whether they're North american, south american or african all should be held responsible. How many lives has Chavez taken? I'm not the biggest fan of comrade chavez and it's getting fishy with yet another flawless victory but to wish him death when he hasn't even invaded in the name of democracy is absurd.
It was actually regarding glynch's assertion that somebody needs to represent the average worker in the US. That assertion is nuts. The large labor unions pour tremendous amounts of money to political candidates, supposedly to give them a voice in government.
Look, we all know that you won't be happy until everybody makes the same income, regardless of how hard they had to work to get to where they are. If the economy won't "fix" it, then the government should just redirect it. Robin Hood was a great movie, but a crappy story upon which to base a system of government. I have often criticized how skewed our economy is now to the top. I believe that the proper way to fix it is to get the big money out of politics, rather than to confiscate wealth.
They can't. That us why there is a tremendous European debt problem now with many wondering about the long term viability of the EU.
Refman, "tremendous amount of money"?? Get some data. It ain't crap compared to the corporate money your buds on the S. Ct have unleashed with Citizens United.
Please explain in detail why you think that Sweden is in any way comparable to Venezuela, or relevant in a thread about Venezuela.
Please explain in detail why you insist on policing other peoples' thread replies, when you have been scolded by a moderator for doing so. Also, for someone who is so conscientious about topic, please explain why you persist in commenting on other peoples' posts in off-topic manners with no content? Please note that I don't actually give a s**t, either way. Please feel free to report me to the relevant section of the forum police. I have already explained why the Scandinavian comparison is relevant (and if you read the post I quoted you would know why), so they can go for that evidence if they wish.
Venezuela has it's problems. Chavez is definitely responsible for some of those. But Venezuela is a much better place now than it was under Chavez' predecessors. Ideally what Venezuela needs is opposition parties that aren't connected with the oligarchy that was in charge before, and will keep some of Chavez focus on the nation's poor. But at the same time the govt. has to be set up so that the top prospects don't just want to leave the nation, or it will always be relegated to something 2nd rate.
We're a prosperous and efficient enough country that our non-political institutions can properly allocate resources. And while political parties are still inefficient and unprincipled enough to simply cater to certain racial, gender and economic sectors; our analytical and communications systems allow us to predict and track the process well enough to not need 100% participation. The lone exceptions probably being the close calls like Hayes/Tilden, Kennedy/Nixon or Bush/Gore.
I was saddened to hear of Chavez winning another term. I thought the gentleman running against the man would have been a better choice for the people of Venezuela. Chavez has been busy buying popularity with the masses with petrol dollars, while also letting the nationalized petroleum industry fall into disrepair, with production declining and industry facilities busy falling apart. As glynch knows, I do not share his love for this demagogue. It would have been interesting to see the reaction of Chavez had he lost. At this rate, we may never know what that reaction might be. Unless his health fails him, he'll just keep buying the support of the masses until hell freezes over.
This might have been true at one time - that labor unions were able to exercise large amount of power through money, but no longer. Stop living in the past; this ain't the 1970s any more. Labor unions have no where near the amount of relative spending power that they used to have and their clout has diminished accordingly. They are just one voice among many with power of the purse. Unfortunately we will never know the real answer to how Unions stack up in spending relative to the rest of the field. But, hey, at least we know how much they are spending. Unions face way more stringent requirements on their political spending and compared other interest in to our post-Citizens United world they are a blinding beacon of transparency. Because of this opaqueness that surrounds these other powers exercising their financial muscles, we really have no idea how unions measure up. Anecdotally, I'd say that unions cannot possibly exercise the same monetary hegemony that they used to. Ex. an individual like Sheldon Anderson can spend $36 million in one election cycle, while a union like the Service Employees International Union representing 2 million people in service in service industry jobs spends $3.5 million. But that's just an anecdote. Of course the real power of the various unions doesn't come from money and it never has. The power of unions comes from the ability to organize members to get out and vote for issues that they care about. But isn't that what Democracy should be all about? Shouldn't 2 million voices be able to trounce 1 in terms of power? Democracy to me is not who has the biggest, most advanced megaphone, but how many people are speaking through it. It seems like an undemocratic exercise in false equivalence to pretend that somehow opaque spending by a relative few funneled through Superpacs is somehow justified because unions wield so much power. Certain discrete interests have been decrying the power of unions since forever, and you know what, they have gotten what they wanted. Union power has declined relative to the power of many other discrete interests. And all the while it has declined, the anti-union interests have been getting louder and louder. Their their voice has risen, become more well organized, and better funded as wealth concentrated at the top. You might think this is a good thing, but let's picture a future where the Waltons of the world succeed, where the power of labor is broken - its voice fractured completely. A world where we are left with 2 million employees no longer speaking as one, but as many. Each person willing to donate their 1.75 dollars, a fraction of that 3.5 million to various causes. Are these individuals going to effectively be able to advocate for their work place related rights? No. Who would listen to the guy donating 1.75 dollars saying you can count on my vote? Will that somehow be a better America for people who work the grind of minimum wage jobs, probably not.
Why do people not mind when politicians butter up the rich segment of the population, but hate when you butter up the masses? Surely any buttering up is bad, but if some of the biggest problems is that Chavez is busing in voters from places where they would not vote and he is using Petro dollars to pay for programs for the poor (almost all of Venezuela) then things could be worse. If you're going to criticize Chavez, then focus on the sustainability of government investments, authoritarian approach to repressing opposition and the fact that he has been in office for 15+ years. On sustainability, investing in a generation of people's education and well being is arguably the most sustainable investment. They are the people who will go on, hopefully, to adjust the system to maximize benefits.
Plenty of people mind when politicians only cater to the rich segment of the population. He "invested in a generation of people's education"?
Ooooooh - intern Northside Breeze wants to run to mommy! Why don't you report me then? LOL. "Policing other people's thread replies" is nothing than pointing out the idiocy in your post in this case. I cannot police anything anymore than anyone else and never pretended to be a mod. (But consider yourself neg-repped :grin: ). Umm...are you "policing other peoples' thread replies"? You couldn't even find Scandinavia or Venezuela on a map, this much is evident. Citing Sweden or Norway in order to defend Chavez is a sign of desperate idiocy.
OMG, "buying popularity with the masses with petrol dollars" with health care and literarcy programs and perhaps some entertainment. Deckard, why be a Democrat? GOP/libertarian types also view such behavior as scandalous. As a Dem I thought government was to provide things like that , especially to the poor who THE MARKET has neglected.
