Join in 7 seconds.. Existing users: sign in.

all forums, active | friendly talkzone, travel tips, visa & paperwork, renting, selling & meetups, politics & the war, espanol

Chavez challenges doctrine that wealth creation will help poor

The hostility of the world's Press towards the leader of Venezuela reflects the alarm and discomfiture of what we might call the world's 'ruling class community'. He has infringed the taboos, broken the solidarity and called into question the tyranny of the global rich over the rest. No wonder the USA viewed with complaisance the aborted coup of 2002; no wonder he is called a dangerous populist, demagogue and dictator; no wonder he is urged by Tony Blair to 'behave sensibly' over the fifth largest oil reserves in the world. This is not the first time Chavez has been urged to 'abide by the rules of the international community', a warning issued over Venezuela's alliance with Cuba. Now, says Blair, since energy is a concern to the entire 'global community' it is important for everyone 'to use the powers they have responsibly'.

Apart from this abuse of the word 'community', the terms employed by Western leaders in relation to Chavez and others who break ranks with elite castes and rulers, are calculated to create a sense of outlawry. The rhetoric is never far away from that deployed over terrorist, rogue or failed states. The State Department in May 2006 banned arms sales to Venezuela, because of 'lack of support by the Chavez government for counter-terrorism efforts'. The State Department earlier accused Chavez of having an 'ideological affinity' with two Leftists groups in neighbouring Colombia, the FARC and the National Liberation Army. It said Chavez was 'a threat to democracies in the region', despite Chavez' victory in eight elections since 1998.

The Far Right Christian evangelist (christofascist, according to some) Pat Robertson accused Chavez in August 2005 of using Venezuela as 'a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent'. He said :'If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it.' His remarks were dismissed by officials of the Bush administration as the remarks of a private citizen. Advocating murder, it seems, is OK, as long as you do so as a private citizen, even though you do it on TV.

Chavez takes inspiration from Simon Bolivar, who led the struggle for the independence of Venezuela from Spanish colonial rule in the early 19th century. Bolivar was also a major player in the liberation of Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia (which bears his name). He dreamed of a unified Latin America, and this, too, animates Chavez in his resistance to the neo-liberal economic paradigm imposed upon South America for so long by Washington. Bolivar was marginalised by the elites who took over control of free Venezuela, and for over a century it was ruled by a series of dictators. In 1958, a civilian- military alliance overthrew the dictator Perez Jimenez. It seemed democracy might have a chance, but an alliance between the two main parties, united in a US-supported effort to keep out the Left, ruled the country for the next 40 years, until the election of Chavez in 1998.

Chavez' real crime in the eyes of the exclusive club of the global ruling class is to have exposed its true allegiances. Of course, its rhetoric is of commitment to the poor, enshrined in Millennium Development Goals, poverty-abatement programmes, poverty reduction strategy papers and all the rest of it. Chavez, instead of advertising his tenderness for the poor while safeguarding the wellbeing of the rich, has acted, to provide the poor of Venezuela with a health and social security system. He has diverted a significant proportion of the oil wealth to the very people over whose fate the rest of the world's leaders regularly spill their tears at sumptuous banquets and junkets, but whose lives remain scarred by poverty, insecurity and want. To do so, he has doubled taxes on foreign oil companies, which will yield another $1 billion.

Last year, Chavez spent $5 billion in social schemes, subsidised staple food and on bringing Cuban doctors to Venezuela. With the help of Cuba, 1.5 million poor people have been made literate in two years. He has offered cut-price oil to 13 Caribbean countries, and also to the poor of the USA, and more recently, during his unofficial visit to London, to the poor of Britain. Chavez has called into question the tendentious promotion of wealth creation as the only hope of the poor, and re-introduced a vigorous programme of redistribution. He has poured scorn on the holy article of global faith that the only way for the poor to become less poor is for the rich to become much richer. That this is a crime against the global order may be seen in the haste with which global leaders to denounce him. It is significant that one of Tony Blair's mantras has been that he is in favour of furthering the interests of 'the many, not the few'. Now this phrase actually comes from a poem by Shelley, written in the aftermath of the massacre of working men and women who demonstrated in St Peter's Fields in Manchester in 1819, when the military ruthlessly cut down protestors, killing 11 people and injuring 400. That Tony Blair should use this phrase to shield and conserve the advantages of wealth exhibits the subterfuge and cynicism which 'leaders' employ, when they are implementing anti- people policies for which a democratic vote is required.

Chavez has called the bluff of the pompous enunciations of G-7 summits and the empty abstractions with which they dissimulate their true policies and confuse their people. When Bush speaks of spreading democracy and liberty, and declares these to be the inseparable companions of the free market, he is asking the world to believe the only hope for humanity lies in a version of wealth which ensures its further concentration in the hands of those who already have more than they know what to do with.

What makes Chavez more galling to the notables of globalisation is that his policies seem contagious, as the 2005 election of Evo Morales in Bolivia has demonstrated. In May 2006, Morales sent troops to occupy natural gas installations, including one owned by British Gas. He intends to increase the tax paid by transnational companies, and will nationalise those which refuse to co-operate. Who knows what example this might not set to the peoples of the world, the poor majority, the three-fifths of humanity surviving on less than two dollars a day? Perhaps people elsewhere may begin to perceive that a 'democracy' which rests on the premise that the highest function of elected 'representatives' everywhere is to protect, not their own people, but those economic forces which filter wealth from poor to rich; and in consequence may begin to exercise their democratic choices as shrewdly as the people of Venezuela and Bolivia have done.

The unforgiveable 'crime' of Hugo Chavez is unlikely to be pardoned by his peers. He has shown, in the most direct and practical way, that the economic reason of globalisation has little to do with economics and even less with reason, but is based upon folly, superstition and greed. In spite of this overwhelmingly positive development, we should not exaggerate the 'revolutionary' potential of Chavez. He is still happy to do business with the global oil majors and he welcomes foreign investment. He depends upon a 'civilian-military alliance'. It is a measure of the despair through which the global Left has passed for 25 years that the modest reforms of Chavez should be hailed as the dawn of a new era.

(The author lives in Britain. He has written plays for the stage, TV and radio, made TV documentaries, published more than 30 books and contributed to leading journals around the world.) email:yrn63 at dial.pipex.com

SOURCE: Unforgivable, Hugo Chavez! (2006, June 4). The Statesman,p. 1

By platano on Jun 8, 2006, 20:04 in Politics & the war.

tomtom33 says on Jun 9, 2006, 06:30:

History will judge Chavez. I'm guessing that the verdict will be similar to that of Soviet Communism and Castro Communism. I spent 2 weeks in Cuba less than 2 years ago. Can't say that the people were very happy or well off. And I have no plans to return.

Nationalizing things galling? Yep. It is to the shareholders of the companies whose investments are being stolen. But it will be much more galling to the people living in a country cut off from future foreign investment.

juancegomez says on Jun 9, 2006, 18:47:

I agree with tomtom33's headline... ...though not necessarily with the rest of his message.

As for the article itself, it seems to demand a much more radical line (which does have plenty of supporters, even people that do honestly like FARC, even though they don't seem to be the majority in Venezuela right now), but that may be too risky both for Chavez as a politician and for Venezuelan society (potentially leading to a really Cuba-like situation...great health, great education...but one man, one party in charge for far too long and with far too much power).

vladimiro says on Jun 10, 2006, 16:24:

Ven From what I understand the so called "nationalization" is in fact more about increasing royalties and taxes and than illiminating foriegn ownership. They are just trying to increase revenue for the government which is used to finance social development.

Apparrently, the US is *still* investing more in Venezuela than in Colombia, Brazil, or Chile:

Foreign Direct Investment/Latin America

Net Investment from the U.S., in millions of dollars, quarterly frequency

Country Latest; Previous

Mexico 1,905; 1,101
Brazil 56; 881
Argentina 384; 180
Venezuela 504; 330
Colombia 151; 40
Chile 197; -207
Peru 52; 111

Note: Negative values indicate net inflow into the U.S.
Source: Moody's Economy.com

To summarize, when it comes to investment from the U.S. in Venezuela:

1) The trend under Chavez has been for INCREASING investment.

2) The amount of investment under Chavez exceeds the amount under the previous government.

3) The above trends are EXCLUSIVE of investment in the oil sector.

Articles available on:

http://oilwars.blogspot.com/

Wastelandlive says on Jun 11, 2006, 16:41:

Kind of a non-sequitir Vladimiro Do you understand what you are reading there?

Moody's is reporting the last two quarterly investments, not NET investment (which would be in the billions.) You'd have to know what the latter is to make a statement like: "Apparrently, the US is *still* investing more in Venezuela than in Colombia, Brazil, or Chile"

The most you could say from this is that US FDI in Venezuela rose by $174M... more than it rose, apparently in Colombia, or Brazil and Peru (where it fell), but less than it rose in Mexico, Argentina and Chile.

Vladimiro - not the first time you've pointed us to the comedy central of Venezuela political analysis that is "Oil Wars." One might assume that you are more than a casual reader... what's your connection to that blog?

Now that I think of it... do I remember the handle "Vladimir" from the old Yahoo MB's? Are you the guy who claimed to be a Colombian journalist?

Wasteland

johna says on Jun 11, 2006, 17:11:

What is important? "What makes Chavez more galling to the notables of globalisation is that his policies seem contagious, as the 2005 election of Evo Morales in Bolivia has demonstrated. In May 2006, Morales sent troops to occupy natural gas installations, including one owned by British Gas. He intends to increase the tax paid by transnational companies, and will nationalise those which refuse to co-operate."

This is where the focus should be. I think both countries could get more international support if their speech was less inflamatory but focused instead on their rights of soviernty. Ven. and Bol. have every right to increase taxes and make demands on multinationals that want the privledge of doing business in either country. More so when the business is in control of nat. resources in that country. Esp. in Bol. where nearly all water supplies were bought up at cut rate prices during an unstable political period by foriegn companies. That is really a nightmare scenario that needs more attention.
Instead of issues the focus seems in nearly every country mentined is on personality and pettiness. Chavez comparing himself to the Bolivar is ridiculous. It isn't about Bush, Blair, Castro, Chavez, or Morales, but about the millions of people they are affecting.

vladimiro says on Jun 11, 2006, 19:45:

http://www.venamcham.org/economia I'm admittedly not that financially literate but a brief look at the Venezuela-American Chamber of Commerce website indicates that busines is booming. The comparisons with the Soviet Union or Cuba seem exaggerated considering the business climate in Venezuela. What's wrong with renogiating better deals with the oil companies? From the US media you get the impression that Chavez is siezing all private property :) The main problem is that Venezuela is not saving any of the revenue in the event that prices drop. The rest I think is just the US pursuing its own interests again by spreading lies.

Wastelandlive says on Jun 12, 2006, 09:38:

I took a brief look at the website. I also read the comments regarding the article you cited, and I come to rather different conclusions than you do.

I'm not sure to what US "lies," you are referring. I'm not sure who is claiming that Chavez is siezing all private property. (Smiley face?) But according to the USTR, it appears to be a lie that US FDI in Venezuela is growing.

Wasteland

jccg says on Jun 13, 2006, 05:01:

The only thing I do not understand... is:
If protect the people jobs, tax foreing products that are also produced inside, keep the ownership of the land and so on... are that "bad" economical strategies... why does USA do that too? If Chavez and Evo are so evil for protect their countries resources...when Bush protect the "acero" industry in his first period (when the industry was in crisis becouse foreing "acero" imported was shiper than the owned one) as reported by colombian tv news at that time, was he so bad for USA?

This is just the true!!

Wastelandlive says on Jun 13, 2006, 11:00:

Jccg... I'm not sure that I understood everything that you wrote, but regarding acero, your question is a good one.

The answer is that the Bush administration's protection of the domestic steal industry DID have many negative consequences, among them delaying investment in mills, raising prices for domestic consumers of steel, and annoying trade partners.

If you're point is that this action was hypocritical, than its a valid one.

I would submit to you that particularly in the realm of trade negotiations, nobody is a stranger to hypocrisy, and politics, not ideology, rules the day. It's not really a left or right thing so much as a tribal thing.

Every nation - including the US, one of the strongest proponents of free trade - is under pressure to offer its domestic industries protection. And every nation wants other nations to open their markets to it. The resulting position seen at every trade summit is, "Free trade for me, but not for thee..."

This is why even close allies like Colombia and US find negotiating trade agreements difficult. It's a game in which each side wants to gain more concessions than the other.

Is that bad? Well... that's the subject game theory. It's good for YOUR nation, if it can pull it off. But if it just prevents compromise and opening markets, its bad for EVERYBODY.

Wasteland

mcraig says on Jul 29, 2006, 15:32:

Chavez economy ideas have not changed poverty in Valenzuela He is spending the the countries resource profits on miltiary weapons. Just look a the billions of dollars he is giving the russians on this new military purchase. How do you live in a poor country an spend its resources on military equipment before you improve the lives of your citizens with a stable economy , more jobs, better education, an be recognized by the interanational communtiy as honest trade partner so you can continue to bring jobs to your country. Until the goverment represents the betterment of all Valenzuela people its should not spend a dime of money on military equipment.Until all the children are fed an educated an have an opportunity to lead a special life like the one they dream of there should not be a dollar spent on military equipment. Until fathers can have decent stable jobs to support there families an mothers can look forward to there children living long healty lives there should not be one dollar spent on military equipment.

Chavez is nothing more than a hood that is going to set the country back 50 years an it people taken further an further from opportunites.

mcraig says on Aug 5, 2006, 22:19:

Wealth creation does create jobs for the poor its called capitolism an the USA the richest country in the world an all the other richest countries in the world are democracy an capitolist so give us an example of socialism making the poor better off an not bankrupt.

There has never been a time in the history of the US where taxing the rich to give to the poor has worked to stimulate the economy. The last two great attmepts at it where in the late 1970's under Jimmy Carter an the US was the closest to bankruptcy than it had been since the great depression. the next recent attempt was by Clinton who raised taxes on the middle class an the rich in 2003 causing staggering losses acrooss every industry. Clinton then listened to the people an cut taxes an the economy soared for 7 years but it cost him the democratic majority in the house an senate for the first time 60 years an the democrats have never come close to getting back power in the house or the US senate. Taxing the rich causes the rich not to spend there money an they put in the bank an watch it grow. Keeping even taxiation causes the rich to spend there money expand the economy create jobs etc that is why there is 95.2% employment in the US. An that same money could help latin american countries like it is brazil because americans will invest in countries that are growin an democratic an not invest in countries that are socialist.

famsearch says on Sep 25, 2006, 13:28:

mcraig hit it right on the head... and i'm old enough to remember this firsthand. when carter left office, we had an inflation rate of 26%, and interest rates of 24%, our tax code had so many brackets for levels of income, it wasn't funny. the highest bracket, for those with the highest income, was at over 80%, and the economy was dead flat, no one had extra capital to invest. after reagan made the changes to the tax code, 3 brackets instead of over 20, and the rates were 10%, 15%, and 23%. he also eliminated a majority of loopholes that protected high income from taxation. the result? within a year, inflation and interest rates were in the low single digits percentagewise. people had more money to invest, and they did, and the economy took off. also, the government then had more money to spend too, as the business maxim says, if you can't make a profit on a few items at a high price (high tax rates), cut your price, and make it up by selling in volume. now that is capitalism in practice. the only problem was, was that the left of center democrat party controlled congress spent what was coming in, and then some. had they been more prudent about spending, there would have been no deficit. now to the chavez point. what will happen to the social spending, should the price of oil drop, and it will drop quite a bit when anwar and the gulf of mexico finds come on line, and chavez cannot afford both a lavish hand in social spending, and buying very expensive military hardware that venezuela doesn't really need, or can afford? i'm reminded of what one statesman once said about bayonettes, "you can do a lot with bayonettes, but there is one thing you cannot do for long, and that is to sit on them.".
dan

dan

podborski says on Sep 25, 2006, 16:12:

the only world leader worse than Chavez is Bush. Those two deserve each other. Both are completely incompetent and extremely dangerous...oh add Putin in there too I suppose.

Venezuela will be an economic disaster in no time, followed quickly by Bolivia.

Where's Ronnie Reagan when we need him?

Oh well, at least the socialists keep their people in such a state of servitude that their women find it necessary to chase lucky guys like me. If it weren't for socialism, I'd never get laid. Shhhh, don't tell the feminists...

miamimike says on Sep 25, 2006, 16:53:

Here In Miami, Export/Import Trade between Venezuela and the USA is way up so I don't believe for a Moment all this gloom and doom about Chavez and the Economy. Caracas and Maricaibo Residents are buying Luxury Cars like no tomorrow, Upsacle home furnishing sales way up, Christmas Exports are way up-if things are so bad, whats the explanation for all the consumer(good barometer)confidence manifested by all the buying? When the consumer is really suffering, he/she speaks with their wallet and sales fall. Not the case in Venezuela! I don't beleive most of this BS because thats all it is! A few are mad Chavez told Bush he looks like a Monkey and smells like a Devil, get over that, its only words! If someone iniated a Coup d' etat in my country like Bush did in Venezuela a few years back, I would be hot also. Anyway, if you don't like Chavez or Venezuela, don't go there. Its free choice; pass on it and travel elsewhere. When the people of Venezuela get tired of it, they will gey rid of Chavez themselves if they want to. Like Cuba, eneough of the Population don't dislike Fidel that much as if they did they would have tossed him out!

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

podborski says on Sep 25, 2006, 18:01:

news for ya mike capitalism doesn't make people instantly rich, nor does socialism make people instantly poor..it takes years, but it does happen, all the evidence you need is in, all you have to do is open your eyes.

Venezuela has a LOT of oil, and oil has gone up in price ya know? so yup, there're some very wealthy venezolanos around. I know some very rich Albertans too, does that mean free market capitalism is best?

I do plan to avoid venezuela for a few years, but I might visit eventually after the collapse, and maybe it will be just like cuba, where medicare is free, but you can't even get an aspirin, literacy is 100%, but surgeons are better off driving taxis, and about half the population is desperately waiting for some hope of a change but fear for their lives to say it aloud.

Average wage is twelve bucks a month, last I heard. I haven't been there in a while as the police threatened to throw me in jail a few times for trying to talk to locals. Probably they were playing it up a bit to get a bribe, but I decided to go elsewhere with my travel $$. Don't believe me? Try leaving Varadero beach and see the real Cuba.

Meanwhile, as my good cuban friend told me, 'we pretend to work, and they (the gov't) pretend to pay us'. Ahhh, communism.

Might be true that half the population supports Castro, they are the poor farmers who supported the revolution. They never wanted progress and they got what they wanted. They still today use horses and ploughs. Unbelievable if you ask me.

Blame the US embargo right? But every other nation in the world is free to trade with Cuba and does so, Canada and Spain leading the way. We (Canada) have all the farm machinery they could possibly want, yet they can't buy it from us...ever ask yourself why not?

You should stop listening to your college professors and start thinking for yourself, or at least go for a visit and then tell me how much support Castro has.

It is probably too late for Havana to be saved, which is a tragic loss. It could have been one of the very best cities in the world. Architecture to rival Paris in the middle of the caribbean, some of the friendliest, most intelligent, fun loving people on earth. Ah, it's painful to think what it could have been.

Well at least I got to see it before the hordes of american tourists (not that there is anything wrong with american tourists!)

miamimike says on Sep 25, 2006, 18:40:

News on Medicine in Cuba and heres why a Lot of this is BS! Everyone says you cannot get any Medication, Not even an Aspirin! Wrong Wrong Wrong. My Neighbor here in Miami, Maria(a cuban) went to Cuba recently and on her return, she ask me "Mike se necesita Antibioticas?" and I said why, She said, I pruchased more Amoxicllin in Cuba (city of santa clara)then what I need! She gave me 50 (500mg dose) Amoxicillin Tabs out of 200 she purchsed at a cost of .03 per Tab. So, bottom line, if Meds are impossible to obtain in Cuba, how was my neighbor, a person with NO political connections, able to buy 200 pills without difficulty?? Shortage?? I don't think so. This is why I don't beleive everything our local Newspaper writes about Cuba and Venezuela for that Matter. I know Cuba has a booming Bio-Med-Pharmaceutical industry. My thought on all this is that it is not is what it is reported to be. Do I like their form of Government? No! Is it my business to change it, No! When the Residents of these countries tire of their Political leaders, they will revolt and toss 'em out! We should have followed this principle in Iraq but our Prez decided to help out and invade and we know what a disaster that has turned into--matter of time before we pull out! The Politicos will call it something else but it will amount to a Pullout! There is NOT much else we can do because simply the Iraqis don't want change nor do they want to fight! Only the Citizens of a country can effect change from Within-history has proven that! My only concern about Venezuela is they continue to ship us that 17% of our Oil we use daily that helps to keep our prices down and they keep buying Oil drilling tools, Caterpillar Heavy machinery products ect. Proof-just look, our Gas prices which have dropped 20-40 cents per gallon depending where you live; would this be possible without Chavez's Oil I ask?

"Wait a minute. What did you just say? You're predicting $4-a-gallon gas? That's interesting. I hadn't heard that." -- Feb. 28, 2008 --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.

podborski says on Sep 25, 2006, 21:08:

I agree with you on all but the meds in cuba. If you have USD like your Miami friend, of course you can get almost anything. Problem is, the only cubans with access to USD are those with family in the USA, or with some connection to the tourism industry. That's why very well educated cubans drive taxis, it's the best way to earn USD (or I guess CDN$ or euros these days...)

Anyway, could not agree with you more about us leaving the cubans, iraquis, venezuelans and everybody else alone. Iraq is and will continue to be a total disaster. I can't see any way out now. Bush is sooo bloody stupid he wants to install a democracy (as if that is possible) in a country where if they could vote freely they would likely vote for an islamic republic (ok, I don't know that, but I suspect...)

It's hard to believe just how stupid Bush really is. He's done more damage to western civilization than a thousand bin ladens could ever have done.

All the money spent on the war could have been spent on intelligence (well ok, the CIA is a complete FU too...)but maybe someone somewhere in the bureaucracy could have made better use of the hundreds and hundreds of billions?

Maybe they might have developed better security at airports than the confiscation of tweezers from grannies?

Or maybe I will start to believe the conspiracy theorist types who think he did it all for the money he and his cronies are raking in rebuilding the oilfields. You gotta wonder what else it could be about.

the ONLY way to see anything good in all this is MAYBE, just MAYBE, after Vietnam, The Russian-Afghanistan disaster, and now Iraq, even the super powers will have learned that invading foreign countries where you have no business being, and where you don't even know who your friends are is a guaranteed disaster.

I'm dreamin, I know.

now you yanks just have to find some way to get decent people to run for public office.

p.s. I hear the Miami real estate market is collapsing? You seeing that? Could be very bad news for everybody...but especially for Dubya.

famsearch says on Sep 26, 2006, 04:11:

a little something for our canadian friends... OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- A candidate to head Canada's opposition Liberal Party vowed Monday to stay in the leadership race despite reports that his campaign team had signed up dead people as members.

it seems that the liberal party has finally gotten wise to chicago politics. how does that go again? don't squawk about the mote in your friend's eye, if you can't see around the beam in yours? lol
dan

dan

podborski says on Sep 26, 2006, 07:28:

the difference is, dan that our politicians don't matter. They are as bad or worse than yours, obviously, but they can't do quite as much damage.

Don't mistake me for another insecure anti-american canadian, I'm pro-american, pro-capitalist. But as far as I can tell Bush is neither of those.

When I was young student activist I actually got to visit the Reagan White House, paid for by Joseph Coors.

To paraphrase somebody...George Bush ain't no Ronald Reagan...

BTW, I apologize for the pathetic canadian (ex)cabinet minister (what was her name again? Carolyn Parrish I think?) who a while back called Bush a bastard several times in public. Even though it's the truth, she's as ridiculous as Chavez. I was really embarrased...as were most of my friends.

mcraig says on Sep 26, 2006, 15:56:

Chavez Is not a world leader he is the leader of a piss ant little third world country. Chavez a world leader what a joke. Venezuela could be wiped off the face tommorow an it wouldnt affect the US one bit. Chavez world leader thats funny as hell.

mcraig says on Sep 26, 2006, 16:33:

Dolfi says on Sep 27, 2006, 01:44:

Nonsense, if it would be that simple, Bush would have kicked Chavez out of office allready. Obviously it isn´t, the USA keeps buying venezuelan petrol on a large scale.

Have you ever been to Venezuela? It´s not that different from Colombia.

mcraig says on Sep 29, 2006, 14:01:

VEN people are no better off with chavez outlandish poverty has not stopped , education children has not begun. The better paying jobs or even labor work jobs have not increased. Capitolism works socialism bankrupts, you do not give people anything but a chance for a better future an its there job to do it. Hand outs are only for emergencies an are to be paid back as soon as you can its not a away of life.

mcraig says on Sep 29, 2006, 14:04:

Blame bush for the steel industry Hello how far are you out ther China dropped tons of cheap steel into the US market almost putting them all out of business, Bush put a tax on it just like China puts a huge tax on everyone of our products.

get the warped anti bush shit out of you system he is not running for office again so are you goihg blame now huh?