Yes, Leo, it appears to me that this is the end game for America's leftists. It hasn't changed one iota in my life, now some 47 years and counting. At the rate Hugo's going, expect to see him play to oil trump card at a strategic moment to force this country to do something it doesn't want to do, or conversely, to fail to do something that it wants to. Like Vlad Putin, the archetypical Kremlin thug, Hugo Chavez can - and will - use the threat of cutting off petroleum when he finds that he's solidified his grip on his own nation. Then, he'll be turning his eyes northward to the USA...

And Cindy Sheehan says she's rather live with him at the helm of power than with George W. Bush in charge... Man these people are clueless and dangerously malleable...

What is the saying? "Be Careful What You Wish For"
Cindy Sheehan and her ilk, who want a type of socialism in this country(yet the likes of Kennedy
Michael Moore, Soros, etc.-choose off shore accts.
to hide their money) but they want to be able to control the people, by controlling what gets doled
out, oil, money, food, etc. Jeezzz, look how wonderful it works in Russia---Chavez now is going
to have his country follow in Fidel's footsteps...
Great, isn't Chavez the one that Sheehan admired more so than President Bush, and showed Chavez allegiance when she joined him in bad mouthing our
"President of a Free People Here in America"...
These Twits all deserve one another. Let her go live in Venezuela...she can opt for Moore, Soros etal to join her, if they think America is such a lousy country. Be Our Guest....LEAVE.

gee hugo Chavez or W? big oil--- or BIGGGGER oil?

blatant in your face corruption...or concealed corruption at the expense of American lives and taxpayers wallets- and financial future for that matter.

the guy that calls the other EL Diablo...or the one that acts like the devil. With a page right out of the bible to captivate so many with his "christian" values while they sheepishly are fooled.

hmmm...maybe...she is on to something. For a toooooooo far left for me kinda gal. she does have some point there somewhere.

I thnk the point i might add to that is- wasn't 2000 enough? Then people wised up and aboned ship. then 2004. I mean how long are you really going to let W fool you?

i don't know if i respect him more now than ever. I mean i used to think he was the fool. But really is he the fool or the fool-er ? I got to hand it to W he sure has pulled a fast one on some...the others abanded ship. But he still has his mojo working.

what a shame.

yeah- abandoned. you know- i guess i'll just have to play along and appease the oh so tollerant right.

Bill, perhaps you ought to take a time out from smoking whatever you're smoking before you decide to take fingers to keyboard to type such non-sequiter drivel.

You have taken this post off topic, but perhaps you can redeem yourself by addressing the post's content.

Why is it that the far left worships the ground that tinhorn dictators walk on?

How is it that you can spout off about "human rights" and in the same breath worship Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro?

Are you really that torn apart from reality? Or is it a matter of "the enemy of my enemy (GWB) is my friend--I'll support him for now, and mop up the mess later."

I'm genuinely curious about this; although I can certainly conjecture or guess, I would like to hear it straight from the horse's mouth?

What is the thought process behind the worship of despots?

I'm not quite sure, Leo, by what step of logic you define a popularly elected president as a dictator.

Buying out and nationalising an electric and telephone utility company may sound to you like bad policy, but a dictator it does not make.

There are solid arguments for having public infrastructure owned and operated in the public interest, whether or not you agree with the logic or not. Why do you hate democracy?

BS,
Do you think Enron executives were bad? Well that's exactly what Chavez just did, he stole millions of dollars from a publicly traded company. That is, he stole millions of dollars in which everyday joes had invested their retirement income. Enron is the same as Chavez. But Chavez is against Bush, so Chavez must be good, right? So that means that Enron execs must be good guys too, right, because they're just like Chavez. In case you missed it, nationalize is another word for steal. When Cuba nationalized private property, the big payoff its citizens get is decades of poverty and no right to free speech, to own property, etc. That's just a little more significant that wiretapping international phone calls.

Let me be a little more clear. In the United States people don't have the right to call suspected terrorists overseas without having their information collected. In Venezuala now, the government owns the telephone company, so people don't have the right to make any call without the government collecting their information.

Winnowhead...

If Bush decided to "nationalize" or, as Morris put it, "steal" Consolidated Edison or Shell Oil and keep the profits for himself, you'd be screaming for his head.

I don't know about you, but a person who arbitrarily confiscates/steals land and/or other property pretty much fits my definition of dictator.

I would suppose, Winnowhead, that you are okay with Chavez shutting down an opposition TV station. I mean, that's what all democratically elected people do that honor democracy, right?

Also, all democratically elected people who honor democracy look to Fidel Castro as their role model.

Now, Winnowhead--care to again address the question? What is it with the love affair between left-leaning people and thug dictators?

You have no evidence that Venezuela will "steal" any assets. Put up or shut up. (What especially bothers me is that I'm sure legalized stealing like this doesn't bother you at all.)

Most likely the electrical utility and phone utilities have limited monopoly contracts with the government which could be bought out. And in the case of international oil companies, they have drilling/processing rights - they don't own the oil, they contract with the Venezuela government to provide a service. And as the article you linked to clearly stated, Chavez didn't commit to removing US or international oil companies drilling rights (although it is certainly within Venezuela's right to do so).

Now, Winnowhead--care to again address the question? What is it with the love affair between left-leaning people and thug dictators?

I don't exactly have a love affair with Castro, and if you think using Cindy Sheehan as a strawman makes for a quality argument, get a life. Chavez is consolidating power in a fashion not unlike Bush with his claims of a "unitary executive," that needs to "work in the shadows" to keep America safe. But Chavez is doing it from the left, Bush from the right. Only difference as far as I'm concerned.

Fact is, Chavez is a popularly elected President, and the public of his country backs what he's doing. If you think that if I choose not to defend everything he's doing, that it somehow validates your argument - that socialising public infrastructure makes him a "dictator" - you seriously need to retake Logic 101.

I have no evidence that he will "steal" any assets? It comes straight from his mouth, Winnowhead!! Geeze, are you that steeped in denial?

As far as having the people's support behind him, if three guys are on a deserted island with one woman, and the three take a vote that it's okay to rape the woman, does that make it right? I mean, a majority backed the decision.

You know that Chavez is a thug, a thug who is singlehandedly seizing property and resources from the public for his own aggrandizement and enrichment. Yet you continue to attempt to draw moral equivalence with a sworn enemy of the United States and George W. Bush. Are you that afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Is that tinfoil hat getting tight on you, Winnowhead?

Yes, I used Cindy Sheehan--along with other left-leaning Americans. What's your point? Are you denying that they cozy up to Castro and Chavez? At the same time are you denying that the people I mentioned have the love and support of a great many left-wingers in this country?

Ho hum. I can see where this is going. I forgot I shouldn't expect a reasonable discussion around here.

Good night.

Winnowhead says:

Ho hum. I can see where this is going. I forgot I shouldn't expect a reasonable discussion around here.

Good night.

Translation: "I see I don't have a leg to stand on in this argument. Good night."

Winnow,
American Heritage Dictionary online defines nationalize: "To convert from private to governmental ownership and control: nationalize the steel industry."

If something that's privately owned, let's say my house, is tomorrow owned by the government, then either there was no right to private property to begin with (in which case I never owned my home) or there was a right to private property but the government came in and took it anyway. When a person takes another person's property, it's called stealing. When a government does it, it's called nationalizing. Truman tried to nationalize steel companies during the Korean War but our own Supreme Court refused: "The power here sought to be exercised is the lawmaking power, which the Constitution vests in the Congress alone, in both good and bad times."

And you thought Haliburton looked bad? From May 2006:
"Under the new contracts, income tax rates on windfall profits for oil companies will increase from 34 percent to 50 percent. Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez, who is also president of state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA), expects an additional US$1.2 billion in revenue from the tax."

Before 2004, taxes on oil were 1%. As of May, they're 50%. Sounds vaguely reminiscent of Darth Vader, don't you think? "I'm altering our deal. Pray I do not choose to alter it any further." In case you're not a Star Wars fan, Darth Vader was the servant of an emperor. If you still don't get it, think of it this way. In the 1990's Venezuala opened its markets for oil companies to invest and build infrastructure. Once it's built, they jack up the tax to 50%. In America, we'd call that bait and switch, to the tune of billions of dollars. And did you get the part about the oil minister being president of a state owned oil company? Haliburton! Cheney!

Anyone whose retirement account includes Verizon stock is invested in a 28% share of CANTV, or as I like to call it a 28% share of thin air.

BTW, Hitler was elected by his country. Does that mean he wasn't a dictator?

From the Houston Chronicle:
"Chavez threatened last August to nationalize CANTV, a Caracas-based former state firm that was privatized in 1991, unless it adjusted its pension payments to current minimum wage levels, which have been repeatedly increased by his government."

Does this sound familiar, libs? THIS is how democracy dies!

To the simple issue of "nationalize" != "steal":

In the same sense that "privatization" doesn't equal the private sector stealing from the public sector, "nationalization" does not equate to the public sector stealing from the private sector. If a fair price is paid, is is not "stealing," and in the absence of the details of any nationalization plan - like I said - put up or shut up.

Maybe it will be "stealing" - in the same sense that many privatization schemes of the 90's amounted to as much (as, IMO, the Indiana I-90 plan that went through a few months ago) - but if you're claiming that the socialization of an industry is innately "stealing," then the discussion is dead now.

And Leo, you did not respond to one point I made in my earlier comments, and you question why I hesitate to spend more time responding? Instead of refuting any comments I made, you made a succession of statements talking around the issue and playing the "tin foil" game:

I have no evidence that he will "steal" any assets? It comes straight from his mouth, Winnowhead!! Geeze, are you that steeped in denial?

As far as having the people's support behind him, if three guys are on a deserted island with one woman, and the three take a vote that it's okay to rape the woman, does that make it right? I mean, a majority backed the decision.

You know that Chavez is a thug, a thug who is singlehandedly seizing property and resources from the public for his own aggrandizement and enrichment. Yet you continue to attempt to draw moral equivalence with a sworn enemy of the United States and George W. Bush. Are you that afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Is that tinfoil hat getting tight on you, Winnowhead?

Yes, I used Cindy Sheehan--along with other left-leaning Americans. What's your point? Are you denying that they cozy up to Castro and Chavez? At the same time are you denying that the people I mentioned have the love and support of a great many left-wingers in this country?

Why spend any time writing if you're just going to rant and not address the points I made? You're just talking to a brick wall otherwise.

You're just talking to a brick wall otherwise.

Which is what we're doing whenever we talk to you and your friend DAV.

Take your ball and go home, loser...

Wow! and i thought Bush wasn't such a bad thief after all.

But i guess all the contracts awrded to Halliburton, Bechtel, Fluor, Dynatech, on and on and paid in BILLIONS by you and me...must be nothing to what Hugo did.

Damn- i must be blind. I now see the greatness of the Bush admin- boy was i so blind. Oh how could i be so dumb to let Bush not openly do this stuff right in front of America's face. I mean Billions pales in comparison to millions right?

Give W credit where credit is due- he is the master of stealing the $$$$$$$$$ with such opacity! wow! W is good.

Again- let me ask why does the right so blindly follow W still? sorry, my bad, the wise folks on the right abandoned ship already. So just the sheep are still grazing.

Morris, meaning Chavez, Enron, Tyco etc. all pale in comparison to Dubya.

I mean give the man credit where credit is due- W is the "foot o&jmnep%#* master!" (have to see pulp fiction to get it.)

Is this just a willful blindness?
"Chavez cited the communist ideals of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin at other points in his speech."

Did Lenin's political reforms not set the stage for Stalin to murder 50 million of his own people? Or did you miss Russian history? Chavez is asking the Venezuelan Congress for more executive power. When Bush actually uses his Constitutional executive powers, you accuse Bush of being an emperor or a king. But Chavez isn't, even though he's taking the people's representatives' voices out of their government? I thought you guys were Democrats and that the slippery slope of executive power meant that the executive branch couldn't do anything without bringing a nation closer to being an empire, a monarchy? Or does that only apply when Bush is President?

You're true colors are showing, socialists. You hate Bush so much you'd rather see America become a union of socialist "republics" than see another conservative in office.

WOW!

Let me see if I am reading this correctly...

U.S. Government contracts awarded to Haliburton etc. equate to thievery. However, Chavez seizes private ultilities and telecommunications and this is perfectly OK because he was "elected".

Do liberals even think before they post? The stupidity of this arguement is mind boggling.

And for the 1000th time, the reason we keep making fun of you guys of your allegations about Cheney making money off Halliburton is that we know he didn't, but like so many lies the kook fringe wants to be angry and can't handle the truth (from Factcheck)
"The ad isn't subtle. It says, 'As vice president, Dick Cheney received $2 million from Halliburton. Halliburton got billions in no bid contracts in Iraq. Dick Cheney got $2 million. What did we get?' And it implies that Cheney lied to the public when he said in a TV interview that 'I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind.'
But as we document here, Cheney has insulated himself financially from whatever might happen to Halliburton. The Kerry ad misstates the facts....
The fact is, Cheney doesn't gain a penny from Halliburton's contracts, and almost certainly won't lose even if Halliburton goes bankrupt."

And apparently, Winnow, Wall Street thinks nationalizing means stealing, that's why they're jumping ship:
"After Chavez's announcement, American Depositary Receipts of CANTV — the only Venezuelan company traded on the New York Stock Exchange — immediately plunged 14.2 percent to $16.84 before the NYSE halted trading."

So any joe six pack whose company lets Morgan Stanley handle their retirement account investments just lost some money, any way you cut it, and they can thank not Mr. Danger, but Mr. Hugo Chavez.

Apparently, you're also unfamiliar with the term bate and switch. The idea is a company posts a sale, but when people show up to buy something the company says it was a typo in the ad, and the real deal isn't as good. But people have already invested their time, and the company makes a bunch of sales since people who already invested that time go ahead and buy it at the bigger price. Government makes the rules. So if they privatize and industry, like a toll road, they're making a choice to give up that potential income and anything else they have invested.

But when an industry is nationalized, private industry doesn't have a choice, and they already invested money in building an infrastructure. Venezuala opened their country up for oil, telephone, and electric companies to come in with the understanding they would make a certain amount of profit that would be worth their investment. Now that the infrastructures are built, Venezuala is making the switch by jacking up 50% taxes on oil and nationalizing their power and telephone industries. The companies don't have a choice, and neither do people who've invested their retirement accounts in mutual funds including BP, who instead of seeing the money they should be getting, are seeing it go into the pocketbook of the Venezualen government.

And, actually you're mistaken. You say unless you hear something differently you won't believe that Venezuala didn't compensate these companies, but it works the other way. The only way you'll hear something is if Venezuala does compensate these companies. And Wall Street seems to think they won't. You can play see no evil, hear no evil, but it doesn't change what happened, it just lets other people know you can't handle the truth.

Did you see that movie, BS?

Morris- truth be told- YES i'd prefer a Socialist nation to that of a Nazi Police state.

let me see- socialized medicine or failed mishap of 30 different confusing medicare plans?

a national sales tax or a good ol' boy system for the rich?

Secure boders or some crock plan to unite Canada, the US and Mexico into one mega nation without any vote or consensus by the people of the united states? (yeah thank w for securing the borders)

Freedom of speech or the power for 1 man to: monitor communications, control communications, and imprison based on those communications at will? Gee that's a command and control tactic out of the police state if i ever heard one.

i could go on, but the thought of VP squeezing my pinky toes with a pair of pliers becuase i disagree with them and they tapped my phone and heard me- well that urks me a little.

"Is this the "utopia" you're looking for?"

This is exactly what they've been wanting since the term liberal was created.

Liberalism, socialism, communism, they're all the same, and when a Hugo comes along and portrays himself as an Eva Perón to an uneducated Venezuelan people that have bought in to his nationalising ideology, it will have a devastating effect on what little private sector exists.

Since Venezuela's GDP grew by a whopping 17.4 percent last year, there is no reason for the dictator to allow the private sector to flourish when he is on his way to convincing his sheep that a nationalized economy will provide all their basic neccessities....sound familiar?

Sounds like the liberal montra to me.

Morris- duhh. Resivour dogs, 4 rooms, KB1 and 2 suck but typical as movies go along. sort of like the flicks from KEvin smith that fizzled as they kept going too many years.

BS

Did you attend the Snoop Dog School of Academic Under Achievers?

"Morris- duhh. Resivour dogs, 4 rooms, KB1 and 2 suck but typical as movies go along. sort of like the flicks from KEvin smith that fizzled as they kept going too many years."

By the way you write, it appears as though you aced every class.

Navy- no. I'm all about Slayer and Handel, Rush and Dvorak. Never could get a grip on the gangsta thing.

"Navy- no. I'm all about Slayer and Handel, Rush and Dvorak. Never could get a grip on the gangsta thing."

Looking better Bill!

None of us use the English language as it was exactly intended, but it doesn't hurt to try.

I have it worst of all...my wife is a USC English grad with a BA in Broadcast Journalism.

Unfortunately, when she was a lib, she dated Keith Doberman when they both worked for KTTV channel 11 in LA..man he's a goof ball!!

My wife is now a gun-totin, card-carrying, Bush-luvin, proud Conservative.

So see, you could do it too!

BS writes:
"Morris- truth be told- YES i'd prefer a Socialist nation to that of a Nazi Police state."

You know, nazi actually stands for national socialist. And you're right, we actually have our police enforce drug laws. We were even helping Venezuala enforce laws against cocaine but, you see, for some reason they're government stopped that a couple years ago, and then they disbanded their own police force that goes after cocaine. But why not let everyone in their country and ours smoke crack, right? At least we won't be a "police state". Sure we won't be able to walk down the street without getting mugged for someone to get their fix, but we'll have freedom.

Venezuala also stopped enforcing laws against human trafficking recently. And they decided not to join the war on terrorism. They're the furthest thing from a police state, apparently their police aren't anywhere. It must be paradise!

In the words of Aleksander Boyd at Realclearpolitics:
"Statistics reveal a correlation between Venezuela's lax policies vis-à-vis drug trafficking and the substantial increment of large seizures of narcotics by international authorities. It seems that the Chavez administration is hell bent in providing safe haven and support to Colombian narco-guerrillas, which some believe have succeeded the former cartels in the production, trans-shipment, international commercialization and related operational aspects of the drug trade. The capture in Caracas of FARC leader Rodrigo Granda on December 13 2004 shed light upon the rather cozy relationship between top guerrilla leaders and Venezuelan officials. Granda, who was granted Venezuelan citizenship by the present administration according to former president of Congress Cristóbal Fernández Daló, had been, at the time of capture, living in Venezuela for a while. His wife and step-daughter entered Venezuela thanks to the assistance and explicit orders of former Chavez's Minister of Interior, Ramón Rodríguez Chacín."

According to wiki:
"The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia–People's Army, in Spanish Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia–Ejército del Pueblo, normally known as the FARC or FARC-EP, is Colombia's oldest and largest guerrilla group,established in 1964-1966 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party....
The FARC-EP is classified as a terrorist group by multiple nations and organizations, including the United States and the European Union."

Columbia is just as much a utopia as Iraq was. Maybe Michael Moore will move there.

As to your other Dem talking points:
"a national sales tax or a good ol' boy system for the rich?"
Is that the good ol' boy system in which the top one percent pay taxes for more than a third of the country's expenses? Oh, you mean the tax breaks for people like John Edwards, who payed 5% on his millions of dollars. We know what you're doing. It's called stoking the fires of class envy, telling people they're entitled and brewing anger at other people just because those other people have something they don't. It's the same reason that guy got pulled out of his truck and beat to death during the Rodney King riots. It didn't help those people, didn't make them any more deserving, but it did line the pockets of people willing to play one race or one class against another. The greatest leaders have all been compassionate, they want people to have what they want. They don't feed people's anger and discontent to score political victories by stepping on others.

"Secure boders or some crock plan to unite Canada, the US and Mexico into one mega nation without any vote or consensus by the people of the united states? (yeah thank w for securing the borders)"
So what are the newly elected Dems going to do about it? This is what your party offers, negativism. What's their big plan to keep Latin Americans and those with sinister plans from crossing into our country? I'll be surprised if the Dems don't hobble the border fence project. Republicans tended to vote for it, you know. And yes, I do credit Bush for saving us from terror attacks for five years.

"Freedom of speech or the power for 1 man to: monitor communications, control communications, and imprison based on those communications at will? Gee that's a command and control tactic out of the police state if i ever heard one."
If the program's so bad, you must hate Clinton for using it. He was Stalin and Hilary was Kruschev, right?

And what are you talking about "control communications"? The President has never stopped people from calling overseas. Yes, he wants to know if Americans are talking to terrorists. I do too, and I don't think that makes me a jack booted thug, just because I don't want to worry about American children getting blown to bits at ice cream shops like they do in Israel. And you keep misleading, using the same kind of deception for which you would so like to criticize Bush; who has been imprisoned at will? The Supreme Court said everyone has to have a lawyer, and Bush is going along with the Court's decision. Yes, he thinks it hampers our ability to fight terror, and I think he's right. And there's evidence for that, like those persecuted Gitmo detainees released and followed to Morocco where they led police to a bunch of terrorists plotting an attack. Where did all the common sense go?

Navy- i can't watch Oberman. He and O'higly are so much more than good journalism. get's old after- 30 seconds.

And too bad the DARK side has taken another. The force WAS strong with her ;-)

--

Morris: is there really any problem with a national sales tax? i mean it would make it even. All us poor white trash could pay $10 on every hundred just like you. we'd be broke in no time. what's wrong with that? 1 car and we're done for!!

Actually part of my gripe is simply the annual filing. I have no quibble with building bette roads, public schools (NOT PRIVATE), public sewage etc. But fretting over receipts and donation sheets every year is a PITA.

And i AGREEEEEEE the left has a welcome sign to the illegals. But really, W isn't going to stop all that cheap labor for Paris Hilton's chain. So it is a draw as far as illegals go IMO.

Sounds to me like Hugo wants to kick out the foreign companies that contorl the wealth in his country and turn it over to the poor people who's backs have been trampled on by large corporations who doubtlessly aquired the wealth through some sort of dirty deed or another. Is it any wonder he is loved by his people.

"Sounds to me like Hugo wants to kick out the foreign companies that contorl the wealth in his country and turn it over to the poor people who's backs have been trampled on by large corporations who doubtlessly aquired the wealth through some sort of dirty deed or another. Is it any wonder he is loved by his people."

Right, because they're rich CORPORATIONS, it's doubtless they're evil. I mean, everything corporate is evil, especially MTV, Oprah, and the Daily Show. All corporate, ergo all evil, "doubtlessly aquired the wealth through some sort of dirty deed or another." Do you libs ever listen to yourselves? This is prejudice, intolerance, closed minded senseless hatred; just because someone's rich they're evil. If a person does something and wants to make a living off of it, it's doubtless they're up to some dirty trick.

And it's ignorant people with ignorant beliefs that love him, just like the French loved Napolean, just like Louisiana Democrats loved Huey Long. It's seductive to believe that order exists in the world, even at the expense of believing you may be able to better yourself. If you have a problem, it's somebody else's fault. And it's their responsibility to fix your problem. Welcome to America, 2006.

I would say: Welcome to Germany, 1939, but to his credit he says problems are the fault of the rich, not the fault of the rich (Jews). Or maybe that's who he thinks runs the CORPORATIONS.

"Morris: is there really any problem with a national sales tax? i mean it would make it even. All us poor white trash could pay $10 on every hundred just like you. we'd be broke in no time. what's wrong with that? 1 car and we're done for!!"

BS, you're so right. When I grew up, it was one car per family. Yet this country is so prosperous that it's now 1 car per person, 1 television per person, 1 cell phone per person. I'm actually making less than a teacher because of my devotion to helping in your way of thinking "poor white trash," people who for the most part used to be rich and successful but now find other flavors of plenty. That is, their lives have become like compost, so they have to learn their potentials for fertile lives focused on things besides money. And they learn it takes more time to grow in spirit and relationships than it takes to make a fast buck.

If you recall, Bush supported during his campaign simplifying the tax code, cutting out loopholes for corporations. I certainly wouldn't mind a flat tax, but back to the class envy, it's very seductive to believe that those who benefit most ought to give the even more than an equitable share. This is where the libs give themselves away in terms of their claim to support justice and equality for all. It doesn't in their minds apply to the rich. There's no compassion for the rich. They want an angry poor working class with a huge entitlement complex, that's the only way that the country goes back to socialism. And allowing the opportunity to blame the rich to get away isn't in their playbook, so, no, I don't see the Dems going for a flat tax.

BTW,
The more obvious flaw in your sarcastic post is that the poor services like WIC, unemployment insurance, tax rebates, etc., so they get a much larger chunck of the pie in return even though according to a flat tax they would pay the same percentage of their income everyone else pays in. We couldn't have that, people may actually think they're equal to others, that they pay their fair share, so they're not helpless, in need of a hand out from big brother. How's that kind of thinking going to get us to socialism?

Morris: "And it's ignorant people with ignorant beliefs that love him, just like the French loved Napolean, just like Louisiana Democrats loved Huey Long."

you forgot and the republicans LOVE Bush. Amazing how they all fall under the same umbrella huh?

BS writes:
Morris: "And it's ignorant people with ignorant beliefs that love him, just like the French loved Napolean, just like Louisiana Democrats loved Huey Long."
you forgot and the republicans LOVE Bush. Amazing how they all fall under the same umbrella huh?

Is that why you didn't respond to the substance of my post, Bill? Or do you like the Dem Daily Show have nothing more to offer in terms of reasoned debate than a glib smirk. Yes, you don't want to listen, we know. Your party can't be just the rebels anymore. They bitched about how the poeple in power acted, claimed they would do a better job. When do we see it?

Personally, I get a little concerned when power and wealth get concentrated in the hands of a few. Whether it's achieved under the banner of socialism, fascism, monarchism, religious theocracy, or any other name -- even free enterprise -- it tends to make for an unstable social situation which, if allowed to continue, eventually leads to either anarchy (in the absence of a strong central figure) or a repressive totalitarian state (in the presence of one).

What's happening in Venezuela is labeled as a swing towards "socialism". Some liberal types concentrate on Chavez's social programs and assume everything else he's doing is a good thing. On the other hand, the mere fact that Chavez labels what he's doing as "socialism" immediately makes conservatives bristle. To me, it appears that what he's doing is attempting to wrest capital from the hands of one small group of individuals and put it in the hands of another small group of individuals (the latter of which includes him first and foremost, of course). The fact that he calls the new group of individuals "the government" as opposed to some other small cadre of individuals doesn't much matter if all it boils down to is a hostile take-over.

His social programs are basically a way of buying votes. For that, and the fact that he is employing the name of the government as the mechanism of his take-over, he gets to call it "socialism". And that to me is the only practical distinction between "socialist" regimes and any other totalitarian regime under a different name. Yet liberals and conservatives alike remain fixated on the distinction without ever really considering the underlying problem. All over Latin America countries flip-flop between "socialist" regimes and "fascist" military juntas. Sometimes a brief period of "democratic reform" is interspersed between the flip and the flop. But when it happens it is more of an exception that proves the rule more than anything else.

So what is really going on? This is what I would suggest: according the the World Policy Forum, and as measured by the GINI index, the least unequal country in Latin America in terms of income and wealth disparity is Uruquay. And they are far more unequal than the least unequal country in Eastern Europe! Therein lies the essential problem, it seems to me. To achieve political stability you need social stability. And to achieve social stability you need to engage the majority of the population. And to do that you need a vibrant middle class. And I think that's a lesson for us here in the good ole' US of A, not to mention any nation-building effort we may attempt.

I was having a discussion with my brother about the now discredited Keynesian economics so prevalent in the first half of the last century. He ridiculed the idea that anyone would still cling to such nonsense and challenged me to provide any prominent economist still delusional about Keynes; Paul Krugman and Rick Lambert. I win a cigar!

I’d like to point out here that the concept that wage inequality, or “power and wealth get concentrated in the hands of a few” is a natural outgrowth of a market driven economy. Ask any economics student and you’ll find they understand marginal productivity and its effect on the income each receives for their labors; it is a fact that some people are going to have skills that will be compensated higher than others. Therefore, it is also a fact that some will generate wealth and means, driving the economy and thusly gain power as those that can affect the economy will affect the economy. And ever it shall be.

To put the label of Keynesian to Ric, one must first understand Keynesians believe that because a free market economy is unstable and government must intervene via spending and taxation in order to bring the economy to a state of "full employment." Classic among this thought is the idea that as the rich get richer, and the gap between the rich and the rest grows the system becomes increasingly unstable and cries out for government intervention. Poppycock!

In out most recent history the wage inequality was reduced several times; one was the period of the great depression and WW2 which brought about a rise in the lower income levels and a drop in the highest marginal income brackets. (Thanks to Krugman for this bit of information) however, this ignores the double digit unemployment where a large portion of our populace saw income fall to zero.

Finally, Rico draws the erroneous conclusion that the GINI index can predict social inequality or potential upheaval; again, poppycock! Rwanda is among the lowest in terms of inequality and Brazil among the highest @ 60.7. Which one is more like to get you killed in a “social revolt”?