http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49F0K720081016?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Quote :

"CARACAS (Reuters) - Socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mocked George W. Bush as a "comrade" on Wednesday, saying the U.S. president was a hard-line leftist for his government's intervention of major private banks in the U.S. financial crisis. Chavez, who calls capitalism an evil and ex-Cuban leader Fidel Castro his mentor, ridiculed Bush for his plan for the federal government to take equity in American banks despite the U.S. right-wing's criticism of Venezuelan nationalizations. "Bush is to the left of me now," Chavez told an audience of international intellectuals debating the benefits of socialism. "Comrade Bush announced he will buy shares in private banks." Chavez, who has insulted Bush in the past as a drunkard or the devil, called him clueless on Wednesday. He accused him of simply parroting the words of his aides without understanding the new policies that rely on heavy state intervention. "I am convinced he has got no idea what's going on," said Chavez, who has nationalized swaths of the OPEC nation's economy in recent years and is in negotiations to take over a Spanish bank in Venezuela. Chavez lauds his nationalizations for allowing the state to refocus companies' activities on helping the poor rather than creating value for their shareholders. The Bush administration, which has promoted free-market policies throughout Latin America, resisted taking equity in banks for weeks. But, faced with a spiraling financial crisis, it reversed course this week with a $250 billion plan. Chavez, who the United States labels an autocrat, is popular among his supporters at home for criticizing Bush and sometimes wins praise abroad for voicing anti-U.S. opinions. Despite the ideological differences between the two governments and the diplomatic sparring that led weeks ago to the countries expelling each other's ambassador, Venezuela remains a major oil supplier to the United States."

10/16/2008 9:34:08 AM

Quote :

"He accused him of simply parroting the words of his aides without understanding the new policies that rely on heavy state intervention. "I am convinced he has got no idea what's going on," "

he brings up valid concerns

10/16/2008 9:36:23 AM

He is also wrong. What Bush is doing cannot be considered nationalization, or the forced capture of private enterprises. Best I can figure, every bank or institution that has been taken over was taken over with the consent of the current legal owners (in most cases bondholders fearful of losing principle) or by the FDIC which was operating under consented contracts.

But he is right, Bush is a socialist of the worst kind. It is just that the form of socialism practiced in venezuela remains illegal here.

[Edited on October 16, 2008 at 10:04 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/16/2008 10:03:14 AM

sick burn

10/16/2008 10:04:27 AM

Why does anyone pay attention to him? He's doing it to get a rise out of people. Whenever people start talking about how badly he screwed up Venezuela's economy, he simply says, "Oh look, President Bush! Booga, Booga, Booga!"

10/16/2008 10:09:33 AM

As crazy and dangerous as Chavez is, I actually agree with him on this one... the branch of the GOP that includes Bush and his ideological supporters is even farther left than the democratic party.

I'd explain why, but...
1: I'm going to bed.
2: I would hope most of the posters here are intelligent enough to figure out why.
3: If you still can't figure it out, I'll probably be back tomorrow.

10/17/2008 1:32:08 AM

someone plz make a picture captioned "Socialist Fail"

10/17/2008 1:13:54 PM

i wasn't aware of this.

10/17/2008 4:04:44 PM

^^^please elaborate for me, b/c I think you're wrong.

10/18/2008 12:50:48 AM

2 days ago at work, my former economics professor came in...so of course i had to ask him about this whole bailout thing...he basically said bush had to do what he did cause the european countries(socialist countries) did it first

10/18/2008 12:59:08 AM

Quote :

"please elaborate for me, b/c I think you're wrong."

Certainly. Let me first add a disclaimer that this is me speaking with brutal honesty, instead of the normal polite restraint that I show. No offense to Democrats... I respect your noble intents but not your methods.


The Bush branch of the republican party... let's call them 'neo-cons', hold no conservative beliefs whatsoever. They support the legislation of christian moral values (in other words, they are socially liberal), and their actions have shown that they are in favor of higher government regulation in the economy... What makes their economic liberalism so much worse than standard socialist economics is that neo-con economic ideas are corporatist (for lack of a better term)... pro-regulation and pro-intervention that favors the rich instead of the poor. See below for more.


The major (and one minor) political parties/philosophies line up as such, in my opinion as someone who strongly leans Libertarian:

Libertarians - Conservative - Favor as little government as possible
This one is obvious. Libertarians are against government intervention, both socially and economically, on the grounds that government cannot be trusted to do a job properly, efficiently, objectively, fairly, and without corruption. It logically follows, then, that we should give the federal government little enough power that they can only fuck up on a small scale (within our own country anyway... governments always have and always will fuck up when it comes to starting wars). If you're don't at least lean libertarian, then there's a good chance you haven't thought out your political philosophies as well as you could... that or you and your philosophy honestly believe that morality should be a sweeping standard across all people.

Republicans (not neo-cons) - Somewhat Conservative - Favor small government mostly, but many feel that moral values should be legislated
These republicans are those that still cling to the conservative economics that much of the higher-ups in the GOP have abandoned (making them economically conservative). Many still feel that the Bible and associated traditional values should have their place in the Constitution (making them socially Liberal), but this is a varying issue... those that don't support this are really more libertarian in their political philosophies.

Democrats - Pretty Liberal - Favor a "Mommy and Daddy" government that takes care of all its citizens (despite the best interests of some other citizens)
For the most part, Democrats believe in choice and liberty on the social side, though many of them they are misguided in their means of achieving this... some would even say that the government should expressly legislate civil rights... an idea that while favoring liberty at its core also undermines the idea of smaller government... but, despite being a bit backwards-thinking, they still mean well. For some reason they also think that taking away gun rights and banning certain objects somehow will reduce crime by people who have no respect for rights or laws... largely a reason I believe they like the idea of government as a "parent", trying to take away the scissors in a futile attempt to keep their child from hurting himself.

As for the economy, they tend to favor entitlement programs, wealth redistribution, and forced charity from those who "don't really need it" but still have (for the most part) earned it. For some odd reason many also seem to think that corporations and rich people are inherently evil. Somehow "Profit = Greed = Evil" but hell if I know why. Probably just from lack of thought.

Neo-Con Republicans - Disgustingly Liberal - Favor a "Slavemaster" style government that tries to make rich people richer and poor people Christians
Neo-cons exist mainly at the highest levels of government and society... those who already have a ton of power and want to keep wielding it. These fuckers are the deepest evil in government short of fascist dictators. Most neo-cons are Christian, or at the very least they claim to be, so they want as many voters to be Christian as they can get, in the hopes that people will overlook the vast levels of corruption simply because "he seems like a family man with good Christian morals". They are socially liberal, as they tend to favor the legislation of traditional Christian values.

Economically, they are corporatist... they favor regulation and intervention that favors the upper .5% of society and the corporations that they own. There is no regard for the middle class... basically, "Fuck 'em, but don't raise their taxes or they might catch on that we don't give a shit about their well-being... also, keep them as White and as Evangelical as possible." There is even less regard for the working class and lower class groups, compounded by the fact that neo-cons very rarely favor any group that isn't a white and male majority. They claim to be "economic conservatives" but they aren't anti-regulation and they certainly don't act like they want to cut spending.


Anyway, yeah, that's the situation as it appears to me. Again, this is not showing my usual level of polite restraint. Also, yes, I am very elitist. Glad you noticed.

[Edited on October 18, 2008 at 5:06 AM. Reason : grammar and spelling... wish I could just ninja-edit for junk like that]

10/18/2008 5:03:11 AM

Ok, I know you hate them but your description of NeoCons is rediculously exagerated. They do not dislike the middle class, and they do not love the super rich. Afterall, the vast majority of the super rich are Democrats, helping them would violate their partisanship.

They are not class warriors, they are partisan warriors. They do not support the rich, simply their rich. And they don't hate the middle class, they strongly support their middle class. Their goal is to use government to spread and subsidise their beliefs. These are not good intentions, I admit, but like all government programs, even those with good intentions, they often have perverse outcomes. Hence the perverse outcomes.

10/18/2008 11:12:07 AM

Maybe I didn't specify enough, or just worded it poorly... I agree, they don't like all rich. They only like the rich that believe what they do. It's not so much about class warfare as it is simply keeping themselves and people they agree with in positions of power, and they'll run over the rights of whoever they need to on the way to doing that, regardless of income level.

Which in a way is worse than what you thought I was trying to say.


Anyway, exaggerated or not, they're still the farthest left, being the only group that supports government intervention in both social morality and the economy.

10/18/2008 4:16:24 PM

Just to pick a nit, 'left' is a poor term to use. They are more interventionist than most Democrats. As such, left/right break down in meaning. As such, stick to more descriptive terminology: authoritarian theologists.

10/18/2008 5:30:13 PM

tromboner, you have no idea what you're talking about. Neo-cons are are fascists... which is the far right equivalent of communists on the left. But by the time you get that far into the extremes, "liberal" and "conservative" no longer apply. You seem to think liberal is a catch-all for bad, which it's not.

10/18/2008 5:45:36 PM