Do believe all people should have approximately the same annual income?

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Yeah... and how did that crap work out?

Read the quotes, neither of which state that everyone should be payed the same.

Marx or Lenin ever called for such a thing, it is a fear-mongering tactic for those who know little of that part of history but like to use words they do not understand.

As far as to your question about how it worked out, it is a pretty ironic time to be making comparisons of failure in each political ideology.

Deregulated Capitalism is out, something more rational will have to happen again, as you said either extreme is a fail.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Lothar
The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

This is why your water is undrinkable, roads break axles, and fires spread to whole neighborhoods?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
People should be paid what other people are willing to pay them.

So, when people's need to eat forces them to negotiate down to the bare amount needed for food, and most citizens are living in abject poverty, that's ok with you.

No need for any government policies that allow the people to do better and to have a sizable middle class - let poverty rule the nation, is fine with you.

You belong in the 19th century.

I would caution your view. While it's good to set policies to allow people to do better. Setting unrealistic policy, like too high a min. wage, would do more harm than good. You set too high a min. wage, business will have bloated cost and over priced product or service. If the market cannot handle the bloated price, you will only cause companies to go out of business, and people out of job.

Not to say high min. wage always cause more unemployment, but you have to be very careful when you look at economic policies purely from social perspective and not consider the reality in the market place.

I agree with your caution on the other side and the fact that too high a minimum wage causes problems, does more harm than good. Not sure why you assume otherwise.

The context of my response was to a right-wing view, triggering a defense of tools to protect people from the bottom, not a discussion on the other side of the issue.

For what it's worth, while I agree with that caution, I think we have room for increasing the minimum wage now.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Cattlegod

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Cattlegod
People should be paid what other people are willing to pay them.

So, when people's need to eat forces them to negotiate down to the bare amount needed for food, and most citizens are living in abject poverty, that's ok with you.

No need for any government policies that allow the people to do better and to have a sizable middle class - let poverty rule the nation, is fine with you.

You belong in the 19th century.

If you think most people would be in poverty like you wrote in your post, then you belong in a mental institution.

You should learn something about the history of the human race, its political economies and standards of living sometime. Try Howard Zinn's book for a start just on the US.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Lothar
The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

This is why your water is undrinkable, roads break axles, and fires spread to whole neighborhoods?

Which of those things do the Feds provide? Oh yeah, none. Local government is maintainable, the further you get from the governed the more bloated, corrupt, and eventually unsustainable government is. It's why I laugh at the world government supporters. You think the US government is a bunch of crooks? Just wait until you saw the UN if it had actual power. The whole human race would be enslaved to a few wealthy individuals in a matter of a few years.

If you want to live on a commune Red, go ahead. I'd love to see you live your dream. I on the other hand don't want that, and would choose a different type of community. Stop trying to push your views on hundreds of millions of people.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Lothar
The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

This is why your water is undrinkable, roads break axles, and fires spread to whole neighborhoods?

Yes...Because the socialist government Venezuela provides all those things. :roll:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
If you want to live on a commune Red, go ahead. I'd love to see you live your dream. I on the other hand don't want that, and would choose a different type of community. Stop trying to push your views on hundreds of millions of people.

The following chain email is posted for the sake of levity, nothing more... but it's a rather amusing take on exactly what you just said.

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,
socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole
of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce.
I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future
generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course.
Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what
is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it
up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass
each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our
two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be
relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide
other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You
are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and
war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can
keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible
for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations,
pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your
beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot
Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and
give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain
the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the
peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under
assault, we'll help provide them security.

We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to
Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the
U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars.
You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.

You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing
doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem.
I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World
to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give
trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll
keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other
like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just
hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one
of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Lothar
The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

This is why your water is undrinkable, roads break axles, and fires spread to whole neighborhoods?

Yes...Because the socialist government Venezuela provides all those things. :roll:

Uh, before Chavez, a few hundred families owned nearly all the wealth, the poor were in terrible shape, and Chavez's policies have overall helped the poor do a lot better.

Foreign companies had better deals for extracting wealth form Venezuela before Chavez, so they're unhappy; he's had to build up their skilled people to replace those foreigners.

 

[thegimp03]

No, absolutely not. Simply put, people who work hard and generate profits for themselves (in a sole proprietorship) or their companies (in a partnership or corporation), deserve to be rewarded with a high income and everything that comes with it. I don't think that the drive/motivation/extraordinary thinking and strategy would have been there for the majority of people who make higher incomes if they were paid the same as some leech on society.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Local government is maintainable, the further you get from the governed the more bloated, corrupt, and eventually unsustainable government is.

If you are actually interested in this area of thought then I would wonder what your opinions of Governments of the Future are.

 

[OCGuy]

Of course poor people would love to be handed money they dont deserve.

Is this something new?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Of course poor people would love to be handed money they dont deserve.

Is this something new?

I've heard that rich people don't mind it either - and actually do it a lot more.

 

[StinkyPinky]

No, money is a big incentive for innovation. That being said, something needs to be done to stop those corporate handouts. It seems once you're part of the club you just flitter from one company to another getting ridiculous wages and firing as many of the little people as possible. Pisses me off.

 

[Craig234]

Here's the thing about a situation like Dodd or Schumer (or the Republican counterparts):

When you have a district or state with a big concentration of some industry or interest, you're probably going to get politicians who represent that interest.

Big finance has lately been earning over 41% of all profit in the nation, and they're concentrated in New York and New Jersey.

If one candidate opposes them, doesn't take their money, another one will represent them, take their money, and get elected.

When that interest are unpopular in much of the nation - as big finance is now - those politicians might 'look bad' for their positions siding with that industry ahead of the national interest, when the two conflict. But what is expected to happen - while there's some level of 'putting the nation first' you can appeal to, the bottom line is that they represent the state or district, and that carries some weight, too, for gray areas.

We see the same thing when Michigane politicians represent US automakers, and those lawmakers who have big foreign automaker plants tend to represent those companies' and workers' interests (see the recent debate where US automakers' politicians argued for the bailouts, and foreign automakers' politicians argued against the bailouts).

So, say a Democrat or Republican gets elected representing big finance from New Jersey or New York. Even if they're nationally shunned, is the Democratic or Republican party not going to welcome them to the party - and what, hand the seat to the other party? No, they take them even if they largely disagree on some issues.

I say all this as a reminder that a Sen. Dodd or Schumer - or their Repulbican counterparts - may 'look really bad' from the national opinion for representing their constituents - but to an extent, they're 'just doing their job'. There's some room for criticizing them for going too far in putting constituent ahead of nation, but some leeway has to be understood.

I have to revisit my own criticisms of Republicans in the South who opposed bailing out the auto industry to see if I was too harsh for that reason; my criticism was based on putting that automakers' interests ahead of the national interest. But when that's what their constituents want them to do, who's wrong - the politician, or the constituents? It's not quite as simple as saying 'ignore your constituents'.

Our efforts are more productive not attacking the politicians who have those groups, as in fixing the system so that those groups don't get massive political influence with money.

Not, again, that it isn't fine to criticize them - and those groups - when they vote badly.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Local government is maintainable, the further you get from the governed the more bloated, corrupt, and eventually unsustainable government is.

If you are actually interested in this area of thought then I would wonder what your opinions of Governments of the Future are.

I'm not going to listen to that, but here's a transcript.

http://www.pentaside.org/artic...ovt-in-the-future.html

After an initial reading, I'd say Chomsky gets some things some right and some things wrong. I'll read it again later this evening and give a more detailed review.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Local government is maintainable, the further you get from the governed the more bloated, corrupt, and eventually unsustainable government is.

If you are actually interested in this area of thought then I would wonder what your opinions of Governments of the Future are.

I'm not going to listen to that, but here's a transcript.

http://www.pentaside.org/artic...ovt-in-the-future.html

<-clicked link, saw the bolded name...rolled eyes... closed window.

I've spent too much time reading that guy's crap over the years, I don't have any desire to waste any more on his failed BS.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Lothar
The trouble with Socialism is, sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

This is why your water is undrinkable, roads break axles, and fires spread to whole neighborhoods?

Yes...Because the socialist government Venezuela provides all those things. :roll:

Uh, before Chavez, a few hundred families owned nearly all the wealth, the poor were in terrible shape, and Chavez's policies have overall helped the poor do a lot better.

Foreign companies had better deals for extracting wealth form Venezuela before Chavez, so they're unhappy; he's had to build up their skilled people to replace those foreigners.

Yes, but the poor were able to afford bread, milk, and eggs before Chavez came to power. Now they can't.

Venezuela's inflation was 31 percent last year, the highest in the region.
Unless Chavez is giving the poor a "31%" increase in income every year(which he isn't), anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together will understand that Chavez isn't providing them with anything.
Hugo Chavez's nationalization spree and price freeze on products hasn't achieved anything and only made things worse for the ordinary people. The "few hundred families" you mentioned will still be able to afford to eat, the poor wouldn't.

Socialists like Chavez, Castro, and many others bemoan the capitalist emphasis on profit and growth, and focus on distributing wealth instead. This would be fine if wealth appeared out of nowhere, and all governments had to do was distribute it. But if the wealth had to be produced first, markets do it much better.

Market capitalism beats Bolivarian socialism.

The latest decree from Hugo Chavez to banks:
"Give loans at 15% interest or be nationalized"
Loan money at 15% when inflation is 31%?

 

[BoberFett]

CAD

I had the same initial reaction to Chomsky's name, but due to Red's seeming desire for rational discussion on the topic I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and read this particular speech.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lothar
Yes, but the poor were able to afford bread, milk, and eggs before Chavez came to power. Now they can't.

Venezuela's inflation was 31 percent last year, the highest in the region.
Unless Chavez is giving the poor a "31%" increase in income every year(which he isn't), anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together will understand that Chavez isn't providing them with anything.
Hugo Chavez's nationalization spree and price freeze on products hasn't achieved anything and only made things worse for the ordinary people. The "few hundred families" you mentioned will still be able to afford to eat, the poor wouldn't.

Socialists like Chavez, Castro, and many others bemoan the capitalist emphasis on profit and growth, and focus on distributing wealth instead. This would be fine if wealth appeared out of nowhere, and all governments had to do was distribute it. But if the wealth had to be produced first, markets do it much better.

Market capitalism beats Bolivarian socialism.

The latest decree from Hugo Chavez to banks:
"Give loans at 15% interest or be nationalized"
Loan money at 15% when inflation is 31%?

Well, you can argue various things about Venezuela. I wouldn't say that Chavez has shown the competence I'd like to see or had as much as effect as I'd like, but there's plenty of good to say about his efforts for the poor, even while they can largely be explained by the oil revenue increases.

Here's one article excerpt from earlier in his presidency from the LA Times:

Getting at poverty's roots: In the past few months, more than half a million illiterate Venezuelans have received basic reading and writing instruction. Hundreds of thousands of poor children have begun attending school for the first time in their lives. Doctors imported from Cuba as part of a petroleum deal are paying house calls to poor neighborhoods.

Perhaps most important, tens of thousands of people such as Lopez have been given title to land that their families have been squatting on for generations, both in poor urban slums like this one and in vast rural tracts. Using new government credits, poor families are planting crops, organizing businesses, fixing up their homes and redesigning their neighborhoods.

"There is an incredible flowering of activity in the communities that are participating," said Gregory Wilpert, an American sociologist and freelance journalist living in Venezuela who is studying the effect of Chavez's reforms. The impact of the government's efforts is still haphazard and limited. But the measures have had a ripple effect that has left many of the poor feeling that for the first time in their lives the government is actually interested in aiding them.

And here's a commentary comparing Colombia and Venezuela:

In sharp contrast, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has made social investment the pillar of his government. These policies have not only benefited poor Venezuelans, but also many of the three million Colombian immigrants who have fled across the border. ?Single, unemployed mothers have a place to go for help here. In Colombia we had nothing like that,? said one female immigrant from Colombia?s northern coast. According to Venezuelan political analyst Alfredo Anzola, ?These immigrants are benefiting from the medical, nutrition and other programs offered by Chávez.? It is this type of social investment that led 42-year-old Freddy Berrio, an immigrant from the northern Colombian province of Sucre, to declare: ?Colombia needs a leader like Chávez to end the social and political exclusion there.?

As a result of the Chávez government?s social investment, the percentage of Venezuelans living in poverty has declined from 50 percent at the end of 1998 to 43 percent in 2005. Furthermore, the standard of living for those remaining in poverty has improved dramatically due to government-funded social programs including subsidized food stores, healthcare, low-income housing projects and micro-credit. As the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) notes, ?The reduction in poverty since 1999 measures only cash income. This, however, does not really capture the changes in the living standards of the poor in Venezuela, since there have been major changes in non-cash benefits and services in the last few years.?

The Venezuelan example not only illustrates how effective social policies can alleviate poverty, but also how such policies can empower the poor. As one previously unemployed Venezuelan woman from a poor barrio who is now working in an all female, worker-owned textiles cooperative established with a government loan told me last year, ?We are no longer staying in the house; we are business women now.? In sharp contrast, residents in towns in southern Colombia that have been ?liberated? by the Colombian army under Plan Patriota have repeatedly complained that, while the state now maintains a permanent military presence in their towns, there has been no social investment. Consequently, it is not surprising that the government is struggling to win the hearts and minds of Colombians living in rural conflict regions long neglected by the state.

The emphasis on militarism and neoliberalism by both the Bush and Uribe administrations has failed to improve conditions for the majority of Colombians living in poverty. While the Colombian government?s oil revenues pale in comparison to Venezuela?s?partly due to lower royalty rates implemented under neoliberal restructuring?it has received more than $10 billion in U.S. and IMF aid over the past six years. Washington, however, has ensured that this aid be used to fund the militaristic implementation of neoliberalism in Colombia.

In contrast, Venezuela has used its resources to fund social and economic policies that seek to empower the country?s poor and contribute to a greater democratization of society. The Venezuelan example is not a lesson that Bush and Uribe are willing to learn. After all, neoliberalism has never been about the empowerment of the marginalized and enhanced democracy; its principal objective is to achieve economic growth for the benefit of a few.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Local government is maintainable, the further you get from the governed the more bloated, corrupt, and eventually unsustainable government is.

If you are actually interested in this area of thought then I would wonder what your opinions of Governments of the Future are.

I'm not going to listen to that, but here's a transcript.

http://www.pentaside.org/artic...ovt-in-the-future.html

After an initial reading, I'd say Chomsky gets some things some right and some things wrong. I'll read it again later this evening and give a more detailed review.

Some people do not like all the conclusions he comes to. Regardless, the guy is a walking encyclopedia, whole volumes of them actually. Probably one of the sharpest minds America has as far as history/socioeconomic conflicts, governments and linguistics (I mean what else is society really then what is passed down through our languages and the cultures?)

The playlist I provided is him reading, so less annoying then having to sit down and read it if it is not "your" thing.

Just curious if people here can handle a criticism of classical liberalism rationally from a rather calm intelligent PoV without getting into namecalling and partisanship. Chomsky is no fan of either party or the system itself. It is nice to sit back and get perspective from a academic instead of someone with a agenda.

 

[burr4392]

"From everyman according to his ability, to everyman according to his need.' Is the looters credo.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: burr4392
"From everyman according to his ability, to everyman according to his need." Is the looters credo.

What about stupid people like Paris Hilton that inherited wealth and have nothing to show for it?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: burr4392
"From everyman according to his ability, to everyman according to his need." Is the looters credo.

What about stupid people like Paris Hilton that inherited wealth and have nothing to show for it?

So what? How does her inheriting and spending that wealth affect you?

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Lothar
Yes, but the poor were able to afford bread, milk, and eggs before Chavez came to power. Now they can't.

Venezuela's inflation was 31 percent last year, the highest in the region.
Unless Chavez is giving the poor a "31%" increase in income every year(which he isn't), anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together will understand that Chavez isn't providing them with anything.
Hugo Chavez's nationalization spree and price freeze on products hasn't achieved anything and only made things worse for the ordinary people. The "few hundred families" you mentioned will still be able to afford to eat, the poor wouldn't.

Socialists like Chavez, Castro, and many others bemoan the capitalist emphasis on profit and growth, and focus on distributing wealth instead. This would be fine if wealth appeared out of nowhere, and all governments had to do was distribute it. But if the wealth had to be produced first, markets do it much better.

Market capitalism beats Bolivarian socialism.

The latest decree from Hugo Chavez to banks:
"Give loans at 15% interest or be nationalized"
Loan money at 15% when inflation is 31%?

Well, you can argue various things about Venezuela. I wouldn't say that Chavez has shown the competence I'd like to see or had as much as effect as I'd like, but there's plenty of good to say about his efforts for the poor, even while they can largely be explained by the oil revenue increases.

Here's one article excerpt from earlier in his presidency from the LA Times:

Getting at poverty's roots: In the past few months, more than half a million illiterate Venezuelans have received basic reading and writing instruction. Hundreds of thousands of poor children have begun attending school for the first time in their lives. Doctors imported from Cuba as part of a petroleum deal are paying house calls to poor neighborhoods.

Perhaps most important, tens of thousands of people such as Lopez have been given title to land that their families have been squatting on for generations, both in poor urban slums like this one and in vast rural tracts. Using new government credits, poor families are planting crops, organizing businesses, fixing up their homes and redesigning their neighborhoods.

"There is an incredible flowering of activity in the communities that are participating," said Gregory Wilpert, an American sociologist and freelance journalist living in Venezuela who is studying the effect of Chavez's reforms. The impact of the government's efforts is still haphazard and limited. But the measures have had a ripple effect that has left many of the poor feeling that for the first time in their lives the government is actually interested in aiding them.

And here's a commentary comparing Colombia and Venezuela:

In sharp contrast, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has made social investment the pillar of his government. These policies have not only benefited poor Venezuelans, but also many of the three million Colombian immigrants who have fled across the border. ?Single, unemployed mothers have a place to go for help here. In Colombia we had nothing like that,? said one female immigrant from Colombia?s northern coast. According to Venezuelan political analyst Alfredo Anzola, ?These immigrants are benefiting from the medical, nutrition and other programs offered by Chávez.? It is this type of social investment that led 42-year-old Freddy Berrio, an immigrant from the northern Colombian province of Sucre, to declare: ?Colombia needs a leader like Chávez to end the social and political exclusion there.?

As a result of the Chávez government?s social investment, the percentage of Venezuelans living in poverty has declined from 50 percent at the end of 1998 to 43 percent in 2005. Furthermore, the standard of living for those remaining in poverty has improved dramatically due to government-funded social programs including subsidized food stores, healthcare, low-income housing projects and micro-credit. As the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) notes, ?The reduction in poverty since 1999 measures only cash income. This, however, does not really capture the changes in the living standards of the poor in Venezuela, since there have been major changes in non-cash benefits and services in the last few years.?

The Venezuelan example not only illustrates how effective social policies can alleviate poverty, but also how such policies can empower the poor. As one previously unemployed Venezuelan woman from a poor barrio who is now working in an all female, worker-owned textiles cooperative established with a government loan told me last year, ?We are no longer staying in the house; we are business women now.? In sharp contrast, residents in towns in southern Colombia that have been ?liberated? by the Colombian army under Plan Patriota have repeatedly complained that, while the state now maintains a permanent military presence in their towns, there has been no social investment. Consequently, it is not surprising that the government is struggling to win the hearts and minds of Colombians living in rural conflict regions long neglected by the state.

The emphasis on militarism and neoliberalism by both the Bush and Uribe administrations has failed to improve conditions for the majority of Colombians living in poverty. While the Colombian government?s oil revenues pale in comparison to Venezuela?s?partly due to lower royalty rates implemented under neoliberal restructuring?it has received more than $10 billion in U.S. and IMF aid over the past six years. Washington, however, has ensured that this aid be used to fund the militaristic implementation of neoliberalism in Colombia.

In contrast, Venezuela has used its resources to fund social and economic policies that seek to empower the country?s poor and contribute to a greater democratization of society. The Venezuelan example is not a lesson that Bush and Uribe are willing to learn. After all, neoliberalism has never been about the empowerment of the marginalized and enhanced democracy; its principal objective is to achieve economic growth for the benefit of a few.

The popular sentiment in Venezuela is to get rid of Chavez, he is doing way more harm than good. 1/2 of my friends are Venezuelan and they go home to visit frequently and have told me all about how much worse they are now with Chavez and his policies mirrored after his mentor (Fidel). Chavez has fixed elections and controlled the media, don't believe everything you read... there was a reason Magglio Ordonez was booed by his own country at the WBC by Venezuelans (he's a Chavez supporter).

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

The popular sentiment in Venezuela is to get rid of Chavez, he is doing way more harm than good. 1/2 of my friends are Venezuelan and they go home to visit frequently and have told me all about how much worse they are now with Chavez and his policies mirrored after his mentor (Fidel). Chavez has fixed elections and controlled the media, don't believe everything you read... there was a reason Magglio Ordonez was booed by his own country at the WBC by Venezuelans (he's a Chavez supporter).

Most Venezuelans who 'go home to visit frequently' are in the small wealthier class, not the masses, and the wealthier class does indeed hate Chavez.

I see your charges that he fixes elections and the media, but where's your evidence? His initiative for more terms failed the first time... almost all the media is owned by his enemies, and constantly broadcasts anti-Chavez information, not all of it accurate - the media was a participant in the coup that removed him, issuing false reports about the protest that was the central point of the coup, accusing his forces of shooting into the crowd, reporting he had resigned, etc.

'The popular sentiment in Venezuela' - or the popula sentiment among the Venezuelans you know who 'frequently visit'?

There are valid criticisms of Chavez, but look at what's waiting in the wings to replace him - a return to oligarchy and selling out Venezuela to foreign interests.