Oh Venezuela!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I think he likes the US, just not Bush. But I can't stand him. The Lenin of the South.
 
Thats what I mean. Now people who were working for American Continental Airlines and Delta have to look for jobs and if those airlines provided low airfare in that country, now have to spend more.
 
nbcrusader said:


I guess Chavez can blame the US as he drives the Venezuelan economy into the ground.

True. And Bush can´t blame Venezuela as he drives the US economy into the ground.
 
Justin24 said:
I think he likes the US, just not Bush. But I can't stand him. The Lenin of the South.

I actually think this gives him too much credit, Justin, if that makes sense.

Stupid move, I agree, but ultimately, I just have this hunch that he knows his support comes from social programs, and he can't afford them without trading. He's better off cementing ties with Bolivia's new president if he wants to do something for the Revolution. LOL.

Hiphop, please refrain from reminding me about the current US economy. :madspit: :wink:
 
Bush's far right rhetoric is going to be counterbalanced elsewhere in the world. Getting rid of Chavez would just leave a void that some other leader would fill.

But hey...when we don't care what the rest of the world thinks, beyond doing exactly what we tell them to do, other countries are going to start doing the same.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:


And don't forget his anti-semetic remarks.

Oh, I remember that. I'm not saying he's a good guy or anything like that. Many odious people are perfectly lucid, they just don't give a damn that they're disgusting.
 
nbcrusader said:
Well, we've been on an upswing for the last couple of years. :up:

Well, if you define "economic progress" as "corporate profits," you'd be correct. However, in terms of "labor progress," we have that "jobless recovery," coupled with reports that average household income has actually dropped this year.

Like I once said, the U.S. only exists to cater to the top 1%. The rest of us are just pawns to maintain their lifestyle, and we are useful only for that.

Melon
 
melon said:

Like I once said, the U.S. only exists to cater to the top 1%. The rest of us are just pawns to maintain their lifestyle, and we are useful only for that.

Melon

As much as certain economic trends scare me, that's bullshit. Even without being in the top 1% it's possible to raise a family and have a decent quality of life. If you can show me one country where there's really anything close to social equality I'll be surprised.

And I think Chavez is a lunatic for the record. I suppose he can slide by by portraying himself as the brave one who stands up to Bush but I can't imagine that'll work for long.
 
i think chavez is crazy but i like the fact that he is willing to give bush the finger occasionally.:eyebrow:
 
VertigoGal said:
As much as certain economic trends scare me, that's bullshit. Even without being in the top 1% it's possible to raise a family and have a decent quality of life. If you can show me one country where there's really anything close to social equality I'll be surprised.

That's not what I'm talking about. What I am talking about is how everyone outside of the top 1% are "expendable."

If you've ever taken a collegiate-level microeconomics course, chances are that you've left with the impression that labor are on the same level as machinery. In other words, we are also as expendable as an old i286 PC from the 1980s.

So when we talk about "economic prosperity" and "jobless recovery" in the same breath, what we are really talking about is how, in the eyes of economists, we mean absolutely nothing. Our prosperity, our employment, our debt level, our happiness...it's totally meaningless. All that matters is how prosperous businesses are, and as long as the top 1% are happy--CEOs, CFOs, executives, investors, etc.--are successful and prosperous, it doesn't matter if the rest of us are struggling. After all, we don't matter.

That is my point.

Melon
 
melon said:
Well, if you define "economic progress" as "corporate profits," you'd be correct. However, in terms of "labor progress," we have that "jobless recovery," coupled with reports that average household income has actually dropped this year.

The metrics consistently used over time show economic gains, not loses. Naysayers will always be able to find one metric that shows decline.
 
nbcrusader said:
The metrics consistently used over time show economic gains, not loses. Naysayers will always be able to find one metric that shows decline.

But that's it. "Economic gain" is defined solely by corporate profit. That's why we can start throwing around terms like "jobless recovery," which I deem to be a contradiction in terms.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:


Well, we've been on an upswing for the last couple of years. :up:

well, well... *diplomatic* :wink:



what about the macroeconomic situation

trillions of debts?

ok i think you have less unemployment than under reagan..

aside the whole cost of the war, and only certain industries profit

not the perfect picture if you ask me :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I don't like the deficit, either. Funny. It used to be the conservatives who complained the most about deficits. Now they're the ones who run them up.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
well, well... *diplomatic* :wink:

what about the macroeconomic situation

trillions of debts?

ok i think you have less unemployment than under reagan..

aside the whole cost of the war, and only certain industries profit

not the perfect picture if you ask me :shrug:

When deficits rose during the Reagan Administration, it was described as an economic travesty - that the US would be in debt forever and the economy would be further weakened.

As we can see, the debt didn't last forever and the US economy is far stronger that the one Reagan inherited.

A similar cycle is occuring now.
 
verte76 said:
I don't like the deficit, either. Funny. It used to be the conservatives who complained the most about deficits. Now they're the ones who run them up.

Conservatives tend to complain about ever increasing taxes to feed a hungry government.
 
Funny, my Republican governor is considered vulnerable in the elections this year because he tried to increase taxes his first year in office. This was turned down in a referendum by a 2-1 margin. If we put Roy Moore in the statehouse I'll scream. I'm afraid that's exactly what's going to happen. :mad: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored: :censored:
 
am i the only one who feels OUTRAGED that someone is questioning bush's authority and dares to put him in the dock??
 
nbcrusader said:
As we can see, the debt didn't last forever and the US economy is far stronger that the one Reagan inherited.

I don't quite know what you're talking about. We're $8.25 trillion in debt, which accumulated on top of Reagan's debt. We never paid it off, so "forever" still is in play here.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:


Conservatives tend to complain about ever increasing taxes to feed a hungry government.
And you are not being run by neo-cons you are being run by "compassionate conservatives".
 
Back
Top Bottom