Meanwhile, in the Democratic Socialist paradise that is Venezuela...

L. Cranston posted:

I wonder why Republicans throw Venezuela out as the 'Democrat's' when Republicans caused the issues by destabilizing the Government.

I wonder why the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway.... none of those countries are ever used as examples???

That's because those countries are corporatist just like the US. I might add that some in those countries take umbrage when Bernie Sanders calls them "socialist".

While speaking at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware "that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism."

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

Rasmussen acknowledged that "the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens," but he also noted that it is "a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

https://www.investors.com/poli...alling-it-socialist/

 

L. Cranston posted:

So, basically, Republicans won't point to a 'Democratic Socialist' country because they're working? Providing a 'high level of security to its citizens' is Socialist. The previous Danish "President" was a Democratic Socialist, btw. Imagine that.

Because they are not!

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

BTW we in America do provide help to people struggling via SNAPS, tution assistance in some cases and housing.

Definition of socialism

 

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
 
In none of the countries you mentioned the country does not own the means of production or all property. "Democratic Socialists" in those countries rely on their crony capitalists to fund their welfare systems, I.e., they're corporatists.  

If all men were saints, Socialism would be a great thing.  If all men were angels, Communism would be wonderful.  But few men are saints, and none are angels.

Every iteration of a Socialist economy has been a failure.  The history of that failure starts with the Soviet Union and continues with Venezuela.  The Peoples Republic of China adopted a quasi-capitalist economy because they finally realized Socialism does not work. 

In a Socialist economy, there is no incentive to be efficient and productive.  The workers are going to get what they are going to get - extra effort gets you nothing.  The non-workers get the same as the workers, so why should the workers work.  The only people that thrive are the political elites and they do so at the expense of the people. 

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

HIFLYER2 posted:
L. Cranston posted:

So, basically, Republicans won't point to a 'Democratic Socialist' country because they're working? Providing a 'high level of security to its citizens' is Socialist. The previous Danish "President" was a Democratic Socialist, btw. Imagine that.

Because they are not!

"Therefore," he said, "I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

BTW we in America do provide help to people struggling via SNAPS, tution assistance in some cases and housing.

To a point, Denmark and Norway are socialist.  They nationalized the North Sea oil and use that revenue to subsidize their welfare state.  Norway claims the oil revenue provides about 20 percent of the government's revenue.  However, that doesn't count the taxes paid by the company's employees, or the taxes paid by the companies that supply the goods and services to the oil company.  Counting that the support is closer to 30 percent of the revenue.  Oil is a wasting asset.  What happens when the oil runs out?  

Sweden used to be socialist -- taxes so high that they paid over 100 percent of annual income in taxes -- and left.  Sweden cut taxes significantly and encouraged private enterprise.  Sweden as no oil.  Private oil refineries, a major revenue source, refine oil from all over.  

"The government of Finland collapsed Friday due to the rising cost of universal health care and the prime minister's failure to enact reforms to the system.

Prime Minister Juha Sipila and the rest of the cabinet resigned after the governing coalition failed to pass reforms in parliament to the country's regional government and health services, the Wall Street Journal reports. Finland faces an aging population, with around 26 percent of its citizens expected to be over 65 by the year 2030, an increase of 5 percent from today."  So much for Finland.

https://freebeacon.com/politic...iversal-health-care/

Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

direstraits posted:
Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

Yeah, like HRC as Secretary of State. 

Here's the difference.  Industry requires competence that results in (hate to use it again) efficiency and productivity.  In Socialist Venezuela, by nationalizing the oil industry and replacing those who possess the necessary talents with "cronies and sycophants", efficiency and productivity was lost.  The result was the lose of Venezuela's major source of revenue. 

OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

Yeah, like HRC as Secretary of State. 

Here's the difference.  Industry requires competence that results in (hate to use it again) efficiency and productivity.  In Socialist Venezuela, by nationalizing the oil industry and replacing those who possess the necessary talents with "cronies and sycophants", efficiency and productivity was lost.  The result was the lose of Venezuela's major source of revenue. 

Capitalism survives by selling people what they need and/or want.  Government central planning says, "this is what you're getting." 

I might add that Venezuela should have done as the old Soviet Union did and at least allow a little capitalism for the farms. If the Soviets had not allowed people access to a few percent of the farmland to grow whatever the farmer could sell for a profit, the Soviets would have all starved to death.

Hedrick Smith wrote in The Russians (1976) that, according to Soviet statistics, one fourth of the value of agricultural production in 1973 was produced on the private plots peasants were allowed (2% of the whole arable land).[18] In the 1980s, 3% of the land was in private plots which produced more than a quarter of the total agricultural output.[19] i.e. private plots produced somewhere around 1600% and 1100% as much as common ownership plots in 1973 and 1980. Soviet figures claimed that the Soviets produced 20–25% as much as the U.S. per farmer in the 1980s.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_Union#cite_note-18

Stanky posted:

I might add that Venezuela should have done as the old Soviet Union did and at least allow a little capitalism for the farms. If the Soviets had not allowed people access to a few percent of the farmland to grow whatever the farmer could sell for a profit, the Soviets would have all starved to death.

Hedrick Smith wrote in The Russians (1976) that, according to Soviet statistics, one fourth of the value of agricultural production in 1973 was produced on the private plots peasants were allowed (2% of the whole arable land).[18] In the 1980s, 3% of the land was in private plots which produced more than a quarter of the total agricultural output.[19] i.e. private plots produced somewhere around 1600% and 1100% as much as common ownership plots in 1973 and 1980. Soviet figures claimed that the Soviets produced 20–25% as much as the U.S. per farmer in the 1980s.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...t_Union#cite_note-18

Before the Bolsheviks, czarist Russia was a major exporter of wheat. In southwestern Russia, there were numerous food riots in Rostov-on-Don towards the end of the Soviet Union.  A few years ago, private farmers purchased John Deere equipment. Now, the area produces so much, they may export.  

OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
Stanky posted:

The only thing I might add is that most modern countries have a semi-socialist economic system where bureaucratic control of the means of production and property is considered enough. Increasing laws and regulations are enough to slowly cause economies to slowly degrade as was seen in Venezuela to a point where true socialism comes about. It seems that it is easy to vote oneself into socialist hell, but one usually has to shoot ones way out of it. The Brits almost went full socialist in the 70s, but they saved themselves with the election of PM Margaret Thatcher and the sacking of Labour Party MPs.

Central planning is the means of control in socialist/communist countries.  As if government bureaucrats can tell a farmer when and what he must plant.  In Venezuela, they cut down all the sugar cane and planted corn.  No one told the bureaucrats that corn likes its feet dry.  I've seen that same stupid trick from Cuba to Nicaragua.  The government rewarded its cronies and sycophants with positions in the oil industry -- firing the competent personnel.  Built one dam to provide most of their power.  Few years ago, there were several drought.  No water, no power. Too bad, they didn't have backup plants that burned oil or natural gas.  Besides more oil than the Saudis, Venezuela is the 8th ranked for NG.  Recently, the blackouts are more a failure to repair equipment.  

We see the same 'tricks' here in the US. Awarding positions to family and cronies, who are obviously clueless about how to run any government agency and firing competent personnel.

Yeah, like HRC as Secretary of State. 

Here's the difference.  Industry requires competence that results in (hate to use it again) efficiency and productivity.  In Socialist Venezuela, by nationalizing the oil industry and replacing those who possess the necessary talents with "cronies and sycophants", efficiency and productivity was lost.  The result was the lose of Venezuela's major source of revenue. 

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

The rabbit hole is deep.  Still doesn't answer the question why we can't have a system like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway as L Cranston pointed out.

OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Naio posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

The rabbit hole is deep.  Still doesn't answer the question why we can't have a system like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway as L Cranston pointed out.

Well yes, we can tax ourselves more and we can give up stuff like homes in the suburbs with cars in the drive for apartments and mass transit. It's a choice for the voters to make.

Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world, which is often mentioned as one of the biggest objections against the Danish welfare model. The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Danish income taxes are based on a progressive tax system, so if you make more than 61,500 euros (about $67,000) per year, an additional tax rate of 7 percent is added over this threshold.

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...-high-rates-of-taxes

I might also add that there are a whole host of other taxes to consider, like VAT taxes and other consumption taxes. A few years ago I read where one might buy a Honda Accord in the US for around $25K, but in Denmark for the same car I think it went for >$50K with all the other taxes and fees.

 

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

The rabbit hole is deep.  Still doesn't answer the question why we can't have a system like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway as L Cranston pointed out.

Well yes, we can tax ourselves more and we can give up stuff like homes in the suburbs with cars in the drive for apartments and mass transit. It's a choice for the voters to make.

Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world, which is often mentioned as one of the biggest objections against the Danish welfare model. The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Danish income taxes are based on a progressive tax system, so if you make more than 61,500 euros (about $67,000) per year, an additional tax rate of 7 percent is added over this threshold.

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...-high-rates-of-taxes

I might also add that there are a whole host of other taxes to consider, like VAT taxes and other consumption taxes. A few years ago I read where one might buy a Honda Accord in the US for around $25K, but in Denmark for the same car I think it went for >$50K with all the other taxes and fees.

 

Is that the only solution?

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

The rabbit hole is deep.  Still doesn't answer the question why we can't have a system like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway as L Cranston pointed out.

Well yes, we can tax ourselves more and we can give up stuff like homes in the suburbs with cars in the drive for apartments and mass transit. It's a choice for the voters to make.

Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world, which is often mentioned as one of the biggest objections against the Danish welfare model. The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Danish income taxes are based on a progressive tax system, so if you make more than 61,500 euros (about $67,000) per year, an additional tax rate of 7 percent is added over this threshold.

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...-high-rates-of-taxes

I might also add that there are a whole host of other taxes to consider, like VAT taxes and other consumption taxes. A few years ago I read where one might buy a Honda Accord in the US for around $25K, but in Denmark for the same car I think it went for >$50K with all the other taxes and fees.

 

Is that the only solution?

I'm sure you can find a politician who will claim to have the best magic wand around, but the outcome for the US could be far worse. Remember that most of those countries have a seven decade head start on nationalizing healthcare when things were much cheaper. Also right now it's not working out so great for those counties either with the influx of immigrants without job skills; as a noted economist pointed out, one can either have open borders or a welfare system but one can't have both. Also the means for most of those countries to pay for the "free stuff", North Sea oil, is playing out.

L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Almost every Presidential Administration keeps at hand a military option for some crisis in the world.  Obama did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...ran-not-a-bluff.html

A President making such a statement is not the cause of the destabilization of a government.  In Venezuela, the destabilization of the government came before Trump, Tillerson or Pompeo made such statements from internal discontent amongst the general population due to food, water and energy shortages and hyperinflation caused by the Socialist regime in Venezuela. 

OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Almost every Presidential Administration keeps at hand a military option for some crisis in the world.  Obama did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...ran-not-a-bluff.html

A President making such a statement is not the cause of the destabilization of a government.  In Venezuela, the destabilization of the government came before Trump, Tillerson or Pompeo made such statements from internal discontent amongst the general population due to food, water and energy shortages and hyperinflation caused by the Socialist regime in Venezuela. 

I'm so glad you understand what is hurting the Venezuelan population, but EXACTLY WHO forbid Venezuela’s state-owned oil company from doing business with most US companies (except Chevron and Halliburton)? Who handed over the money held by the US to a self-inaugurated president? BTW, that same self-inaugurated president is now privatizing Venezuela's State Oil company to maximize US Oil companies profits at the cost of the local people.

I wonder if any POTUS has ever tried a coup in Venezuela?

I wonder who buys most of their oil?

I wonder how long Republicans have been trying to take over Venezuela? 20 years? 50 years?

After the Republicans found out all that US oil was under Iraq's sand, we've been fighting them for it....

How did all that US oil get put under Venezuela?

Follow the greed and you always find the Republicans.

L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Almost every Presidential Administration keeps at hand a military option for some crisis in the world.  Obama did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...ran-not-a-bluff.html

A President making such a statement is not the cause of the destabilization of a government.  In Venezuela, the destabilization of the government came before Trump, Tillerson or Pompeo made such statements from internal discontent amongst the general population due to food, water and energy shortages and hyperinflation caused by the Socialist regime in Venezuela. 

I'm so glad you understand what is hurting the Venezuelan population, but EXACTLY WHO forbid Venezuela’s state-owned oil company from doing business with most US companies (except Chevron and Halliburton)? Who handed over the money held by the US to a self-inaugurated president? BTW, that same self-inaugurated president is now privatizing Venezuela's State Oil company to maximize US Oil companies profits at the cost of the local people.

I wonder if any POTUS has ever tried a coup in Venezuela?

I wonder who buys most of their oil?

I wonder how long Republicans have been trying to take over Venezuela? 20 years? 50 years?

After the Republicans found out all that US oil was under Iraq's sand, we've been fighting them for it....

How did all that US oil get put under Venezuela?

Follow the greed and you always find the Republicans.

I just don't know if you're just bat-scat crazy, stoopid, or both. Have you ever heard of the oil company Citgo?

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States-based refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products.[3] Headquartered in the Energy Corridor area of Houston, it is majority-owned by PDVSA, a state-owned company of the Venezuelan government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo

 

 

<input class="toctogglecheckbox" id="toctogglecheckbox" style="display: none;" type="checkbox" />
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Almost every Presidential Administration keeps at hand a military option for some crisis in the world.  Obama did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...ran-not-a-bluff.html

A President making such a statement is not the cause of the destabilization of a government.  In Venezuela, the destabilization of the government came before Trump, Tillerson or Pompeo made such statements from internal discontent amongst the general population due to food, water and energy shortages and hyperinflation caused by the Socialist regime in Venezuela. 

I'm so glad you understand what is hurting the Venezuelan population, but EXACTLY WHO forbid Venezuela’s state-owned oil company from doing business with most US companies (except Chevron and Halliburton)? Who handed over the money held by the US to a self-inaugurated president? BTW, that same self-inaugurated president is now privatizing Venezuela's State Oil company to maximize US Oil companies profits at the cost of the local people.

I wonder if any POTUS has ever tried a coup in Venezuela?

I wonder who buys most of their oil?

I wonder how long Republicans have been trying to take over Venezuela? 20 years? 50 years?

After the Republicans found out all that US oil was under Iraq's sand, we've been fighting them for it....

How did all that US oil get put under Venezuela?

Follow the greed and you always find the Republicans.

I just don't know if you're just bat-scat crazy, stoopid, or both. Have you ever heard of the oil company Citgo?

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States-based refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products.[3] Headquartered in the Energy Corridor area of Houston, it is majority-owned by PDVSA, a state-owned company of the Venezuelan government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo

 

 

<input class="toctogglecheckbox" id="toctogglecheckbox" style="display: none;" type="checkbox" />

Oil from Venezuela is still being shipped to CITGO refineries in the US to avoid disruption in the petroleum market.  However, payments go to a blocked account. I believe the shippers and US based expenses are paid out of the account.  However, nothing goes to Venezuela, for now, as part of the sanctions.  There are only about three refineries in the Western Hemisphere outside the USA that can handle the very heavy Venezuelan oil. One in Venezuela, which can't keep up production due to lack of maintenance and competent personnel. One is located in the Dutch Antilles. The third is located in Cienfuegos, Cuba. Originally built by the Soviets, the Chinese spent millions to modernize it.

Venezuela ships oil to Russia and China to repay massive debt. Also, ships to India, which is one of the few buyers that pay Venezuela. The transportation expenses must eat up most of the profit.  China must pump the oil inland to their refineries that can process heavy oil. 

Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Almost every Presidential Administration keeps at hand a military option for some crisis in the world.  Obama did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...ran-not-a-bluff.html

A President making such a statement is not the cause of the destabilization of a government.  In Venezuela, the destabilization of the government came before Trump, Tillerson or Pompeo made such statements from internal discontent amongst the general population due to food, water and energy shortages and hyperinflation caused by the Socialist regime in Venezuela. 

I'm so glad you understand what is hurting the Venezuelan population, but EXACTLY WHO forbid Venezuela’s state-owned oil company from doing business with most US companies (except Chevron and Halliburton)? Who handed over the money held by the US to a self-inaugurated president? BTW, that same self-inaugurated president is now privatizing Venezuela's State Oil company to maximize US Oil companies profits at the cost of the local people.

I wonder if any POTUS has ever tried a coup in Venezuela?

I wonder who buys most of their oil?

I wonder how long Republicans have been trying to take over Venezuela? 20 years? 50 years?

After the Republicans found out all that US oil was under Iraq's sand, we've been fighting them for it....

How did all that US oil get put under Venezuela?

Follow the greed and you always find the Republicans.

I just don't know if you're just bat-scat crazy, stoopid, or both. Have you ever heard of the oil company Citgo?

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States-based refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products.[3] Headquartered in the Energy Corridor area of Houston, it is majority-owned by PDVSA, a state-owned company of the Venezuelan government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo

 

 

<input class="toctogglecheckbox" id="toctogglecheckbox" style="display: none;" type="checkbox" />

I don't know if you're just uniformed or just ignorant or just a mindless stooge, but you are aware Citgo is being forced into bankruptcy and auctioned off, right?

The funny thing about trying to insult someone, you should know more than they do, first. Idiot.

This isn't the first attempted Coup by Republicans in Venezuela.  Bush tried in 2002. The only difference, this time they aren't trying to hide it.

Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

The rabbit hole is deep.  Still doesn't answer the question why we can't have a system like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway as L Cranston pointed out.

Well yes, we can tax ourselves more and we can give up stuff like homes in the suburbs with cars in the drive for apartments and mass transit. It's a choice for the voters to make.

Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world, which is often mentioned as one of the biggest objections against the Danish welfare model. The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Danish income taxes are based on a progressive tax system, so if you make more than 61,500 euros (about $67,000) per year, an additional tax rate of 7 percent is added over this threshold.

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...-high-rates-of-taxes

I might also add that there are a whole host of other taxes to consider, like VAT taxes and other consumption taxes. A few years ago I read where one might buy a Honda Accord in the US for around $25K, but in Denmark for the same car I think it went for >$50K with all the other taxes and fees.

 

Is that the only solution?

I'm sure you can find a politician who will claim to have the best magic wand around, but the outcome for the US could be far worse. Remember that most of those countries have a seven decade head start on nationalizing healthcare when things were much cheaper. Also right now it's not working out so great for those counties either with the influx of immigrants without job skills; as a noted economist pointed out, one can either have open borders or a welfare system but one can't have both. Also the means for most of those countries to pay for the "free stuff", North Sea oil, is playing out.

That's what happened to Venezuela.  The price of oil dropped and sanctions were placed on the government.

Seven decades ago, this country was still segregated. UHC wasn't happening then.  Seven decades later: now we can't have UHC because of immigrants...

The influx of immigrants was caused by regime change wars.  The trillions of dollars the US spent in Afghanistan and Iraq could've went towards universal healthcare.

I sense a pattern.

L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Almost every Presidential Administration keeps at hand a military option for some crisis in the world.  Obama did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...ran-not-a-bluff.html

A President making such a statement is not the cause of the destabilization of a government.  In Venezuela, the destabilization of the government came before Trump, Tillerson or Pompeo made such statements from internal discontent amongst the general population due to food, water and energy shortages and hyperinflation caused by the Socialist regime in Venezuela. 

I'm so glad you understand what is hurting the Venezuelan population, but EXACTLY WHO forbid Venezuela’s state-owned oil company from doing business with most US companies (except Chevron and Halliburton)? Who handed over the money held by the US to a self-inaugurated president? BTW, that same self-inaugurated president is now privatizing Venezuela's State Oil company to maximize US Oil companies profits at the cost of the local people.

I wonder if any POTUS has ever tried a coup in Venezuela?

I wonder who buys most of their oil?

I wonder how long Republicans have been trying to take over Venezuela? 20 years? 50 years?

After the Republicans found out all that US oil was under Iraq's sand, we've been fighting them for it....

How did all that US oil get put under Venezuela?

Follow the greed and you always find the Republicans.

I just don't know if you're just bat-scat crazy, stoopid, or both. Have you ever heard of the oil company Citgo?

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States-based refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products.[3] Headquartered in the Energy Corridor area of Houston, it is majority-owned by PDVSA, a state-owned company of the Venezuelan government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo

 

 

<input class="toctogglecheckbox" id="toctogglecheckbox" style="display: none;" type="checkbox" />

I don't know if you're just uniformed or just ignorant or just a mindless stooge, but you are aware Citgo is being forced into bankruptcy and auctioned off, right?

The funny thing about trying to insult someone, you should know more than they do, first. Idiot.

This isn't the first attempted Coup by Republicans in Venezuela.  Bush tried in 2002. The only difference, this time they aren't trying to hide it.

The CIA did know about the plot, but Chavez was warned before hand and the coup leaders were not supported afterwards. Bush should get credit for much of the grief caused by Chavez-Maduro dictatorship because he could have nipped it in the bud by supporting the coup leaders.

However, the United States repeatedly informed the Venezuelan opposition that they would not be supported if there were a coup,[27][54] warned the Chávez government of the plot[25] and following the coup attempt, President George W. Bush denied the United States' involvement.[151]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ote-McCaughan2010-25

As far as Venezuelan oil, Citgo can't refine what doesn't get pumped out of the ground. I believe much or most of Citgo is mortgaged to the Russians by the Venezuelan government. It ain't the US that benefits from the collapse of Venezuela, but go back to listening to the voices in your head.

 

Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
Stanky posted:
Naio posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

The rabbit hole is deep.  Still doesn't answer the question why we can't have a system like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway as L Cranston pointed out.

Well yes, we can tax ourselves more and we can give up stuff like homes in the suburbs with cars in the drive for apartments and mass transit. It's a choice for the voters to make.

Denmark has one of the highest tax rates in the world, which is often mentioned as one of the biggest objections against the Danish welfare model. The average annual income in Denmark is about 39,000 euros (nearly $43,000) and as such, the average Dane pays a total amount of 45 percent in income taxes. Danish income taxes are based on a progressive tax system, so if you make more than 61,500 euros (about $67,000) per year, an additional tax rate of 7 percent is added over this threshold.

https://www.usnews.com/news/be...-high-rates-of-taxes

I might also add that there are a whole host of other taxes to consider, like VAT taxes and other consumption taxes. A few years ago I read where one might buy a Honda Accord in the US for around $25K, but in Denmark for the same car I think it went for >$50K with all the other taxes and fees.

 

Is that the only solution?

I'm sure you can find a politician who will claim to have the best magic wand around, but the outcome for the US could be far worse. Remember that most of those countries have a seven decade head start on nationalizing healthcare when things were much cheaper. Also right now it's not working out so great for those counties either with the influx of immigrants without job skills; as a noted economist pointed out, one can either have open borders or a welfare system but one can't have both. Also the means for most of those countries to pay for the "free stuff", North Sea oil, is playing out.

That's what happened to Venezuela.  The price of oil dropped and sanctions were placed on the government.

Seven decades ago, this country was still segregated. UHC wasn't happening then.  Seven decades later: now we can't have UHC because of immigrants...

The influx of immigrants was caused by regime change wars.  The trillions of dollars the US spent in Afghanistan and Iraq could've went towards universal healthcare.

I sense a pattern.

I might point out the majority of the wave of immigrants storming Europe happened in Ol'bama's time. I sense a pattern as well. If you think that politicians on the left can fund free things because their magical flying ponies can crap gold bullion and pee rainbows, that's fine by me. 

Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
Stanky posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:
OldSalt posted:
L. Cranston posted:

Destabilization of the Venezuelan Government is the major source of problems. Republicans can own that one, too.

Are you talking about the sanctions against Venezuela's government officials and supporters?  That started in 2015 under the Obama administration.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...uela-executive-order

 

No, I mean Trump casually mentioning a 'military option' for Venezuela, in August, or when Tillerson, then Sec of State, spoke about a military ousting of President Maduro. Like I said, Republicans need to own their actions.

Almost every Presidential Administration keeps at hand a military option for some crisis in the world.  Obama did:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/0...ran-not-a-bluff.html

A President making such a statement is not the cause of the destabilization of a government.  In Venezuela, the destabilization of the government came before Trump, Tillerson or Pompeo made such statements from internal discontent amongst the general population due to food, water and energy shortages and hyperinflation caused by the Socialist regime in Venezuela. 

I'm so glad you understand what is hurting the Venezuelan population, but EXACTLY WHO forbid Venezuela’s state-owned oil company from doing business with most US companies (except Chevron and Halliburton)? Who handed over the money held by the US to a self-inaugurated president? BTW, that same self-inaugurated president is now privatizing Venezuela's State Oil company to maximize US Oil companies profits at the cost of the local people.

I wonder if any POTUS has ever tried a coup in Venezuela?

I wonder who buys most of their oil?

I wonder how long Republicans have been trying to take over Venezuela? 20 years? 50 years?

After the Republicans found out all that US oil was under Iraq's sand, we've been fighting them for it....

How did all that US oil get put under Venezuela?

Follow the greed and you always find the Republicans.

I just don't know if you're just bat-scat crazy, stoopid, or both. Have you ever heard of the oil company Citgo?

Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo) is a United States-based refiner, transporter and marketer of transportation fuels, lubricants, petrochemicals and other industrial products.[3] Headquartered in the Energy Corridor area of Houston, it is majority-owned by PDVSA, a state-owned company of the Venezuelan government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citgo

 

 

<input class="toctogglecheckbox" id="toctogglecheckbox" style="display: none;" type="checkbox" />

I don't know if you're just uniformed or just ignorant or just a mindless stooge, but you are aware Citgo is being forced into bankruptcy and auctioned off, right?

The funny thing about trying to insult someone, you should know more than they do, first. Idiot.

This isn't the first attempted Coup by Republicans in Venezuela.  Bush tried in 2002. The only difference, this time they aren't trying to hide it.

The CIA did know about the plot, but Chavez was warned before hand and the coup leaders were not supported afterwards. Bush should get credit for much of the grief caused by Chavez-Maduro dictatorship because he could have nipped it in the bud by supporting the coup leaders.

However, the United States repeatedly informed the Venezuelan opposition that they would not be supported if there were a coup,[27][54] warned the Chávez government of the plot[25] and following the coup attempt, President George W. Bush denied the United States' involvement.[151]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ote-McCaughan2010-25

As far as Venezuelan oil, Citgo can't refine what doesn't get pumped out of the ground. I believe much or most of Citgo is mortgaged to the Russians by the Venezuelan government. It ain't the US that benefits from the collapse of Venezuela, but go back to listening to the voices in your head.

 

You're stating 'what you believe' and telling me I'm listening to the voices in my head??? Really??? Keep that Republican Propaganda spinning. Republican Policy never works for long and the Democrats will come in and clean up the mess, as usual.

BTW, I suggest you read the "foot notes" in your own source. Many of the 2002 US players in the attempted coup were from the Iran Contra scandal, under Reagan. What would link all that to Bush? Oh, I don't know, perhaps Cheney? And that would bring us back to Halliburton.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×