NEWSFLASH ANTI-CHAVISTAS!: World Bank: Venezuela decreased poverty!!!!

[leftchick]

Now isn't that a shock??

http://venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1979

World Bank: Venezuela decreased poverty

“Venezuela has achieved substantial improvements in the fight against poverty. The statistical evidence that we have compiled shows that from 1995 to 2005 the number of homes under the poverty line has decreased,” stated the World Bank.

The organization said that in these years the number of homes in poverty decreased from more than 40% to 30%

It described this advance as important and stated that it is related to Venezuelans’ higher income levels and as a result of the social missions.


The Bank explained that there is still a long way to go because “the objective is to not have anyone below the poverty line and Venezuela is a petroleum country that is going through a time of high international oil prices and because of this should apply all these resources to poverty elimination.”

These statements were made during consultations which took place yesterday.…, which will be jointly developed with the Planning Ministry, will be a step towards the design of a new cooperation strategy between the Bank and the country.

“The goal, in addition to conducting an analysis of the different priorities in the region, is to learn the opinions of representatives from different sectors in Zulia concerning the role of the institution in the nation and concerning the different options for cooperation,” Varela, said.

[EFerrari]

1. K&R

:hi:

[flyarm]

2. gee did the USA'S poverty level go down??hahahahaha..yeah

like wolfowitz would tell us the truth!! lolololololo...

fly

[TankLV]

3. So much for the trolls: "But he's buying weapons instead of using it for

poverty programs!" lies!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

TRUTH = ABOUT 100

Anti-Chavezistas = ZIP.

[Judi Lynn]

22. You've got THAT right! Woooohoooooooooo! Score one for the right side.n/t

[leftchick]

26. anti-chavezistas!

crap! I spelled it wrong in my headline! :(

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Snaggletooth]

5. I love it! Buy Citgo and just say no to poverty. (n/t)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Now there's something you don't see everyday..... K&RRRRRED

[originalpckelly]

7. I can't believe it...

I thought socialist programs didn't work? Hmmm, someone has some splainin' do.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Those numbers can't be right

I thought Chavez hated poor people and was only interested in making money for himself.

He must have bribed the World Bank to say that.

Such an evil man.

[LittleClarkie]

9. Too binary, and too much like how Bush supporters talk about him

You either love the dude to death, or you're a hater who needs to shut up.

Surely a difference of opinion can be tolerated, and surely the man does not walk on water. Is there nothing he has done that can be critiqued without the critic being called an anti-Chavista.

He is neither Satan nor God's gift to mankind. People may like his bombastic style. Others don't care for it.

[1932]

18. The point isn't that differences of opinion should be tolerated.

It's that people should know the facts and have informed opinions.

I tolerate everyone's right to have an informed opinion, sure. But if they're going to spread uninformed opinions then they're going to have to put up with hearing about the facts and they're going to have refrain from calling the dissemination of information 'intolerance.'

[JanMichael]

10. The World Bank is a Communist Front Organisation!

Don't believe the lies!

[Joe Chi Minh]

52. Tee Hee!

[LoZoccolo]

11. So?

That doesn't have anything to do with the things we criticize him for.

The right wing likes to say that there are schools in Iraq and women can vote and thus it justifies the war.

[Greyhound]

16. There are a few schools open and women can vote if they survive

until election day.

That's hardly the situation in Venezuela.

[LoZoccolo]

17. You either don't get it or are dodging it.

The point is that positive developments do not erase deliberate egregious negative ones.

[Greyhound]

21. Of course they don't, but you won't tell us what those would be.

Just tell us what is so horrible about him.

[1932]

23. The risk of making specific claims: they can be refuted specifically.

So, for some it's more effective just to post "vibes," feelings and opinions and then label challenges as intollerance of differences of opinion.

[Judi Lynn]

25. Don't forget the over-used, and trite, "I just have a gut feeling about

the guy."

When asked for specific reasons, they seem so vague.......

It's hard for some of them to work up a lot of hatred, because they haven't read enough right-wing, racist, xenophobic ravings. They just know their lunatic fringe associates don't like him, and feel they need to join the group.

[1932]

27. ...and then there's the "Venezuelan girlfriend."

The siren song of the right wing Latina (real or imaginary) is the most powerful mind-numbing and mind-controlling device known to man.

However, after intense ridicule of that "device" here at DU, she seems to have been removed from the (uhm?) reality of people's lives (or, perhaps more accurately, arsenal of rhetorical devices).

[1932]

24. The risk of making specific claims: they can be refuted specifically.

So, for some it's more effective just to post "vibes," feelings and opinions and then label challenges as intollerance of differences of opinion.

[LoZoccolo]

30. You have a star, do a search on author: LoZoccolo and subject: Chavez.

Make the range about two or three months. If you're not going to reference the anti-Chavez threads in your OP, I don't feel any particular responsibility to point them out to you. Your OP relied on a strawman, I took down the strawman, and that's what this thread is about. If you want to talk about something else, fine, but I'm not going to beg someone to pay attention to my opinion when they've shown a penchant for trying to change the subject as you do with your OP.

[Greyhound]

36. Pretty clumsy evasion.

Strawman: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=strawman

Accompanied by false accusations pretty well sums up this "argument"

[LoZoccolo]

39. Dredge up anything - anything I've written - and then tell me...

...how reducing poverty is supposed to make up for it, or serves as a good excuse. I'm putting the power in your hands! You'll recall that I actually invited you to look up my anti-Chavez threads. That's pretty far from a dodge.

All I'm saying is I'm not going to put much effort toward arguing with someone who started out criticizing us in a manner completely devoid of any shred of our concerns about Chavez. Like why would you even think that's compelling? I have plenty of reasons to distrust him and I've brought them up and told you how you can see them as well. If the OP doesn't have anything to do with those concerns, how can you expect me or anyone else to be swayed by it at all? I don't understand that.

I think the strawman was that we were saying that Chavez couldn't reduce poverty, and I don't think I ever said that, did I? Did anyone? But feel free to point out if I did and I was wrong.

But the ball's in your court. You can bring up anything you want, so why don't you do it?

[Greyhound]

41. Well it is a slow day @ work, so I decided to check out your claims

Searched all the way back to January. In the 10 messages found in the Big Forums search 100% of your posts and replies are negative toward Chavez and when pressed to back your assertions you have provided only two links.

1.) FAUX NEWS - Chavez Says He May Seek 'Indefinite' Re-election http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194519,00.html
A notoriously slanted and inaccurate source (BTW he hasn't)

2.) A dead link to an apparently dead site http://www.nysun.com/article/31410 with the purported headline - "Chavez Threatens To Blow Up Oil Fields If America Attacks"

So I ask again, what is so bad about Chavez that you are dedicated to smearing him at every opportunity with vague innuendo and referral to rumors?

To reiterate my position, I don't know whether he is good or bad (most likely somewhere in the middle), but he does seem to be the only leader that gives a shit about his people south of the Canadian border.

[LoZoccolo]

43. Oh don't even.

1. The issue of Fox News' credibility as it relates to that article is well-adressed in that post, yet you chose to ignore that and make the charge that the article even came from Fox News (it didn't).

2. You will also see that I managed to post another link to the second story as well as where you could find 114 others. You chose to ignore that.

Now you can see why I would not waste time being sent on a wild goose chase by someone who is showing me examples of how they aren't really interested in this discussion. If you were, you wouldn't use so many disingenuous tactics in trying to push your point. Why would I spend time looking up my old arguments with someone who's doing stuff like this? Why would I spend much time even talking to them? Why would you even think I'd be convinced by stuff like this?

Besides, I gave much better reasons than #2.

[Greyhound]

44. I don't know why your search turns up so many results when mine returns

<25 and of those, only two had link or source. Since you refuse to provide any reason beyond hyperbole and innuendo...

{end Sub_Thread}

[file83]

46. Way to go greyhound1966!! You just smoked this guy...

...and dumped the ashes. :thumbsup:

[1932]

59. A kick for the smoke.

Excellent job.

[LostinVA]

54. What negative ones? LInks?

[1932]

19. Remind again what it is that you criticize him for doing?

Being anti-American? (When he visited NY and the UN he seemed to love America and the American crowds loved him.)

Having a big ego? (What politician doesn't?)

Being fat? (Which he isn't.)

Those are the three most frequent criticisms I see on DU. All that pales in comparison to building a functioning, democratic, fair society in Venezuela.

[LoZoccolo]

31. You need to donate to DU so you can do a search.

Your three arguments are strawmen. There have been many more criticisms. But I'm not going to look things up for you because you can't do a search. If you donate to DU, it will allow you to look up what I've written in the past about Chavez, and if you'd like to debate any of those you can do so. But don't make up three points and claim victory.

[file83]

49. LoZoccolo - you are so transparent. You have NO valid claims against

Chavez. You say you don't want to "waste" your time specifically laying out your argument, yet you have posted over and over and over again telling people to seek out your posts somewhere on the DU that back up YOUR claims.

Why is it so hard for you to search out the posts you made and simply post a link to them? Oh, I know, it's not your job, right? What a joke.

In fact, "greyhound1966" did look up your posts and showed you had NO valid claims.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1368957&mesg_id=1374588

Until you can actually manifest your ambiguous claims into something solid, I'll continue with my knowledge that Chavez, while not perfect, is not the demonized tyrant people like you childishly claim.

[LoZoccolo]

55. Sure I do.

They're there, he just didn't list them. Plus read my response to the two things he posted. I'm not going on a wild goose chase trying to convince someone who's going to either cheat or not put any effort into understanding.

Maybe he needs to set the search parameters to go back farther. But like, if he's not even going to try that, is he really trying to understand where I'm coming from? And if not, why would I spend so much time on this?

The OP was adressed to people like me, to try to convince me that I shouldn't be down on Chavez. Well guess what? I'm not convinced due to the fact that it didn't address any of my criticisms. That's really all there is to it. If someone wants to convince me that something I believe is wrong, they'll have to find out what I believe first. I don't see anyone doing that here. I see one guy trying to say I said only a couple things and doing so disingenuously. That doesn't convince me. If someone wants to start a thread to convince me Chavez is a good guy, they'll have to find out why I don't like that he's the President of Venezuela. If they won't do that, then they can't count on convincing me of anything.

If you want my opinion, I've told you where you can get it. If you don't care, then don't look for it. But I'll keep it for as long as someone convinces me otherwise.

[Greyhound]

35. Red Herring alert.

From the Fallacy Files (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html)
"a "red herring" argument is one which distracts the audience from the issue in question through the introduction of some irrelevancy"

[LoZoccolo]

40. She adressed "anti-Chavistas" like that was supposed to refute us.

And I'm saying...refutes what? I don't think any of us claimed he couldn't do that, and really even if we did, that's the least of our criticisms. Like how is that supposed to convince us not to be "anti-Chavistas"?

[ShaneGR]

12. I have no problem with Chavez as long as he observes Venezuelan law...

That includes term limits for their presidents. If he makes himself a president for life, then I have a big problem with him.

[1932]

20. If they do a reverse-FDR and constitutionally remove or extend term limits

would you have a problem with that?

[ShaneGR]

32. Yes, I would....

Too drastic, if the Republicans did a reverse FDR and changed the constitution would you have a problem with that?

[Bridget Burke]

34. If the Republicans did a reverse FDR....

Bill Clinton would be our next President.

So, it won't happen.

[ShaneGR]

42. Didn't really address the question.... nt

[Joe Chi Minh]

53. It didn't need to. Anyway, Bush didn't win either election, so what

are you drivelling on about?

[1932]

58. Why don't you have faith that they wrote a constitution that they want

to live with?

They've decided (as we have) that the consitution shouldn't be a static document and have provided legal means to change it.

If anyone (Repub or Dem) ACHIEVED a reverse FDR, it would be achieved through the mechanisms provided in the constitution.

The only thing I would hope for is that the referendum is held after a full debate of the issues and that voters make informed decisions.

I actually have more faith that there's a broad, informed debate on politics and society in Venezuela than I am that there's one in the US.

[peacetalksforall]

13. So when will the World Bank set objectives for the U.S.? nt

[Zhade]

14. Kick for truth

KICK

[Selatius]

15. Social spending is necessary for a healthy economy

Our government has failed us on that point. Tax cuts for the rich, deficits, the national debt, poor energy policy, the neoliberal free trade agenda with weak or no protections for workers or the environment, and a budget-draining war for no good reason.

At the very least, Chavez deserves due credit for moving in an alternative direction with respect to social spending.

[Greeby]

28. You can bet Wolfy was grinding his teeth as that statement went out

:bounce:

[malaise]

29. hahaha

You stole my post :D:

[rman]

37. kick

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. I'm not surprised! WTG, Hugo!

Now, where's Scoody-Boo when you need him?

It described this advance as important and stated that it is related to Venezuelans’ higher income levels and as a result of the social missions.

SOCIAL MISSIONS? Those commie pinko lefties!:sarcasm:

[Chomp]

38. Meeestar Booosh...

...huw r a dhhonkey!

[LibertyorDeath]

45. I see you've attracted some major troll shit with this Great News!

Kick & Rec!

[LibertyorDeath]

47. There are those who think they know more about this

than one of the most intelligent thinkers of our time.

They are of course WRONG.....

Chomsky on US hysteria about Chavez

Just keeping to oil alone, the major energy producer in the hemisphere is Venezuela. The US kicked the British out under Wilson -Woodrow Wilson - known as Wilsonion Idealism; they kicked the British out as soon as the oil age began because they knew that Venezuela had enormous oil resources. That meant supporting a bunch of utterly brutal dictators while Venezuela became, by 1928, the leading oil exporter in the world, and has remained very high.

Venezuela is now going towards independence and the United States is frantic. That’s why you have this hysteria about Chavez. It’s not because he’s attacking anyone or anything like that. It’s hysteria because he’s not following orders. That’s kind of like Serbia but much more serious because this is a big energy producer. Furthermore, it influences others. The major energy producer in South America second to Venezuela is Bolivia. What just happened there? They’re moving towards independence as well. And in fact the whole region from Venezuela down to Argentina is pretty much out of control, not totally, but pretty much.

The US in the past has had two fundamental mechanisms for controlling Latin America. One is violence, the other is economic strangulation. They’re both weakening. The last exercise of violence was in the year 2002, when in its dedication to democracy promotion, the US supported a military coup to overthrow the elected government of Venezuela. Well, they had to back down - for one thing because there was a popular uprising in Venezuela. But another reason was just the reaction in Latin America, where democracy is taken a lot more seriously than in North America and Europe. And people don’t think it’s amusing anymore to have elected governments overthrown by a military coup. So the US had to back down and turned to subversion instead, which is what’s going on now. That’s the last major use of violence. And so the US is preparing for more use of violence.

If you take a look at the number of US military personnel throughout Latin America, the military bases, the training of Latin American officers, that’s all going up, very sharply. In fact for the first time ever there are now more US military personnel in Latin America than personnel for the federal aid organizations. That never happened during the Cold War. Also, military training for Latin American officers, and you know what that means, military training is being shifted from the State Department to the Pentagon. That’s important.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1369291

[SeattleRob]

48. kick!

Viva Hugo!

[Zorra]

50. the number of homes in poverty decreased from more than 40% to 30%

That is really, really impressive.

Congratulations, Venezuela, you are setting an example for the entire world.

[Dorian Gray]

51. I don't particularly care about Chavez

as I am more concerned with the state of the USA. However, isn't it possible that his government is capable of both good and evil? Eradicating (or improving) poverty conditions while eroding the rights of those who oppose him? He doesn't have to be all good or all bad, does he?

Watching these arguments (pro or anti Chavez) is fascinating to me. He's inspirational in some areas, while he seems to need some improvement in others. I don't detest the man, nor do I hold him up as the beacon of hope for our future. He is what he is. A man who is doing what he can to improve his country while, at the same time, desperately trying to maintain control. Neither is all good nor all bad.

[Joanne98]

56. Socialism always reduces poverty.

Free-market, pro-growth conservatives always increase it. It really simple. God bless Hugo Chavez.

[nick303]

57. Can anyone solve this puzzle?

As you all know, there was a strike in PDVSA in 2002-03.

Also bear in mind the price being well above $60 at the moment (in 2004 dollars).






"Venezuela continues to be highly dependent on the petroleum sector, accounting for roughly one-third of GDP, around 80% of export earnings, and over half of government operating revenues."

Source