Chavez gives a big FU to US government by assisting MA citizens with cheap Oil

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Venezuela sending cheap oil to Massachusetts
Two nonprofit groups sign deal to aid low-income residents

QUINCY, Massachusetts (AP) -- Thousands of low-income Massachusetts residents will receive discounted home heating oil this winter under an agreement signed Tuesday with Venezuela, whose government is a political adversary of the Bush administration.

Citgo Petroleum Corp., a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, will supply oil at 40 percent below market prices.

It will be distributed by two nonprofit organizations, Citizens Energy Corp. and the Massachusetts Energy Consumers Alliance.

The agreement gives President Hugo Chavez's government standing as a provider of heating assistance to poor U.S. residents at a time when U.S. oil companies have been reluctant to do so and Congress has failed to expand aid in response to rising oil prices.

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, a Democrat, met with Chavez in August and helped broker the deal.

He said his constituents' needs for heating assistance trump any political points the Chavez administration can score.

"This is a humanitarian gesture," Delahunt said, speaking after a news conference with Venezuelan officials and others outside the home of a constituent in Quincy who will receive heating aid.

Citgo is the Houston, Texas-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company and has about 13,500 independently owned U.S. gas stations.

It is offering Massachusetts more than 12 million gallons of discounted heating oil over the next four months, starting in December.

The two nonprofit organizations will screen recipients for financial need and cooperate with oil distributors that will make discounted deliveries to qualifying homes and institutions, such as homeless shelters and hospitals.

Chavez proposed offering fuel directly to poor U.S. communities during a visit to Cuba in August.

He has said the aim is to bypass middlemen to reduce costs for the American poor -- a group he argues has been severely neglected by Bush's government.

Chavez has become one of Latin America's most vocal critics of U.S.-style capitalism, which he calls a major cause of poverty.

U.S. officials accuse Chavez of endangering Venezuelan democracy by assuming ever greater powers.

During a short-lived 2002 coup against Chavez, the U.S. government promptly recognized the new leaders, who were soon driven out amid a popular uprising.
 
I had heard of him stating he would do this (though just mentioned the u.s.), but its strange he'd pick such a wealthy state to start. I'm not saying we don't have plenty of poor, just that places like vermont are colder and poorer, and there are plenty poorer states out west that are very cold (north dakota, montana etc.).

Then again, MA is probably more receptive to chavez and these types of programs than many other states would be.
 
He wants to give heating assitence to poor people and he starts with one of the richest states? That makes a lot of sense...

Seems like a little politics is thrown in with his complementry oil. By the way seeing as how I don't follow international news but is he actually getting things turned around for the poor people in his own country that he has promised so much too?

Edit: Also it'd be nice if he wrote a letter to the owner of the citgo station down the street. That jerk always charges about 5-10 cents more than everyone else on the same street. Don't know how he stays in business unless the candy bars are actually solid gold or something.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Chavez has become one of Latin America's most vocal critics of U.S.-style capitalism, which he calls a major cause of poverty.[/QUOTE]
:whistle2:$
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']He wants to give heating assitence to poor people and he starts with one of the richest states? That makes a lot of sense...

Seems like a little politics is thrown in with his complementry oil. By the way seeing as how I don't follow international news but is he actually getting things turned around for the poor people in his own country that he has promised so much too?

Edit: Also it'd be nice if he wrote a letter to the owner of the citgo station down the street. That jerk always charges about 5-10 cents more than everyone else on the same street. Don't know how he stays in business unless the candy bars are actually solid gold or something.[/QUOTE]

If I remember correctly, the situation of the poor has improved very slightly, some argue its the same. But, the situation of the poor in surrounding countries has worsened. So it's reasonable to argue that if he wasn't president then the poor would have become poorer, that he did improve the poors lives relative to the current situation.

Chavez is a very large international figure, but he's struggling in venezuela.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If I remember correctly, the situation of the poor has improved very slightly, some argue its the same. But, the situation of the poor in surrounding countries has worsened. So it's reasonable to argue that if he wasn't president then the poor would have become poorer, that he did improve the poors lives relative to the current situation.

Chavez is a very large international figure, but he's struggling in venezuela.[/QUOTE]

Put simply that's a no then I take it? I mean did he improve the poor situation there relative to the other countries or are the other countries just getting poorer because they don't have an export that is in such high demand?

That's kind of what I thought was the case though. Seems like he's a big talker more than anything, which is ironic because that's just like most American politicians.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Put simply that's a no then I take it? I mean did he improve the poor situation there relative to the other countries or are the other countries just getting poorer because they don't have an export that is in such high demand?

That's kind of what I thought was the case though. Seems like he's a big talker more than anything, which is ironic because that's just like most American politicians.[/QUOTE]

Well, he is consolodating his power more and more all the time.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Well, he is consolodating his power more and more all the time.[/QUOTE]

While the people he promised great things to years ago still struggle everyday to make ends meet? That's an interesting way of looking at it all I guess. He is only in power there thanks to those people, but if I was them I'd be getting pretty impatient wondering when he's going to use that power to help them instead of trying to play international politics, if at all.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']While the people he promised great things to years ago still struggle everyday to make ends meet? That's an interesting way of looking at it all I guess. He is only in power there thanks to those people, but if I was them I'd be getting pretty impatient wondering when he's going to use that power to help them instead of trying to play international politics, if at all.[/QUOTE]

I'm starting to think that he may be in power for a long time. Either from a Mexican-style "democratic" election, or he may just forgo the rigged election and install himself as leader. Certainly would coincide with his current-day strong arm tactics. In the end, Chavez is a thug...a loud mouthed one at that.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Put simply that's a no then I take it? I mean did he improve the poor situation there relative to the other countries or are the other countries just getting poorer because they don't have an export that is in such high demand?

That's kind of what I thought was the case though. Seems like he's a big talker more than anything, which is ironic because that's just like most American politicians.[/QUOTE]

Well, Chavez was a poor aboriginal, so that alone means he's viewed different than the wealthy elites who always seem to win. He does have a direct interest in the poor.

Personally I think the oil is simply a means, I think he is preventing the poor from being worse off, as previous governments have shown them little concern. It's unlikely, considering the worldwide widening wealth gap, other governments would have done equal or better with the poor.

Overal I lack a real opinion on whether he's good or bad or somewhere in between. I also don't think he's someone you can reasonably have an all or none style opinion on.

But, in elections, you also have to realize that it's not being extremely popular that matters, just being the most popular out of the opponents. In many countries that's a significant difference.
 
Chavez is a Castro wannabe. This new move of trying to score political points against the U.S. by providing cheap oil to the richest country on Earth while his own nation's poverty is undeniable is sickening. Even worse, he's trying to spread his anti-democratic politics to neighboring countries, which are obviously far more susceptible to his machinations than we are. Perhaps it is the cursed oil - Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela - these aren't the nicest places in the world to live for the average person.

And his assertion that U.S.-style capitalism causes poverty is laughable in the face of overwhelming economic facts.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
And his assertion that U.S.-style capitalism causes poverty is laughable in the face of overwhelming economic facts.[/QUOTE]

?
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']?[/QUOTE]

Ever wonder why the poorest countries in the world are those that are the least economically free? Countries like North Korea and Cuba are not exactly home to booming economies. To specify the richest nation on Earth and the biggest economy, the U.S., as causing poverty through its massive wealth creation is beyond absurd.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ever wonder why the poorest countries in the world are those that are the least economically free? Countries like North Korea and Cuba are not exactly home to booming economies. To specify the richest nation on Earth and the biggest economy, the U.S., as causing poverty through its massive wealth creation is beyond absurd.[/QUOTE]

So you mean that US capitalism creates poverty at a lower rate than the rest of the world then?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Ever wonder why the poorest countries in the world are those that are the least economically free? Countries like North Korea and Cuba are not exactly home to booming economies. To specify the richest nation on Earth and the biggest economy, the U.S., as causing poverty through its massive wealth creation is beyond absurd.[/QUOTE]

But the middle ground, countires like sweden and denmark excel at this, have less economic freedom but much less poverty. The u.s. has an extremely high poverty rate, despite having the most wealth and being very economically free compared to other wealthy nations.

Though Cuba is debatable. Sure the overall economy was better under capitalism (with batista), but the population, particularly the poor, were poorer and lived in worse conditions. Many were illiterate as well. That's the problem with cuba, the alternative to Castro, what Castro overthrew, was worse. Maybe Batista's cuba may have made advancements, but I doubt it would have ended up better than most of south and central america where the poor often live horribly.

To suggest either system, because there are extremes, is worthless is pointless. The best system incorporates the good points of the opposing sides. Though there will always be disagreements over what negative is worth enduring for the benefit it creates.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
And his assertion that U.S.-style capitalism causes poverty is laughable in the face of overwhelming economic facts.[/QUOTE]


actually capitalism does cause poverty. I have read about tribes in the South Pacific who are "converted" to Christianity and adopt capitalitic beliefs and they crash and burn. Check out Tonga where there main source of income now is money sent from relatives who know live in America. Do you honestly think they had the problem before as an agrarian or hunter/gatherer society. Just because we are poor are better off than in communism as practiced countries does not mean that it still good. People are still suffering and unable to afford the basic necessities because our government doesnt care. There are still dead bodies in LA piled under rubble and FEMA has stopped Hurricane victims because they gave out a huge chunk of their funding in a Non-bid contract. Capitalism can blow donkey balls, if you are the lil guy.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Chavez is a Castro wannabe. This new move of trying to score political points against the U.S. by providing cheap oil to the richest country on Earth while his own nation's poverty is undeniable is sickening. Even worse, he's trying to spread his anti-democratic politics to neighboring countries, which are obviously far more susceptible to his machinations than we are. Perhaps it is the cursed oil - Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela - these aren't the nicest places in the world to live for the average person.[/QUOTE]

I'm inclined to agree. His proclomations on everything give him that self-righteous air that both Che and Castro have.

[quote name='elprincipe'] And his assertion that U.S.-style capitalism causes poverty is laughable in the face of overwhelming economic facts.[/QUOTE]

I'm inclined to disagree. Our system of Capitalism still allows competiting companies to crush each other. Granted, it's not like it was back in the late 19th century and early 20th, but people can still be easily crushed.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']actually capitalism does cause poverty. I have read about tribes in the South Pacific who are "converted" to Christianity and adopt capitalitic beliefs and they crash and burn. Check out Tonga where there main source of income now is money sent from relatives who know live in America. Do you honestly think they had the problem before as an agrarian or hunter/gatherer society.[/QUOTE]

I'd say a population increase is more likely for their current state than capitalism.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I'd say a population increase is more likely for their current state than capitalism.[/QUOTE]


they lived on their own for thousands of years and there was no population increase or need for money and things worked fine. Something had to change that, remember they were isolated for so long.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']they lived on their own for thousands of years and there was no population increase or need for money and things worked fine. Something had to change that, remember they were isolated for so long.[/QUOTE]

Well, virtually every society has some form of money. There was trade between the south pacific islands and other interaction as well. There probably was population increase as, excluding cases of mass disease or ecological destruction, this almost always occurred.
 
I think some people forget what "poor" means in this country as compared to most others. The worst-off folks in our country still get enough food to survive and have shelters provided. Most people below the poverty line, while not exactly living it up, are not starving to death and squatting in shantytowns. If you want real poor, check out a place like North Korea, the most economically backward nation on the planet, where millions have starved to death and had to resort in some cases to cannibalism in the streets. But at least they don't have the evils of capitalism, eh?
 
Well, probably 1% of the population is homeless sometime during the year (a calculated the statistics once), but I've heard up to 7 million. On any given day about 700,000 are homeless every day. So our poor don't always have shelter.

But again though, you're looking at an extreme. You'd be hard pressed to argue that the poor in our capitalist country are better off than the poor in sweden and denmark (the u.s. poverty rate is about triple), countries that, while capitalist, have strong socialist tendencies.
 
Massachusetts is not a "rich state". Its income statistics are higher, but the cost of living is much, much higher. Thats like calling NYC a rich city, sure they have some rich people, and average income is higher than average, but cost of living is insane, and there are tons of poor people there.

Massachusetts negotiated their own deal with Citgo, and since there are already organizations here that distribute discounted heating oil to the poor, the infrastructure and logistics are already there, things can be handled very quickly, and all Citgo needs to do is drop the oil off and let them handle the rest.

Any other state or group can negotiate with Citgo, they just haven't done so yet.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Massachusetts is not a "rich state". Its income statistics are higher, but the cost of living is much, much higher. Thats like calling NYC a rich city, sure they have some rich people, and average income is higher than average, but cost of living is insane, and there are tons of poor people there.

Massachusetts negotiated their own deal with Citgo, and since there are already organizations here that distribute discounted heating oil to the poor, the infrastructure and logistics are already there, things can be handled very quickly, and all Citgo needs to do is drop the oil off and let them handle the rest.

Any other state or group can negotiate with Citgo, they just haven't done so yet.[/QUOTE]

It's not just income, compare MA or most northeast states with just about any other state and the number of people living in what is considered below poverty rates is higher. NYC has many poor people and it also has many rich people, many cities in the south and central US just have alot of the poor or middle class with not so many of the rich. Don't forget there are almost as many poor people live in rural areas as there are in metropolitan cities. If you show me a statistic where MA would be outside the top 5 or 6 wealthiest states in the nation I'd be pretty suprised.

Also it's not as though MA officials came up with the idea, Citgo (aka Chavez's company) has had this idea for months and while I just read the posted report and the one in our local paper here about neither definitely said who approached who about starting negotiations. Perhaps other states tried to make a deal and where dealyed or side-stepped, or perhaps like you said they haven't stepped foward. I just find it odd that such a wealthy and democratic voting state gets the opening shot, maybe because they know that the Republican vote holds no water there they have no fear so to speak. If so more power to them I guess.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']It's not just income, compare MA or most northeast states with just about any other state and the number of people living in what is considered below poverty rates is higher. NYC has many poor people and it also has many rich people, many cities in the south and central US just have alot of the poor or middle class with not so many of the rich. Don't forget there are almost as many poor people live in rural areas as there are in metropolitan cities. If you show me a statistic where MA would be outside the top 5 or 6 wealthiest states in the nation I'd be pretty suprised.

Also it's not as though MA officials came up with the idea, Citgo (aka Chavez's company) has had this idea for months and while I just read the posted report and the one in our local paper here about neither definitely said who approached who about starting negotiations. Perhaps other states tried to make a deal and where dealyed or side-stepped, or perhaps like you said they haven't stepped foward. I just find it odd that such a wealthy and democratic voting state gets the opening shot, maybe because they know that the Republican vote holds no water there they have no fear so to speak. If so more power to them I guess.[/QUOTE]

Well, massachusetts would be one of the more likely once to work with a chavez type figure, and they are sympathetic to social programs for the poor. Wealth aside, I would expect MA to be one of the ones best suited for this program.

Though MA isn't as wealthy as the numbers indicate (due to cost of living), I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's not among the more well off areas.
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']It's not just income, compare MA or most northeast states with just about any other state and the number of people living in what is considered below poverty rates is higher. NYC has many poor people and it also has many rich people, many cities in the south and central US just have alot of the poor or middle class with not so many of the rich. Don't forget there are almost as many poor people live in rural areas as there are in metropolitan cities. If you show me a statistic where MA would be outside the top 5 or 6 wealthiest states in the nation I'd be pretty suprised.

Also it's not as though MA officials came up with the idea, Citgo (aka Chavez's company) has had this idea for months and while I just read the posted report and the one in our local paper here about neither definitely said who approached who about starting negotiations. Perhaps other states tried to make a deal and where dealyed or side-stepped, or perhaps like you said they haven't stepped foward. I just find it odd that such a wealthy and democratic voting state gets the opening shot, maybe because they know that the Republican vote holds no water there they have no fear so to speak. If so more power to them I guess.[/QUOTE]
You're still not factoring in cost of living when you talk about "rich" states, cost of living here is astronomical. Massachusetts has the 6th highest income, but has the 3rd highest cost of living. Compare that to a state like Maryland, who has the 5th highest income, but the 16th highest cost of living. Or Virginia, who has the 7th highest income, but the 19th highest cost of living. Or Delaware and Minnesota, who are 10th and 11th in income, but are 23rd and 24th in cost of living. Who is really the "richest" here?

Again, its not Citgo that "picked" Massachusetts. There are non-profit groups in Massachusetts that have given heavily discounted heating oil to the poor, for years. They negotiated with Citgo, and got a deal right away. The state did not negotiate anything, only the non-profit groups. The Massachusetts groups probably got in first because they're politically connected, one of them is run by Joe Kennedy. It has nothing to do with any "liberal" politics. You won't see Texas or the South trying to get in on this deal, because, guess what, they don't need heating oil.

Some groups in the South Bronx just got the same deal from Citgo, and a RI group is getting a deal done soon.

This is really just PR for Hugo Chavez, this "deal" is overrated. The amount of discounted oil is fairly limited, its not enough to last the entire winter. The groups are only getting a portion of what they need for the year through this deal. But, it does help, the groups will have more oil, and more money available to buy more oil, and more people will help, and the homeless shelters and other places that get this oil, will have more money left over for other things. But, its not like they're supplying the entire state with a year's worth of oil, at 40% off.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']You're still not factoring in cost of living when you talk about "rich" states, cost of living here is astronomical. Massachusetts has the 6th highest income, but has the 3rd highest cost of living. Compare that to a state like Maryland, who has the 5th highest income, but the 16th highest cost of living. Or Virginia, who has the 7th highest income, but the 19th highest cost of living. Or Delaware and Minnesota, who are 10th and 11th in income, but are 23rd and 24th in cost of living. Who is really the "richest" here?

[/QUOTE]

Listen, until you show me that more people live in poverty in MA than the majority of states in other regions you aren't going to convince me of much. I know it costs alot to live there, it also costs a boatload to go to MIT or Harvard but apparently thousands of people can afford that along with other things. Oh and BTW Maryland and Virgina both have such large incomes thanks to the District of Columbia. Why do you think so many commute into DC? Besides the size of the city, it's because cost of living in lower in the maryland and virginia suburbs than the actual city.

I never said MA was the richest, but they are without a doubt in my mind one of the richer states in this nation.
 
bread's done
Back
Top