Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Venezuela's Chavez One-Ups White House and U.S. Oil in Heating Oil Deal for Poor

  1. Nov 23, 2005 #1
    Amid months of criticism over failed U.S. oil policy, and after suffering embarrasing setbacks in the Senate (Democrats use of rule to demand continued pre-war intelligence committee review) and in the House (Democrat Cong. Murtha's Iraq war exit proposal), the White House and big U.S. oil were "one-up'd" yesturday when Venezuela's socialist party President Chavez agreed to a deal to provide heating oil relief this Winter to thousands of poor residents of the state of Massasschusets.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...ovide_discounted_heating_oil_to_state?mode=PF

    The deal was brokered by Congressman William Delahunt (D) MA, and supported by MA (R) Gov. Romney. Chavez agreed to provide discounted heating oil by nearly 40% through Houston based Citgo Oil, which operates stations across the U.S. The oil will be sold below market price and subsidized by Venezuela's state-run oil refineries. The deal comes amidst significant failures by the Bush Administration and U.S. oil companies in recent weeks to address sky-rocketing oil, gas, and heating oil prices - which disproportionately burden the poor in the U.S.

    Whether one views Chavez's Agreement as politically driven, or not, is really a moot point. The reality is that it is going to provide much needed economic relief to some MA residents which the White House and Republican Administration had been unable to broker or draft. This Agreement is also another key Democrat-led initiative in recent weeks bringing fresh ideas and desperately needed policy - which may also come as a slap in the face to the White House both over its rising tensions with socialist party leader Chavez, and uncontrolled high U.S. oil prices.

    Any insightful views on this deal and Chavez's new level of cooperation?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 23, 2005 #2

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    All oil companies were invited to participate. Only Citgo accepted the invitation.

    The NE governors have encouraged oil companies to donate or provide heating oil at reduced cost to the various state home-heating aid programs. I don't believe the oil companies were too enthusiastic.

    This time of year, some poorer families must choose between heating the home and feeding the family.
     
  4. Nov 23, 2005 #3
    I'm really speechless...

    I mean, that's fantastic.

    He's obviously doing it to embarass Bush, and demonstrate that American style Capitalism has it's failings, and he's doing a damned good job of at least embarassing Bush.

    But wow, that's great for those people who couldn't have afforded heating otherwise.

    God, I couldn't have imagined that anything like this might happen; Bush is so down, and Chavez is the taking care of America's poor this winter...

    Three cheers for Socialism...
     
  5. Nov 23, 2005 #4
    A security guard makes $8.00 an hour, take home pay is approximately $1100.00 a month. $750.00 a month for rent leaves $350.00 for all the rest of a families expenses. Yes I think there are a lot of people who will be cold, and/or hungry this winter.
     
  6. Nov 24, 2005 #5
    What kind of piss-poor company pays their security 8$/hr?!? I do security, in a small condo in a quiet neighborhood. I get nearly twice that. Not to mention insurance plan, and all the goodies from the residents. :biggrin:
    But to stay on topic, kudos to Chavez. :!!)
     
  7. Nov 24, 2005 #6
    International oil prices.... Suply and demand, OPEC, Big oil profits, nothing of that matters,, all that matters are people needs.... that's the way it should be.
     
  8. Nov 24, 2005 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, it was only done to embarrass the US. Why only Massachusetts? I would think Maine would be in more dire need of help.
     
  9. Nov 24, 2005 #8
    Then Maines representatives should take advantage of the offer.

    Looks like New York City is in negotiations now.
    American oil companies were asked for help and here was their response.
    So what if it embarrasses the US. It is an embarassment that the richest nation in the world can hand out money to oil companies, yet not provide heating oil for the poor.
     
  10. Nov 24, 2005 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, I think the help is great although it was done for the wrong reasons.
     
  11. Nov 24, 2005 #10

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Venezuela's Chavez to Discount Heating Oil in Boston (Update2)
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=a3i7Jw3mxo8c&refer=latin_america

    November 15, 2005
    Legislature - House Majority Office
    By Rep. Lisa Miller
    http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=Portal+News&id=9963&v=Article-2004
    One problem with notices like this is that poor, including many seniors, do not have access to the internet, so they must rely on others to check on them. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Nov 24, 2005 #11
    There is obviously some confusion about politics here. It is not that Republicans have been "unable to broker or draft" some economic relief for citizens - it is not on the GOP's agenda at all. Criticizing Republicans for carrying out their own agenda is akin to criticizing Republicans for being Republicans. It is just as pointless as saying that Democrats are "failures" because of their insistence upon the removal of religious objects from courthouses.

    When one judges the Republican Party using the standards of the Democratic agenda, the GOP inevitably looks like a failure - it fails to execute the agenda of the other party. This is what happens when a person says the Bush administration has had "significant failures" in addressing the price of oil. The issue of the price of oil is probably higher on the Democrats' agenda than it is on the Republicans' agenda. An assumption is therefore made that the Republicans are failing because they are not executing the Democratic agenda.
     
  13. Nov 24, 2005 #12
    You seem to forget that the goverment should be by the people and for the people, not for the partyes political gain
    -----------------------------

    96 billons in profit in 1 year? wow..

    Look at this... 38 millon poor in USA.

    96 billon / 38 millons / 12 months = $210 per month for each poor guy (not for each family . but for each poor kid man and women in the US)

    i guess that is more that enougth to fill the heating needs of the poor.
    So what is the point in letting this small group of oil corporations to take 96billon dolars from society, if a lot of people is not even going to see the benefits of oil???
    --------------------------------------------
    A statement released on March 8 and signed by almost 400 Venezuelan journalists accused the US government and media of a campaign to prepare the ground for a US military attack on oil-rich Venezuela
    http://www.energybulletin.net/4722.html
     
  14. Nov 24, 2005 #13
    You are doing just as others have done: judging the Bush administration using your own standards. It is no surprise that leftists think George Bush is a failure; he has consistently "failed" to pass Left-wing legislation. It would therefore be inappropriate for you to respond by saying George Bush actually is a failure because of his tax cuts, position on gay marriage and corporation-favoring policies.

    If you want to criticize Right-wingers, find a better argument than "Right-wingers are failures because they are Right-wingers." Judge political stances using standards which are more agreed upon, i.e. science, hard data, etc.
     
  15. Nov 25, 2005 #14
    I am not from the us, so i have not much to say, but you have to judge by the results, not by left, right wing policy, personaly i think dems and reps are the same sh-t. And no one of them works for the people, they are paid mercenaries for the big corporations and banks. And i am not starting to make a list of all bush failures proving them with facts and hard data, this is being done all time in this forums. this is not the point of the thread
     
  16. Nov 25, 2005 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You make a good point. So, let's try and evaluate Bush's performance by typical conservative standards.

    Spending & the national deficit - I may be a little out of touch with current events, but by your statement I guess Bush must a done a good job of eliminating discretionary and pork-barrel spending, and cutting the deficit by the promised fraction.

    Less Govt - Surely, by your suggestion, the size of govt and its interference in the way people lead their lives must be far reduced.

    States' Rights - No measures (like say, an amendment to the Constitution) would have been attempted to undermine states' rights.

    <gotta take off now>
     
  17. Nov 25, 2005 #16

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    You're only halfway there, Gokul - Bush didn't campaing on a platform of "traditional conservative standards" (regardless of how he worded his political position, he had specific issues) - again, it can't be said he's failing to do something he isn't attempting to do. Look at the things he is trying to do (ie, war on terror) and I'm sure you'll find things he's actually attempting that he's failing at.
     
  18. Nov 25, 2005 #17

    Astronuc

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  19. Nov 25, 2005 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I guess you are not talking about his second campaign (where I'm sure he promised a specific reduction in the deficit - I can dig this up)...but I recall some of the key points in his first campaign as well. I don't remember hearing anything about a war on terror, but I do recall two things : (i) bringing integrity back to the White House :rolleyes: and (ii) his platform of "compassionate conservatism".

    The only campaign promise, in my recollection, that he's kept, is cutting taxes.
     
  20. Nov 25, 2005 #19
    Chavez offering oil at a discount resembles a child molester luring kids into the woods with candy.

    Do not trust Chavez. He is dangerous.
     
  21. Nov 25, 2005 #20
    My point was that little is proven when a politician is judged using polar standards.

    Let's see how you responded...
    Even using the standards of George Bush's own political party proves little. It is not practical to assess President Bush's accomplishments in liberal or conservative circles. It is practical to assess his accomplishments for the United States of America.

    Such an evaluation would need to be based upon standards which could be applied to either liberals or conservatives. Theoretically, an increase in the abortion rate can not be attributed to conservatives, and a decrease in the number of labor unions can not be attributed to liberals. We would therefore need to find standards which could be used to judge both ends of the political spectrum at the same time. If we found that unemployment rate is a valid standard of judgment, we would then need to prove that a change in unemployment rate is actually the result of legislation from a political party. We can judge George Bush's accomplishments only after these criteria have been met.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Venezuela's Chavez One-Ups White House and U.S. Oil in Heating Oil Deal for Poor
  1. Where's the oil? (Replies: 49)

  2. Wars for oil? (Replies: 6)

Loading...