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

News 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/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/22/venezuelan_officials_to_provide_discounted_heating_oil_to_state?mode=PF [Broken]

    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?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 23, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    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


    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


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

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


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

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

    November 15, 2005
    Legislature - House Majority Office
    By Rep. Lisa Miller
    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:
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  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
  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


    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


    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


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Feliz Navidad from Hugo Chavez

    http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/11/22/PM200511222.html [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  19. Nov 25, 2005 #18


    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.
  22. Nov 25, 2005 #21


    User Avatar

    Dangerous??? To whom or what??

    Chavez has attacked poverty in Venezuela is that what you mean? Or perhaps you mean it is dangerous to be in proximity to him in case you are collateral damage in a rightwing christian assassination attempt?

    In pursuit of his goal to reduce poverty he nationalised his country's oil after the main oil companies Philips Petroleum and ExxonMobil refused to renegotiate their 60 year contract (given, or should that be sold, to them by previous corrupt gov'ts) whereby they paid only 1% tax on the literally billions of dollars profit they made from Venezuela's oil.

    In retaliation the supporters of the big oil companies responded by trying to overthrow his gov't in 2002. Popular opinion and the loyalty of a large section of the army ensured the coups defeat. The U.S. govt are believed to have been one of the attempted coups main sponsors, a claim which doesn't seem too farfetched given this administration's affiliation to all things 'oil'.
  23. Nov 25, 2005 #22
    Would a right reason be to gain the goodwill of the American people?

    I think that might go a long way toward preventing another pre-emptive war in Venezuela.

    I am sure you would not prefer that he get the attention of the American people by blowing something up. I think Chavez may be one of the great leaders of our time.

    Is he good or evil?

    I don't know enough about him. He has outmaneuvered his enemies again and again. This was a very clever maneuver, makes it much harder to paint him as a tyrant.
  24. Nov 25, 2005 #23
    1) He gives material support to the extremely brutal Colombian Left-wing FARC terrorist group, whom Colin Powell described as being "worse than Al-Qaeda" only days after 9/11.
    2) He almost went to war with neighboring Colombia, after a high-level member of the FARC that was enjoying sanctuary in Venezuela was captured by Colombian intelligence in Venezuelan territory. By the way, Colombia's Right-wing president Alvaro Uribe enjoys even higher approval ratings than Chavez, hovering between 70-80%, mainly because of his strong stance against the FARC.
    3) He precipitated tensions between Chile and Bolivia, after making sensitive comments regarding a border issue.
    4) He had security forces shoot at peaceful protesters, and kill several of them.
    5) He called Condoleezza Rice an "ignorant n*gger" (the translation is mine, as he used the term "negra" in a derogatory manner).
    6) He personally insulted the president of Mexico for being in favor of free trade.
    7) He broke relations with Panama as a way of supporting his pal Castro in the Carriles incident.
    8) He halted oil shipments to Republica Dominicana after accusing its president of planning a conspiracy against him.
    9) He has allegedly funded Left-wing campaigns throughout Latin America, including Brazil and Chile, in an attempt to bolster his influence in the region.
    10) He is a "caudillo" and "hombre fuerte" very much in the same mold as the many who have preceded him and who have *every time* plunged Latin America into ever deeper poverty and misery.
    11) He is a Communist with imperialistic ambitions, from re-forming the Gran Colombia of Bolivar, to dominance in Central America and the Caribbean, he is flushed with petrodollars, loved by every Che Guevara wanna-be, and feared by most democrats in the region, including Left-wing Lula, who recently came out in passionate defense of free-trade, presumably to distance himself from Chavez in his dispute with Mexico.
  25. Nov 25, 2005 #24
    Can you provide a link to this? I recall seeing maybe some similar thing on CNN where they apologized for mistranslating, but I can't find the link anymore.
  26. Nov 25, 2005 #25
    I heard the quote on the radio in the original Spanish, not on the internet. I think what he literally called her was a "negra analfabeta", a literal translation of which is "illiterate black", but the term black was expressed in a derogatory manner, which can be faithfully be translated as "n*gger".
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook