Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
Well, it turns out that the Left may have just stolen an election in Venezuela. The media has tuned out on this story, after proudly reporting that Hugo Chavez won a resounding victory, once former President Carter blessed the results as fair. The big story in the mainstream media was the rebuke to President Bush, since Chavez was Fidel Castro's best friend in the hemisphere, and had trounced his opponents in the recall election.
In the days following the recall election, stories began to surface that the election results were inconsistent with polling results conducted before the election, and with exit polls conducted on election day. Interestingly, Krugman argued in his alarmist column that exit polls should be used as a check on the honesty of the results on election day, to see whether the fix was in. If for instance, an exit poll showed Kerry ahead on Election Day in Florida, but Bush won the state in the actual tally on November 2nd, then we would know, Krugman told us, that the results were suspect.
Linky
|
This is the first time I have read this sort of thing. Very interesting. Carter's organization was not the only ones monitoring the elections. There were a dozen or so organizations, and all said the elections were fair. But I'd still be curious to read more about this if you have any other links.
I just do find it interesting that your article also points out how the 2004 elections had the same inconsistancies. And they are right about exit polling being a pretty exact science. If their exit polling numbers are indeed as lobsided as they say, then I would agree that this is evidence that the election was stolen.
But I was not even talking about the recall election. I was talking about the election last month in Venezuela. Even Chavez's opponents admitted that he won that election by a landslide. There was no dispute at all.
Chavez wins 6 more years as Venezuela's president
Landslide victory bolsters leftist leadership in Latin America -- international observers report no serious problems with election
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rebound
Venezuela's economy grew at least 10 percent for a third year in 2006 as President Hugo Chavez used record oil income to boost government spending and subsidies, sparking a jump in consumer demand.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of a country's production of goods and services, expanded 10.3 percent this year, Central Bank President Gaston Parra said in a statement, without giving the fourth-quarter figure. The economy grew 10.2 percent in the third quarter, 10.2 percent in the second and 10.1 percent in the first.
``The expansion of internal aggregate demand was, for a third consecutive year, the main reason for economic growth,'' Parra said. ``Expanding supply capacity in the medium term will determine the sustainability of economic growth and control of prices.''
A 51 percent increase in government spending in the first nine months of the year helped boost sales of cars, mobile phones and food. The economy has grown at least 10 percent for six quarters and 10 of the last 11 quarters.
Linky
So, Chavez takes advantage of *gasp* high oil prices to spend more, triggering an increase in demand in the country, and that's to his credit? If an American company did that, you'd be calling for their heads for inflationary oil pricing. Get your f-ing story straight.
You do realize that oil companies spend billions, right? Why don't you criticize them for helping the economy the same way that Chavez does?
You bang the drum for a socialist, but stick your tongue out at capitalists. Stalin and Lenin must be applauding down in Hell. 
|
If the oil companies used their profits to pay for health care, education, and other social spending that would help the American people, then I would indeed praise them.
Growing the economy only helps the people if the extra money is going to benefit them. Spending itself as an idea does not benefit anyone. It depends on what the money is being spent on.
In the case of the oil companies, very little of their spending is even domestic. Their largest domestic spending is probably on lobbyists and campaign contributions in Washington.