Try reading the article. It says the military and police, not the "people" as you claim.

Nancy,

We are not cuba nor, Venezuela (meant no disrespect) bu; if the PEOPLE, not the army then we can make a big difference and fight for our rights.

Go live in New Zealand for awhile, it is a perfect little country that balances Socialism and Representative Elected Government. I have been there on the way to and from the South Pole.

marlen - Uhhh......it is the police and military who seized the airport to protest a new law that would reduce the benefits of the police and military. Last time I checked the military and police of a nation are usually "people" of that nation so Nancy's post is accurate.

This is exactly the kind of "debate" that's ruining this country.

I mean, common sense would tell you "people", in this case, refers to the average citizen.

But why bother with common sense when you can create controversy with semantics?

An MSNBC specialty that has worked it's way all the way down to the rank and file

The only part of Nancy's post that says "people" is the part that refers to those "around the president". Are you refering to the part where she says "ecuadorians" because the police and millitary would still be considered ecuadorians if they are in fact citizens of that country. You are misrepresenting her words and trying to put her down for it.....funny.

So their president reduces the benefits and perks of the public servants in the police force in order to keep the country solvent and your are going to compare him to Castro and Chavez? How the heck does that work?

You do know that Cuba is in financial trouble, just like the US and they cut government employees. In NY we are in huge financial trouble and the Gov has laid off thousands of state employees or not back filled the positions. Is Patterson just like Castro or Chavez?

We could only wish that our President or Congress were as realistic as Ecuador. $2.4 trillion ANNUAL deficit and we act like that is nothing to worry about, yet some people have the nerve to blast South American governments? Venezuela is doing far better than we are fiscally, and they are far more socialist. Time to look into the mirror before running out to blast a flawed system that makes ours look like corrupt anarchy.

This protest is about government budget CUTS. Isn't that what you folks on the Right advocate? Yet when a Leftist does it, you still cry "socialism." If this possible coup was over the government nationalizing something, I could see your point. But the action taken by the Correa government that has triggered this protest is exactly what you guys think we SHOULD be doing. If you really are a conservative, I would think you'd be applauding the President's actions and decrying this coup.

Thank you for proving my point nwrob!

And yes revelwoodie, I hereby decry this coup!

revelwoodie, why do I get the impression that defense is the only part of the government you'd support spending cuts for?

Where the heck did you get that idea, Armando? Did I say anything about my views on war or defense spending? Are you just assuming that because you have me pegged as a "librul"? But in answer to your question, yes -- I do support a downsizing of our miltary budget, specifically with regard to contracting. There's a lot of fat there. A LOT of fat.

Could I flip this around on you, now that I have you pegged as a conservative? Why do I get the impression that the only part of government for which you would be OPPOSED to cuts is the defense budget?

Most certainly, there are things to be cut in defense. The graft and bribery there are legendary, and cracking down on that would save us billions.

Can we cut the NEA? The NEH? How about a crackdown on Medicare fraud? Surely, there has to be fat to cut in other areas of the government too.

Let's go further. Welfare to illegals, state and federal pensions, the Department of Education, foreign aid to countries that don't need it (China esp.), corporate welfare, TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac. I'm sure others could add to the list, but I think we both can agree there is quite a bit of fat to be cut.

Oh and let's not forget the legions of administrators. Here in MA, we have tolls on roads that were paid off decades ago but are still there so that the relatives of state reps and senators can make $50k a year (not joking about that either http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/payroll/mass_pike/job_title.ASC//42/) doing a job any mediocre cashier can do.

Do I need to mention the incompetent teachers in NYC who can't be fired because of union contracts and so they sit in "rubber rooms" forty hours a week and get paid six figures for their time?

Can you imagine the number of candles you could make with the fat you could trim?

It's already happening with SEIU members protesting for more spending and higher taxes. Talk about greedy a holes.

i don't have anything to add to this, i read the entire conversation personally ~i just wanted to be a part of it. it sounds like somebody has some chilly experiences to share with everybody~ i like how everybody refered to everybody by their first names, that was kind of cool. and then everyone was like...topin everyone with all this counter-counter tid bits flying left an right. and the part about the people! huh? wha? who's the people! define people! ...classic

SO IT SEEMS THAT THE EQUADORIAN KEEPERS OF THE LAW ARE ABOVE THE LAW? IS THAT RIGHT? LITTLE FITS OF CHILDISH TEMPER TANTRUMS! THEY ARE NOW ALL CRIMINALS! AS SHOULD THEY BE TREATED AS SUCH AND MUST BE PUNISHED THE THE FULL EXTENT OF EQUADORIAN LAW!

~to...to the...bloody hell ~what a topsy turvy turn of events (Damaged Goods) try it out it's pretty satisfying ... !~EQUADORIAN LAW~!... a bit space age apocolyptic if you ask me... very impressive to the ear

Companies should just close down if these unions are running them into the ground. These spoiled union members don't realize how good they have it. Then they biatch and complain about the CEO's making money and companies shipping jobs overseas. Maybe they need a reality check and look in the mirror.

It's already happening with SEIU members protesting for more spending and higher taxes.

Where?

Zach, what meds are you taking -- and how many did you miss?

zach jacoby-2068870

i don't have anything to add to this, i read the entire conversation personally ~i just wanted to be a part of it.

Seriously Zach, next time you see a good tit for tat argument, go ahead & leave yourself out of it. We are all better off not knowing your opinion.

24th!!!

Hopefully the end of another closet Dictator. Remember to empty his Bank accounts along the way. The people need their money back.

As a reminder, not EVERY world news story has ramifications in the never ending "right versus left" debate. Correa may be a Chavez follower, but nothing in this story indicates that's a contributing factor to the police strike.

Uh, the people in the streets are actually in support of the president and against this attempted right-wing coup by the fascist police. Just another Latin American democratically elected president being toppled by monied states and Ecuadors power elite, ala Salvador Allende and Jacobo Arbenz.

Ecuadorians are not taking the streets. The police is, causing destruction and chaos against the people they are supposed to protect. And they are doing this based on selfish interests.

The people are tired of their corrupt government, and it's just a matter of time before it starts happening here in America. The people are tired of our corrupt and thieving government as well.

Time for change! REVOLUTION

dejate de hablar mierda

Oh the Union bashing is right. The Unions in the U.S. are not needed anymore, they were needed in early 1900 sweat-shops especially in N.Y. City where immigrants and their children were being taken advantage of by making them work long hours in horrid conditions. They had no other way to make a living so they would take their little kids to work also instead of school and get paid next to nothing. THATS what started the Unions and at that time they were needed, but not anymore. I pay my employees above union wages and they work all year. The union workers here actually make less than independent workers. Now days the definition of the word Union is: Organized Extortion.

@Our First Amendment

While I am not fond of unions in general, at the same time I believe that they are indeed a very necessary evil given the economic conditions today. Without their continued existence I could very easily envision a rapid return to the appalling conditions you have described as having been prevalent during the early 1900's. I find your other comments concerning the comparison between what you pay and union scale interesting. Is this also true of the benefits you provide? If so I have to wonder just why you would label union scales that are less than what you apparently believe to be a fair wage as organized extortion. Just curious.

loudmouth,

"Companies should just close down if these unions are running them into the ground. These spoiled union members don't realize how good they have it. Then they biatch and complain about the CEO's making money and companies shipping jobs overseas. Maybe they need a reality check and look in the mirror."

So are u going to feel that way when u get laid off because it is more profitable for a company to hire someone from India than u?.

Your false savior (ceo fat cats) will not save u when u fall on hard times instead they will spit in your face. U better hope to god u never fall on tough times or u are in for a wake up call!

@Wizard,

That is exactly what the unions and those positioned to make lots of money off them want you to believe. Its known as FUD, fear uncertainty doubt and is designed to cause someone to be afraid of altering the status-quo. Back when the unions were required we didn't have OSHA or labor laws. Things like minimum wage, legal working ages and a set of equal opportunity / sexual harassment laws are what was created in the wake of unionization. Those are the things that will prevent us from sliding back into early 20th century era work conditions, not unions. Currently unions destroy business and remove jobs. Business's would rather move to a different country then deal with unions. New manufacturing plants will only be made in places that support laws that protect unions from the racketeering and extortion that unions will do.

Its the simple law of power, all power corrupts. Union managers have complete and total power over a companies profits and ability to maintain solvent, with that power they can dictate favorable conditions, conditions that often impair and sometimes destroy the companies profitability.

As for the attempted coup ... only a truly blind radical would see this as anything but an attempted coup by the police. The police force attempted to kidnap the lawfully elected president of a country and force him to agree to their demands. Guys that is terrorism 101. Try to imagine the NY police kidnapping the US President and trying to force him to do something ... imagine the blood and carnage the US secret service and special forces would wreck in the aftermath. Those police officers directly responsible will be lucky to get out alive.

Ignorant people who do not understand how economics works are the ones who would support unrest against Correa. He understands more about economics and politics than any other president Ecuador has ever had. I really wonder who is behind the fomenting of this unrest. Could it me the banking and petroleum interests who are not getting what they want from Correa? Anyone in doubt of this man should read.

He is trying to reduce the government's expense and debt load, both internally and externally, in an effort to reign in inflationary forces due to corruption practiced by his predecessors. This unrest is being practiced by those who's salaries are being effected. You can not have it both ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa

americans...always with this med put down buisness...The Truth Will Not Be Silenced! here i come...to speak! to use the civilized freedom of saying things on the internet! and i am mocked! MOCKED like jesus christ! ...well, it may be american policy to degrade the innocence of the baby jesus in the manger! but it is not the worlds! and not mine obviously! the world will rise again! ...after the fall... of democracy... and the U.S. $ can i get an A-men brotha~? can i git a mutha fuggin hallalOOyA~? don't B a playa hater be a negotiatah~ my nigglahs~! (it's horrible what you did...the slave ships...Africa...you suck!) you suck for that

so maybe the leaders a bit of a @!$%#? he's in bed with iran and russia...he did say that the comparison to Bush jr and Satan was unfair to the devil. which is kinda cute. remember...the guy...he's like..."sniff sniff do you smell sulfur?" all like...you know~

and Bush was all like what do you see when you look at the pope? "i see god!" ...what the @!$%#!??? @!$%# that! you look at a nazi youth taking the reins over a jew chewing beast and you see god? the god within the terms written by the jews to be confiscated by the romans and inherited by the western world? ...horse@!$%#!..

OurFirstAmendment -

If you pay your employees a decent living wage and benefits out of the goodness of your heart, you are to be commended. My boyfriend is a small businessman and has always done the same thing, simply because he has a strong sense of justice and a good heart. Consequently his business has never made him a wealthy man and never will. He is, however, a satisfied man, and his employees are loyal and hard-working.

But that is not the bent of ALL employers, and it is precisely for that reason that unions were formed to begin with. The competitive and cutthroat nature of our business system pretty much guarantees that without union protection, we'd revert right back to where we were before unions.

The problem here is that wherever money, power and control end up, corruption and greed gravitate to the same place. And it makes no difference whether we're talking about employers or unions. Thist is a built-in hazard of our capitalist system that we must always be cognizant of and try to control. (Notice I said "control," because outright prevention is impossible.)

The gas mask must instill a huge amount of confidence in their leader among the Ecuadorean people. Perhaps Correa's best buddies, Chavez and A-jad, can come to his rescue. In all three cases, all the oil in the world can't help a nation when the underlying fundamentals are totally broken. Oh, I forgot Russia, another ally of Correa. Yeah, they'll help him. You betcha.

Alright Sherri alright Peter Jacobs - if you want to get some background on the US involvement in the economics of South America read Naomi Klein's book the Shock Doctrine -

BTW the people who rail against unions - unless they are in the fortunate two percent in this country are among those who have been duped by the right wing propaganda machine to vote against their own best interests. Why would they do that - their vision has been clouded by things like flag burning, gay marriage, stem cell research, mosque building and whatever the men on top can dig up to bamboozle a gullible electorate.

First of all, even though I don't like Correa at all, it's too arrogant for a head of state, I have to side with him. Many years we have seen the pernicious right, hiding behind the military and the police, to call themselves the 'saviors' of the nation and bury the nation deeper in the problems that they are. The 'people' of Ecuador elected Correa more than once, you may like it, you may not, but that is the elected President of Ecuador.

So everybody, stop being cynical and call yourself 'democratic' when you tolerate that a group tries to overthrow any elected government. If the Ecuadorians don't like him, let them vote him out, but not supporting coups d'etat. Haven't you guys learned yet that the left is big in South America because of the atrocities made by the right in the last 50 years?

sorry i had to change my name, i'm applying overseas and would hate for such nonesense to be attached.

I am fed up reading such idiotic comments on socialism. I live in a socialist democracy and believe me, I do not envy your capitalist system. Many socialist democracies are doing just fine and our citizens lead happy lives with a good quality of life. Yes there are more regulations but we enjoy the same freedoms as americans, and we have rich, a larger middle class and fewer poor. So what is so wrong with that ? Yes, we pay taxes but SO WHAT? we rather pay a little more taxes and have safety nets for all! This is what we as citizen, asked for!

You american no longer know what you want. You are so confused about what you want. This prove that you uncotrolled capitalism system no longer works!

You want a government for the people but yet, you reject any good programs that your government wants to create for you, to better your quality of life. You call it socialism when in fact it is progress. You just do not make any sense.

truthandintegrity:

Essay question:

Compare and contrast your country to the Soviet Union.

The soviet union was COMMUNIST, not socialist you stupid idiot!

Those two are completly differant systems and have nothing to do with each other.

Socialism is a balance between capitalism and communism! In a socialist democracy, you have freedoms and you can realize all your dreams if you work hard, just like in america!

"Socialism is a balance between capitalism and communism."

Do you have a cite for that?

wonderfully off-topic armando, and a classic straw-man/boogie-man that is always thrown up by the radical right.

armando, show me anywhere where anyone in the US governmnt has stated or even hinted that the sole means of production should be in the sole control of the state (one of the central tenets of the soviet government). even the Chinese are over that idea now.

sorry boy, but the communist boogie-man is dead and buried

No one in the US outside of college campuses actually thinks that ought to be the case, and any politician who outright says that would, almost everywhere in the country, be laughed off the ballot.

Still, should the sole means of production be controlled by the state?

violence just provoke more violence...why people think that way..he is a elected president by the people....dont forget about that..is a democracy ..and that is what the poeple have to defend..we can't go and throw out a president because we don't agreed with his ideas..in USA we never thow out G. Bush even when everybody knew he was the worst president ever..same thing here..we have to respect the presidents even if we dont like them!! that is democracy!

Did you even read the article? The police protested without even unerstanding the details of what they were protesting because they hadn't even read the new law. They were obviously encouraged to do this by outside influences.

"The people" did not take to the streets. Only the misguided police did. The majority of the people actually support this president. Ecuador is more of a democracy than the US because the people are far more involved and know how to demand what they deserve. If "the people" had actually taken to the streets, they would have ousted him just like they did with several other presidents who did not actually have popular support.

I noticed it says "washington's support", not "US's support." Interesting slip. ;)

truthandintegrity u are completely right! When u wonder why most Americans think this way it is because of the media, it has become a propaganda lie machine just like the movie 1984. Most Americans trust the media more than their own thoughts or feelings i know because at one time i bought into this bull@!$%# until i got into philosophy and began to think and feel for myself!

Still, should the sole means of production be controlled by the state?

there is a reason that China and the USSR abandoned that model, and that is because central government control and ownership is a proven failure.

so the answer to your question is an obvious "no".

Agreed, Truthandintegrity. We are now a democracy in name only, but a plutocracy in fact. Those elements that have gained control work hard to deceive voters here, and to channel their righteous anger away from the culpable and towards various scapegoats of their choosing. At this they have been very successful.

Scott - Absolutely right. And really, why would anyone expect corporate-owned media to spout anything other than that which furthers the corporate agenda?

Slavery comes in many forms, but it is easier to foist on people when it is well-cloaked.

Goethe said it better - none are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

We are now a democracy in name only, but a plutocracy in fact. Those elements that have gained control work hard to deceive voters here, and to channel their righteous anger away from the culpable and towards various scapegoats of their choosing. At this they have been very successful.

even the message is changing, lately the message has become "the rich are the ones that employ you".

at least the old-fashioned conservatives wanted to enrich small business, the latest crop doesn't even want that, neither do the very wealthy want small businesses to succeed, they don't want any competition.

danwill -

lately the message has become "the rich are the ones that employ you".

Yes, which really means "you can't make it without us in charge to run everything."

And of course, the larger their presence and the tighter their control, the truer that statement becomes.

Naturally they would like us to believe that it's the government who is the big enemy. Notice how that message seems to be catching fire these days?

Anyone here surprised!? The only thing that sets America apart from other nations is our FREEDOM, yet so many of you are more than willing to give that up.

Let's put it this way, the FOUNDERS (you know, those men who gave us policies that made us the GREATEST nation in the history of the world) warned us again and again not to allow the Federal Government to get involved in the WELFARE or REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. Why? Because they feared it would corrupt the government and the poor among us.

SURPRISE! Corruption thrives all around us now because we have allowed politicians who are only about buying votes determine who gets the redistributed wealth. Government is WASTEFUL in their spending and the wealth is not redistributed equally. Billions is spent on lobbying each year. There are 35,000 lobbiest in Washington. WHY?! Because we have a MOMMY/NANNY State and it is only natural for all the children to do their best to get a fair share of the pie from their MOMMY! Yet, the politicians complain about them and then turn around and give them what they want.

As the Founders would say, if we allow the government to get too big and we expect them to take care of us, WE DON'T DESERVE OUR FREEDOM and it will be lost.

Shame on those of us who are willing to give up that which thousands have died for............FREEDOM!

I wasn't aware that the founding fathers discussed redistribution of wealth.

Stand up, Speak out: Funny you say that, because a lot of your posts are contrary to everything they taught which tells me you don't know much about them at all. Samual Adams said the following:

Samuel Adams stated: "The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."^{[ -Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth}

Maybe you should learn more about these men and what they taught. By the way Samual Adams helped write the constitution, I think I like his interpretation over Obama's who thinks "Redistribution of Wealth is good for everybody".

Any other questions or comments?

How in the world do we turn this into a conversation about the U.S. when the story is clearly about Ecuador? Man we are some self centered S.O.B.s.

The President of Ecuador said something to the effect of, if you don't like it, come get me, I'm right here...blah blah blah....I don't think I'd be so brave knowing Ecuadors history of outing Presidents they don't agree with.

Hey Mike Tyson...my right ear thinks you're a jerk! I dare you to bite it off! Then later as I'm nursing my bitten ear, I wonder why it happened. What a bonehead!

Then he went on to say, "All they can take is my life", (A.K.A. everything). Hahahaha. He should write comedy!

POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

thank you

GovernmentForThePeople -

Why would our founding fathers have wanted to have a conversation about redistributing wealth? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they POSSESS wealth?

It seems to me that those who possess wealth are generally pretty happy with the status quo.

Sherri2012:

They did possess wealth. George Washington was the second largest distiller or rye whiskey in the state of Virginia. Sam Adams was, well... a master brewer. Thomas Jefferson had one of the largest plantations in Virginia... To make the story short, ALL of the founding fathers were rich pompous s.o.b's. Remember that in order to have a voice in the legislature or in the assemblies back in the 1700s, you had to be a landowner. So basically they did not want interference from the federal government because they did not want their earnings be touched. But we look the other way to those facts because "Oh, Lord, they're the founding fathers, they're supposed to be immaculate."

Correa is not a demagogue, he is a democratically elected leader who has the support of the people. Just because somebody does things differently than the corrupt US doesn't mean they are automatically bad or in power against the will of the people.

This dude is the Alexander Haig of Ecuador. You go, Girl!

Being democratically elected does not mean he is not a demagogue. As for support, he had it on the begining, now not so much. As for corruption, please refet to Transparency International for Ecuador's ranking in corruption (BTW TI is NOT an American organization, so you cannot cry "Bias!").

Let's se on the next election if he acts as a democrat or as a tyrant

Will America's military and police riot if elected officials try to cut benefits? So, you're proposing, by your remark, that the proper response to trying to lower corruption in the police and military is to perform a coup, institute a fascist regime and paralyse a country? Eeks.

Doug, some people don't think. The country can't afford to keep the perks the police and military have enjoyed for so long (remind you of any other western countries?) so they must be a demagogue for cutting those benefits.

Are you referring to the US Military and Police? Having been both I can tell you the perks are not all that great when compared to civilian equivalent jobs.

Sir: Where have been? A socialist progressive regime would have gone after the bankers, not the police nor the armed forces.

The perks may not be that good, but imagine a substantial cut in those perks, say across the board they cut your retirement plan by 1/3rd, would that be enough to get the police upset here? Would it be enough to make the people here upset if they cut Social Security by 1/3rd, and cut 1/3rd from all Federal programs besides the military and debt service? I hate to say it, but most likely that day is coming for all of us in America. Would it make you mad if our dollar fell another 50% in value, so that a pound of hamburger was $8-$10? How about we do away with providing paid vacations, sick pay, and holiday pay? Sooner or later we are going to have to make some pretty heavy cuts or substantially reduce our foreign military presence, otherwise our dollar is going to fall off the edge of the Earth just like in Greece, Iceland, and Spain.

I'm not sure it has to be that bad but spending cuts must be made to the public sector. The private sector can take care of itself.

The government pensions (in the US) pay 30-40% higher than do SS, so if they cut government pensions by 1/3 it would make them on a par with the SS benefits. What gets lost in all this talk about pensions, in particular SS, it was only designed as a "supplement," not a living wage. It is a supplement to the money you should have saved in your lifetime. People are now retiring from government jobs making MORE than they did on the job, which is absolutely ridiculous and UNSUSTAINABLE. In addition, they are retiring 5-10 years earlier which compounds the problem. Why are we on different systems anyway?

Another moron in Bri that doesn't know what he's talking about, talking out of his A...

Bri is very good at repeating right-wing talking points.

Let's all be very proud of Bri.

obamma and his band of crooks are watching this close.

Jon Stewart was right when he mentioned yesterday... The right here complains because the President is overspending and then the people (well, actually the police and some military) complained and took all those measures because the Ecuadorean president was trying to reduce government spending? Let's switch, send all the wacko neo-cons, redumblicans to Ecuador (hey, he's reducing government spending) and bring the ones wanting government spending over here... and everybody will be happy...

justiceforall: so are you for reducing spending?

I am in favor of spending when it's necessary, and if we don't have a government's intervention in the economy by increasing spending, we will end up in deflation and more crisis. I am an enemy of the monetarism policies imposed by Friedman's school and it cronies, which have left us threading in thin ice. The government, who was supposed to be the referee in the economy by monitoring that everybody was playing fair looked the other way and allowed the banking industry to go out of whack and to create this problem. And the political class in Washington still have the nerve to point the finger at each other with a complete lack of responsibility.

I know, there's going to be an idiot coming and blaming all this to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, but to them my question is this... there are 100 senators in Washington, Frank and Dodd are two, what the other 98 did to prevent this from happening? Uh... nothing. Both Dems and Reps share the blame for this crisis. Reps were in Congress as a majority in both houses since 1994, and they relinquished power in 2006. What did they do in 12 years in power to avoid this? Nothing. So they're both guilty.

I only know that we need to stand up and begin to work together instead of going at each other's throat. Corporations will not bring jobs back to the US, do not dream. They don't believe in freedom or the betterment of the nation. They believe in the price of their stock and the profit margin they can make. I am still waiting for Nike to make the heroic gesture of abandon their Singapore factory and to open it back in the US.

So, tell me Armando, if I apply Keynes' policies to the problem, it is alright for the government to be spending, if I apply Friedman's policies don't. But I have seen what Friedman's policies have made out of us. So, what do you think?

Yes, socialism is evil, just don't touch my social security or medicare!!

Yes socialism is evil and please do away with social security, medicare and the taxes that support them and we'll all be better off.

Yes, and let's do away with all public education, police, fire, the VA, FBI, Border Patrol, CIA and that EVIL PUBLIC LIBRARY system in every town. Then we will all be better off too.. Grow up Chris..

Yes socialism is evil and please do away with social security, medicare and the taxes that support them and we'll all be better off.

Good luck with that.

Marlen - Your hystercs would be laughable if they wern't so sad. Chris is talking about returning to "Constitutional" government; not doing away with the LEGITIMATE functions of government. If you would would bother to take a look at the short list of powers granted to the government by the constitution, you might be surprised to learn that giving food, shelter, health care and RETIRMENT benefits to the people is not among them. Providing for the GENERAL welfare means just that! GENERAL!!! Not redistribution! Not selecting WINNERS and LOSSERS based on political whim. American is becoming exactly like these other welfare states and South America and Europe (just look at the headlines) and they foretell our fate if we don't beat down the government to it's proper duties.

Robust,

I guess your answer is dependent on the definition of GENERAL, yes? Some might feel that their GENERAL welfare does include those things you feel should be excluded from GENERAL welfare. That is the beauty of our system, we can change the political establishment and the Constitution. At one time we believed it was in the best interest of GENERAL welfare to ban booze, yet we changed our mind. As for limits on governmental power I think we would need to get rid of the elastic clause to reign in the government. This would have detrimental effect on the flexibility of our government an future problems we do not know or cannot perceive of yet, a horrible handicap for future generations. But debating and holding elections on governmental power is a great exercise of democracy. As for your comment on winners and loser and who picks them...From colonially run charters, colonial governors, colonial legislatures, continental congress, antebellum south, reconstruction north, Jim Crow, Progressivism of Early 1900's, and I could go further but I feel it would be redundant, any and every government that has run this continent has help pick winners and losers whether it has been give aways, tax exemptions, corruption, or turning a blind eye to questionable activities. I see no reason why the government would to stop as this activity as it is how they try to influence people and stay in power. Only anarchy as a system of government does not pick potential winners and losers.

Robust, you either had a seance with the founding fathers or your definition of "general welfare" will simply be whatever benefits the WASP community. In case you haven't seen it happen the constitution can be amended for the benefit of the people.

Let us see here...

""With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." – James Madison in letter to James Robertson"

""If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792"

"“The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed" - Thomas Jefferson, 1791"

Continue to rape and distort the constitution and it's meaning please. Our corrupted government does it, the "general" public might as well do it as well.

Clem XII,

We agree that our founding fathers could not have contemplated the ways we interpret and apply the Constitution today. They also would not have contemplated that the second amendment would apply to machine guns and potentially tanks. Nor would they have contemplated free speech and the Internet or let's just say many of the issues of modern life. To use the founding fathers as a reference for a historical understanding of the constitution and how it may still apply is helpful, but it should not be used as an end all barrier to the living document that is our Constitution, which there is a host of evidence that the founding fathers also intended.

ClemXII FTW!

Can we please stop trying to prove our points with 230 year old quotes? The "Founders" were no more monolithic in their views than we are. Some fo them would be conservative by today's standards, some of them would be liberal. Some of them would be Democrats if alive today, some of them would be Republicans.

Look, our forefathers faught a revolution not to institute some particular political ideology, but to guarantee us the right of SELF RULE. The proper role of government is whatever we, the people, say it is -- as long as we are within the bounds of the Constitution as determined by the courts. And the courts have repeatedly held that the Commerce Clause absolutely does give Congress broad authority in the sorts of ways that progressives advocate, and have repeatedly rejected arguments to construe the tenth ammendment as broadly as many conservatives would like. So let's just respect our elections and stop crying "UnAmerican!" every time elected officials from the other party try to enact their platforms.

thrakenglarv, most everything these days can be related to what our founders "ideals" were and the system they set up. It is a system that does not "age". Things specifically addressed during that time frame are more relevant now then they ever have. Federal reserve, foreign policy, limited branches and our unalienable rights, ect..

Yes, there are things in modern life that are quite different from our founders time frame, but freedom and liberty apply none the less. We do have the ability to amend the constitution and if people would a little MORE time to understand our constitution and liberty, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today, were the idiotic general public continues to vote same old politicians and switches between Rep. And Dem. every couple of years.

revelwoodie, your view on what political party the founders would be now is irrelevant and HOLDS NO weight to the foundation of liberty, which you could never grasp even if you tried.

What is wrong with quoting founders? Does the ideal of liberty and limited constitutional government really disgust you that bad?

And, back to the General Welfare clause... it was never designed to be an open ended term, hence why our founders specified. To state otherwise is idiotic and would directly contradict the entire foundation the constitution set up for limiting the branches.

But, everyone that wants to keep applauding non-sense in out government today, keep going. You're all already an entity, created and owned by the federal government. Check your license, social security ect.. is your name in all capitals, then that indicates that you are an artificial entity. (person)

http://www.usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html

Get educated.

As I recall, back when the Constitution was written, only White male landowners could vote. Does the Constitution crowd want to go back to that?

Excuse me, Clem? My views are irrelevant, but yours are not? And you say I could never "grasp the foundation of liberty"? How dare you? I've just read my comment again, and I find absolutely NOTHING in it to justify your personal attack on me. I assure you, I value liberty every bit as much as any other American. How dare you!

But now that I read your next comment, I see you are into the "Sovereign Citizen" movement, which means you have some very fringe ideas on what liberty means. So no, I guess I don't "grasp" liberty as you define it. Neither would any other sane person. Anyone who is tempted to follow Clem's link, DON'T. It's a well known scam, and a borderline cult. That nut and his son who recently died in a shoot out with police were Sovereign Citizen folks. They are CRAZY.

Old Timer...."As I recall, back when the Constitution was written..."

How old are you? Where you there when it was written? LOL!

(Just a little bantering from a fellow old-timer.)

To "promote the general welfare", not provide it, is simply a justification listed as to "why" a constitution was required. The only meaning you can take from it is quite literal - (remember this is in the preamble) - that the document itself is asserted to "promote the general welfare. This is why Progressives and Socialists are dead wrong about the Constitution being outdated. Our Constitution is based on principles, not laws. Laws are derived from those principles.
The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended.

Oldtimer, your remark is total nonsense. The reason all adult citizens can vote is because of the Constitution. Maybe you should take the time to actually read it. I have, several times.

The only real function of government is to pick up the frozen, starved dead bodies of the homeless, say, maybe once a week or so.

Otherwise if the treasury has any money in it, that should be given to the honorable, deserving multi-Billionaires.

After all, it is the multi-Biliionaires who pay all the taxes, EXCEPT for the almost 100 percent exemptions that cover practically all of their incomes, dividends from their foreign based corporations and profits based on laws written by the lobbyists and by the legislators who they have purchased with their unlimited campaign contributions.

That is real justice.

Dan - But Oldtimer IS correct, when our country was young only White Male landowners could vote, we've come a long way. A Constitution that can be amended and changed is one that prevents a Coup.

@Chris - Do away with Medicare and social security? So what do you propose the US going to do with the seniors whom relied on these two programs for their livelihoods? Oh, the GOP and teabagger had a solution for that, cut tax for the riches and they will take care of the seniors and give jobs to everyone.

Great posts Clem!

It boils down to original intent. Meaning only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation.

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.

Clem XII,

I see you are more like our founding fathers than I anticipated. Your mistrust of the idiotic" general public would resonate well in the halls of leadership at our founding. I must then suppose you are a fan of the electoral college, the last vestige of protection of the government from the "idiotic" general public and their irrational minds. I do agree with you that freedom (liberty is redundant) is as important ideal as ever. We do still talk about the ideal of freedom just like our fore fathers, but in practice today's freedoms bare a remarkable difference than those of fore gone years, life (another cornerstone) is more complicated and as a result more freedoms/rights are created and denied. So understanding the ideals of this country are important, as you advocate educating yourself on the rights, responsibilities, and historical perspectives of the founders are essential to executing your responsibilities as a citizen. You also have an ally in Thomas Jefferson who believed a well educated citizenry was necessary to the survival of the republic. I however cannot bring myself to say we must apply the Constitution in only a manner to which our founding father would find agreeable. How can we be a government of the people by the people if we do not allow the flexibility to let the people through their elected representative reinterpret the Constitution occasionally to better fit our current needs and circumstances. I to am frustrated with the apparent desire of the current political parties and their candidates to be self serving and not always serving the interest of the people first. Which brings me back to the beginning of this post I'm not sure who qualifies as the people for you, as your post seem to indicate you might believe that some are not as important or qualified as others. Which then confirms my first assertion that you are more like our founding father..."freedom" for the selected few... I hope I have misinterpreted you intention. You seem to love liberty to much for that to be true.

Yes, the world is different from that of the Founding Fathers. Medical technology is far better, we are capable of visiting other planets, the Internet is making communciation and information exchange speeds nearly equivalent to the speed of light, etc. As such, we can rest assured that what they said about muskets and homemade newspapers can't be applied at face value to tanks and Internet blogs.

However, the principles they based their responses on to their specific time in history are timeless to themselves. Yes, in some cases, they were hypocrits (and who isn't in some aspect?). We've had to correct their error of limiting voting to white, male landowners. However, the principle of equal opportunity does not mean wealth is redistributed equally, both then and now. It means that we are all to have the equal opportunity to go as far as we are willing and able in life. We have the opportunity to write our opinion and broadcast it without military police showing up and carting us away never to be seen again. Remember the live-action sitcom about Bush and the cartoon Lil' Bush on Comedy Central? Do you know how rare it is to find a country where you can mock the leader openly without repercussions?

This country has a fantastic blend of freedoms for the individual. Here, you can use your imagination for the betterment of the world. This is why so much innovation comes out of the U.S. In tyranny, intelligence is considered a bad thing because it is a threat to the tyrant. That's why so many oppressed have flocked and continue to flock here. We are a nation of the oppressed, insightful people of the world, or the descendants of said people.

All this goes away when we start giving livelihoods away for free; when we reward inactivity with the fruits of the hardworking populace. Rewards for inactivity breed inactivity. The Soviet Union learned this the hard way as did much of eastern Europe and southeast Asia over the course of the past half century. Western Europe is learning this now. They started giving things away, and people started to expect this as a right rather than a lucky break. Now, in this global recession, Europe is running out of things to give. So has Ecuador and Cuba while Venezuala is starting to falter too. The people are getting mad in these places and demanding these gifts as a right. If the likes of Michael Moore and his ilk had their way, we'd be in the same boat in this country.

This brings me to your message Casylius. I know I've meandered about some on the topic, but I wanted some background in there and respond a bit on the Founding Fathers quotes argument. You mention people relying on Medicare and social security. That is the problem. These people never should have relied on these programs in the first place. Of course, since they have, we need to keep having the young give up their money to the seniors, which of course make the young expect their turn to get it back as seniors, and so forth down the line so no politicians will move to cut it. The program is unsustainable if the age limit doesn't increase with our life expectancy increases (when social security was first implemented, the human life expectancy in this country was about 64, so they only expected to have to pay even just one year to about a half the population). Either eventually a generation of seniors will simply be cutoff and be mad, or a young generation will have to pay into the program to cover the seniors with full knowledge that they won't get it back. Either way, a lot of people will get mad.

The socialist experiment has always been self destructive. Not a single socialist country has flourished, and most fall apart into humanitarian crisis situations with tyrants in charge. The Chinese and Vietnamese are showing some sparks of an industrial base, but that only started when these countries started to move away from socialism and towards capitalism. When FDR dabled in socialism with this system, he set us on a course for our own eventual angry populace, just like western Earope is feeling today, they of course having dabled in socialism to a far greater extent so they're feeling it a lot sooner.

Another moron in Bri that doesn't know what he's talking about, talking out of his A...

Robust the constitution is not a static document. The amendments made in it were made in accordance with article five which states,

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One Thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

"Comment: Both the states and Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution. It takes two-thirds of the states to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments, which must then be approved by state legislatures in three-quarters of the states. Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution if two-thirds of the members in both chambers vote to support the amendment. After Congress proposes an amendment, it then requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures, or three-quarters of special state conventions, whichever Congress specifies."

Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The founders of this country made provisions for change as needed.

Revelwoodie -

Thank you for the points you made relative to the intent of our founding fathers and the role of government.

They were not some kind of all-knowing deities, but simply men who wanted to launch a free country. Their knowledge, wisdom and intentions were grounded in the era in which they lived and the history they knew. America now is a far different country than it was in their day, and they would have had precious little insight into the problems we now face.

You are absolutely right...in a truly free country, it should be up to the people to chart their own course with respect to what they believe their government needs to do (or not do). And a wise people will adjust that course if circumstances deem it prudent.

Well written, Tyler, KY

many of those that go on about the founding fathers supposed "intent", would themselves have Americans return to horse-drawn carriages and farms.

Many of those "that go on about the founding fathers supposed intent" would prefer to live their lives unmolested by government.

robust,

What exactly do you think does fall under the category "general welfare of the people"? I would think general welfare means covering the basic necessities of life - food, clean drinking water, shelter, access to medicine when you're sick, basic education, etc. I suppose you think that people born into extreme poverty deserve it and should stay that way? That people who are lucky enough to be born rich deserve a life of leisure and luxory? If the government isn't supposed to help the poor and disadvantaged, then what the hell are they supposed to do???

Many of those "that go on about the founding fathers supposed intent" would prefer to live their lives unmolested by government.

They seem not to understand that the government was intended to be the arm of the people themselves, governing according to the wishes of the people as expressed through their vote.

When governments are sufficiently weakened, history shows that other elements will step in and take control. These might be elements from the military, elements from without the country, or, in the case of our own country, a corporate elite.

We have seen how little regard the corporate element has for our safety and best interests. The government we elect is the ONLY entity capable of running interference against that element on our behalf. If we believe it falls short in that regard, then the remedy is governmental reform. But if we choose instead to emasculate our government, we do so at our own peril.

@katie262

"I would think general welfare means covering the basic necessities of life - food, clean drinking water, shelter, access to medicine when you're sick, basic education, etc."

Your list of "basic necessities of life" is actually incredibly extensive, and I don't mean for a farmer on the frontier in 1793 CE, I mean the majority of the populace on this planet right now.

Most people call these the basic necessities of life: air, food, water, and shelter. Many people are scrambling just for these things in the world and you are throwing CLEAN water and medicine into the mix. These things are hard to come by, and I don't just mean money-wise. These things took thousands of innovative minds to bring to fruition. This isn't some romantic fantasy of frontier life, this is reality. You can't just give this stuff away and expect your stores to last forever. Something has got to give! You have to work for it as both an individual and a society. It may sound cold the way people talk these days, but some things that people call rights are really privaleges. The Soviet Union and many other countries that tried this found out the hard way and millions died as a result.

I will agree that though not a basic necessity of life, education is a basic necessity of civilization so personally, I'm rather glad Jefferson threw that in there and that we haven't taken it out since.

"I suppose you think that people born into extreme poverty deserve it and should stay that way?"

Hell no. Everyone deserves the chance to go as far as their capabilities can take them. That's what freedom is about!

"That people who are lucky enough to be born rich deserve a life of leisure and luxory?"

Hell no again. Look, making money is hard. Losing it is easy. Just about everyone in this country today had ancestors that came over here on a diseased boat with nothing but the clothes on their backs to their names. We, as a mix of multiple cultures and peoples, went on to develop flight, telecommunications, the majority of medicines, the steam engine, and even the capabilities to explore the Solar System by our own booted feet. No longer do we have just the clothes on ouur backs. Most people even below the poverty line today have a better standard of living than the most powerful royalty of medieval Europe! This is something extraordinary. Do we want to throw this powerhouse of innovation away? I know what you are going to say, "But guaranteeing food and medicine won't necessarily throw all that away." I could get into the economics of wealth redistribution, but I'm not looking for another long post here. It's ECON 201 basics stuff and can be looked up. Once again, I cite every country that went socialist as an example of why we shouldn't try it ourselves. Everyone ends up with no free press, starving, and/or shot.

"If the government isn't supposed to help the poor and disadvantaged, then what the hell are they supposed to do???"

It's laid out in the Constitution and its amendments. This is easily looked up on the web. You can really Google it yourself, but the short answer: guarantee individual freedom (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and protect the populace from threats both foreign and domestic (life). Obviously, this isn't all, this is the short answer.

The U.K. and and Germany have good working models of sociaism. Their people have universal health. Please cite the countries where socialism has failed.

Not every country that claims to be socialist is.

Wade,

Cuba, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, China, Grenada, Bolivia...do I have to go on?

actually thinking aloud, the examples you cited are the failed remains of a marxist, centrally planned and state-owned economic model, which is a proven failure.

China is ostensibly still "communist" in name, yet has let a market-based system grow in their country, so they no longer follow the state-owned model (which does not work)

Europe and nearly every other wealthy, industrialized nation utilize a much milder version that attempts to cover basics for it's citizens without seizing the private enterprise that still makes economic growth possible

even a partially socialized medical system wouldn't necessarily be a disaster, since the heavy costs associated with medical insurance that some employers (those that insure their employees) would be eliminated and would be replaced by a tax accross the board.

but I would also want the ability to get upgraded medical services for anyone that had the ability to pay for said superior services, such would be covered by private insurance.

Dan,

Socialism is the philosophy that all interests are held in trust for the people by the government, for its use in furtherance of the people's best interest. That's what the Soviet Union had...and Cuba, China(for a time), and so on and so forth. They all failed.

So now Europe is adopting failed policies(which failed horribly and miserably) and people want the United States to follow suit. Europe has run up heavy debts relative to its size, several countries with these vaunted benefits have gone bankrupt. Even England is having to cut back both on its military and social programs to stay in the red.

Why would we want that here?

So now Europe is adopting failed policies

no, they have had those policies since the end of wwII, it's nothing new. the main problem is that their economies took a hit from a banking fiasco that started here with American investment firms packaging garbage and selling it as caviar. and the firms knew it at least one or two were actively working towards forcing a collapse so they could make a killing.

Actually no Dan,

Germany(the largest, most successful European economy) only adopted those policies in the 1990s in response to the integration of the two Germanies.

And the banking fiasco was world wide, because every country is mortgaged to the hilt and can't find a way to stop borrowing.

Thinking aloud, my second post covers the countries you mentioned in your post. Each of those countries are or were socialist in name only. Socialism has worked in Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden. I am not against capitalism, however government oversight is required to keep capitalism from making the aquistion of profit from making the public miserable.

Wade,

Socialism is not the oversight of production resources, socialism is government ownership of those resources. That is what every country I named had, it failed. Just accept that, a government bureaucracy is by its nature less efficient than a private corporation.

And of the three countries you listen one is going broke, in the other not working is a shame most citizen can't bear, and in the last the population is smaller than many US states.

Why don't you tell me what perks our military receives that they do not deserve...

those "perks" arent exactly gold plated. Low quality medical, tax free shopping (on base?), travel (space available/on cargo planes). Especially compared to what you have to put up with. Its not like union perks or something.

bs detector - Or like the perks of our elected representatives either for that matter. I'm told that our Speaker of the House has access to a pretty nice fleet of airplanes............

Okay, but the Speaker of the House isn't military.

I come from a family where my dad's ex-military, and I've spoken with current military personnel. Guess what, it aint gold-plated at all. But guess what, they volunteered, and they get a reward called a paycheck. And the VA also covers battlefield injuries, wanna take that away? Say, "oh, if you get shot, we don't take care of you"?

Rick - Nancy Pelosi has access to exactly the same travel options as any Republican Speaker would have. When John Boehner becomes Speaker, will you still be complaining about it? I doubt it.

revelwoodie:

Does that mean Boehner ought to have the same travel options as Pelosi?

remember when pelosi was demanding a bigger plane? Even her "majority" nixed that one. Too over the top for the most honest congress in history. ;)

I've read over the political history of Ecuador and the last "rightist" government ended in 1895. Since then, Ecuador has been either a Junta government, a Liberal government or a Socialist government as it is today. The "rightist" government you speak of, unified the country in the 1860's and was ousted in 1895. Not much time for influence.

What an idiot! Again some one writing/talking about what they don't know. 26-years (active duty) in the US Army, I didn't see any perks! Oops, I did get a rucksack with sleeping gear, all the food and ammo I could carry/shoot; and I got to travel to far away places and sleep in the mud. I guess some would call that a body bath (something like a mud pack facial). And I got free rides on airplanes that I got to jump out of (at night too), what fun. Well overall, I can't say that jumping out of airplanes wasn't fun.

Most of the problems with what is going on in the world is the hype that the media puts on everything to keep them wound up. People are to lazy to do alittle research and get to the truth beneath the twisted tales the left or the right put out. Come on people, use that thing on your shoulders for something other than a hat rack!

Silly people!

Everyone knows John Boehner doesn't need anything but a tanning bed and a huge tax cut at our expense.

Dan, the problem is more complex. In Ecuador, like in the rest of Latin America (with the exception of Bolivia today) the dominance of the European ruling style derived from the Spanish colonial lifestyle which consisted first in the Spaniard elites handling power, with the support of the church as long as they got their contributions, and the military as the strong arm to support their ideas has been the constant from the 1500s until today. It has not changed a bit, whether there is a constitution in place or not. And unfortunately Ecuador is not the only example where you can see that. If you look at Latin America, the dominance of the European over the native is still palpable. In a sense like we have here in the US with the Native Americans, they still limited to reservations and certain conditions. (The only difference, our 'Indians' at least run the casinos and have a $3,000 per month compensation from the US government. In Latin America, they have to give thanks because they have not been executed yet).

If you have a contact within the government why are you feeding the information to an MSNBC news article COMMENT?

I just heard from somebody in the inside that the Ecuadorean president made a stop at his favorite restaurant and then is going to the beach to go surfing.

I also just heard he's macking on a banana right now!

...and they have guns, tanks and bombers...

cball,

Have you even been to Ecuador? You just blindly accused the greatest man that has been in office in the past 20 years as being a tyrant. Your comment compels me to inform you that the PEOPLE of Ecuador, who by the way constitutionally elected him, are 100% behind their president. The only people who are opposed to him are the elite oligarchy, as usual opposed to change for the betterment of the country. Correa is a hero to all the people who have never had access to a doctor, school or political rights. The police have had their salaries doubled, their families given free access to healthcare and education. Taking away bonuses is hardly reason enough to attempt assassination on Correa, but as history repeats itself once again, they are not acting alone. CIA once again, overthrowing a government for the safeguarding of U.S. investments...oops sorry I mean "National Security"

End to Corruption: I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it might not be quite accurate. I talked to family in Ecuador today, in the last hour and there are many people who do not see Correa as the greatest elected official in the last 20 years. People also take exception to his changes in the constitution that give him more power and could be a set up for future moves towards a dictatorship.

It is not just the elite who are having a hard time swallowing the direction that Correa is taking the country. The default on loans has further destabilized the country’s economic future. The country is not currently 100% behind their president.

OK Rick, you win. EVERYONE in the country is out demanding better pay and benefits for the police and military. Are you happy now?

Marlen,

Why don't you try acknowledging the fact that you are wasting time and valuable space for collaborations on an important issue. Go comment on something in the entertainment section if you refuse to actually read the article....and admit that you are wrong.

End to Corruption: You just sound like the banana country military just 'imposing' your ideas and giving recommendations to Marlene. You may not like her comment, but freedom is just that, being able to say what you think without fear of retribution.

Terrifying

Sick of People: Let me ask you what is more terrifying, Chavez (elected president by the people of Venezuela) going to the rescue of Correa (elected president by the people of Ecuador) or the people of the United States screaming in one hand that we are the example of what a democracy should be to the rest of the world, yet celebrating when people pretend to overthrow the elected authorities of a country just because their ideas don't go along with ours?

Without defending the clown of Miraflores (aka Chavez), what is our policy on hypocrisy, by ranting against him yet buying his heating oil at a really cheap price. Please explain...

Terrifying

Doesn't take much to scare you.

Thank God you are in the minority in this country Phil. Hugo Chavez has allowed his country to become even more deadly for it's citizens than Mexico. Actually, he did it intentionally by setting loose his goons to stifle any resistance to his policies. Ask any Venezuelan in this country what they think if you want the truth. I have and that's why they left Venezuela. Wait a minute, maybe you aren't even an American. That would be great.

You are a gilipollas if you can even speak those tyrants names in the same breath!!!

Right on the spot Rooster. You taught me a new Spanish word today.

So, Ron and Rooster like regimes that toss people from planes if they challenge the capaitalist paradigm? Eek.

Phil - Cuba is now considered to be part of South America? Well, no matter. Even if that were to be true it seems as if Fidel Castro has recently discovered that communism isn't working in Cuba. Now I could have informed him of that over four decades ago but there was no real rush to do so.

Enjoy your dictator worship, Phil. It just doesn't happen to be a particularly popular idea here in Los Estados Unidos.

I would love to hear Phil back that up with facts and figures - but I won't hold my breath.

Rick,

Actually, considering the enormous pressure the US has put on Cuba and the terrorist attacks funded by the US against Cuba over the years, it is amazing and a testiment to their will that they are in the position that they are in. Consider that while you're tea-bagging yourself.

Stupid of you Doug to think anyone would support throwing people from airplanes. I'll take the good ole USA over any foreign country right now. There are plenty of countries that would just love to have an American that talks trash about his country to aid their agendas. If you don't like it here, then leave. Or are you speaking as a foreigner with nothing but bad intentions toward the USA?

"So, Ron and Rooster like regimes that toss people from planes if they challenge the capaitalist paradigm? Eek."

Would I be correct to assume, Doug, that you're a big fan of the gulags and the laogai?

Wow, you don't have to be a Tea Party member to know that socialism is a failed and inferior system in any country. Don't be afraid of the fact that people are waking up to those who wish to transform this country into something that we do not want. I don't even personally know any Tea Party folks, but I'll side with them against those like you anyday and they have already done this country a great service in speaking out.

Norm,

Exactly what do you want backed up by facts and figures? Read the Pinochet Files. It documents from CIA and NSA documents that the USA overthrew a democratically elected President and installed one of the worlds most evil dictators. It also shows how the US supported Operation Condor which was responsible for the disappearances of thousands of people throughout South America. Do you have any idea of the rampage, torture, and killings that the US has sponsored south of our borders over the last century?

You can debate what you want, but you should at least own up to the facts.

Kudos Norm. Thank god that there are people in this country who don't take all their information from Fox11 news and CNN.

I feel so sorry for all of you who have never learned about the atrocities that our imperialistic government had done in these latin american countries. You only enjoy all you have here because so much has been robbed from Latin America to give you your $5 T shirts and $2 coffee!

I applaud Cuba for being the only truly sovereign nation, and Fidel for being a leader of humanism. Most Americans are indoctrinated and biased to believe what the elite of our country wish.

Its a sad day for Ecuador, another victory for capitalism and the oligarchy at the expense of the people.

End to Corruption:

What are your thoughts on Oscar Biscet?

$2 coffee. Are you drinking swill? ;)

Phil Greene, if Chavez is as great as you say he is then tell me what's so great about him involved in the drug trafficking trade with Europe? If it wasn't for him, there wouldn't be so many drugs over there coming from south america.

Furthermore, talk to someone who actually lives in those countries (Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador), their attitudes towards their leaders/governments will be just a little more negative than yours.

what_the_81,

I'm sure Chavez is the sole reason for drugs in Europe. I can't speak about drugs in Europe (though I imagine it is quite similar) but the last time I checked, Mexico, half of Asia, most of South America, Latin America, and the Caribbean, large parts of the middle east, some of Europe, and some of Canada are pouring drugs into the US. It is supply-side economics that drives the drug trade. What the hell does Chavez have to do with it directly?

man.. y'all are full of crap. all the countries do what you accuse each country of doing. they will continue to do such acts in order to push their agenda and to serve/protect their national interests.

you people just like to argue over stuff you have no control over in order to feel like you have purpose and are doing something magnanimous. I will not read another thing from you blogging, pompous, self-glorification seeking a55hounds.

Dedicated to my Wife, why are you commenting then? nobody invited you to join in and blog. Trust me, none of us will feel hurt if you decide not to read this public forum. You can go back to viewing adult content if you can't take it.

What the 81: Are you on drugs? You complain about drugs going into Europe? the US is the #1 market in drug consumption, by far. Drug traffickers, despite what you may think are businessmen, and they will try anything and everything to increase their revenues. Mexican cartels are flourishing today because the Colombian cartels realized that it was too risky to take the drugs by themselves to the US, for they may get caught. Therefore, as true businessmen they are, they outsourced their operations. They just simply sell the drugs to the Mexicans at a lower profit margin and they let the Mexicans to take the risks to put it in American soil. If you read the news you will realize that more than 90 percent of the drug arrests made in the US related to narcotics are of Mexican origin. The Colombians simply produce it and sell it to the Mexicans, they do the rest. the Chinese use the Canadian border to smuggle heroin and opium (among other things) without being detected, because everybody is worried with the Mexican invasion in the South that they do not see what's coming through our beloved neighbor in the North. Afghanistan has increased it poppies production systematically since 2001 up to 192,000 ha of 2007. And only a fraction of that heroin reaches the US, since it is mostly consumed in Europe. Drugs get to Europe mostly through Africa and through the Balkans.

And finally, who the F&C* gave you the right to say who and who can't participate in the forum? If you don't like his or her answer fine, you don't need to answer. But your response is characteristic of the very same guys you are despising in your comments. What is with you, write it with your hand while erasing it with your elbow? Get a grip on reality.

justiceforall-2038290, The only thing I mentioned was that Chavez may be involved with the drug trade with Europe. Somehow the crack got to your head to go off on a huge rant about something totally unrelated to what I said earlier. Duh, I know the whole issue with the relationship between the colombian and mexican druglords. What the hell is your problem? When did I say anything different? Once you're able to take your meds, look at the international drug routes established by drug enforcement agencies. How do you think cocaine gets into Europe? There is also a major conspiracy in Venezuela itself that Chavez is part of a group responsible for delivering south american cocaine and other narcotics to Europe. Every Venezuelan I know tells me the same thing.

Yeah, that dude was sick of reading comments on here, so I told him if he didn't like it, he could leave on his own, I didn't kick him out (nor would I even if i had the power to do so). Do you have a problem with that you weirdo?

Thanks, Arthur. Sure, there's plenty in this country that needs corrected/attended/handled. But here we do it by voting. We've managed through thick and thin for two hundred and thirty four years. Let's hope we don't screw it up now. VOTE. If you're not registered, get registered. If you're not a citizen, do what's necessary to be one. Join us, don't drag us deeper into debt and dissent. This is a great country. We need all to work to keep it that way.

Check back in a few hours. I think the firing is in progress.

I dunno, he was elected. Would Ecuador be better served by a bunch of thugs from the police running the country? Be careful what you wish for.

Nancy, remember, he was democratically elected. We have democratically elected officials right here in this country running a muk. Spending millions of dollars flying around on government aircraft at the tax payers expense. A couple of recent trips (vacations) for the 1st lady come to mind, Nancy Pelosi and her numerous cross country flights home for vacations. Our elected officials are not listening to us right now. Do you recall the town hall meetings before the health care vote? People were so against it, that violence was breaking out. Remember? Anybody who stood up to a politician and called then on their @!$%#, was promptly escorted from the building? Remember? We have an administration that blatantly lies to us. Remember transparency? Remember that no bill would be signed without it appearing on the White House web page for at least 5 days for Americans to review? Do you remember all the photo's of our President bowing to foreign royalty? How about the photo at the UN of our president shaking hands with Hugo Chavez and accepting a gift (a book ) from him? So Correa plays cards in Venezuela? Our President takes Air Force One home to Chicago on Memorial Day, and passes of the laying of the wreath at Arlington to that dufus Vice President of his. I'm not pro Correa by any stretch, but we've got some pretty fishy stuff happening right here in our own country.

You realize it sets a bad precedent when a country's people(or police in this case) can decide, "well he's not quiet what we want anymore" put his back against a wall and then install their own dictator.

You don't believe in elections? Correa was elected by the widest majority in many years. If you want a non democratic country, go to Cuba or Iran...

Nancy, if you don't like him, vote him out. But do not stomp on the Constitution just because you don't like him. How many cases we have seen through Latin America of governments overthrown just because we didn't like their policies? And how many people paid the consequences of the delusions of grandeur of those who usurped power. Ecuador had 27 Presidents since 1970, out of which only 10 were elected by the people. I can tell you in every country in Latin America, except for Costa Rica (in the same period) all the others have suffered an interruption in their democratic governments. Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, Cuba, Mexico, etc. Again, you don't like him, vote him out, but if we don't start by respecting the people's choice (even when we don't like it) how can we claim to be the defenders of democracy and freedom? This is not do as I say but not as I do... And I don't like him either, but it's the people's choice.

American citizens are waking up to this reality Bruce. Progressive socialism is destined to be a short term policy in any country. At some point, all of the money and benefits they promise become impossible to provide when they have emptied the pockets of their rich and middle class citizens.

socialism is unsustainable. It based on taking from producers and giving to the takers. That drives the producers away and the takers dont have anybody to take from.

bs: Socialism is taking from producers and giving to "takers"...isn't that capitalism? Taking value from those making things (workers) and giving to "takers" (rich fat pig-f*%kers). Or do you think that rich people make anything but effluvia?

"Wait a minute, I thought the Socialist Progressive governments were the ones who are supposed to increase spending on benefits not the ones who cut benefits. Something is backwards here"

What's backwards here is your thinking. You can work to make your country a better place to live and be a good manager of money. This is beyond the thinking of people like you.

As a matter of fact, the economy has been better and the debt less during Democratic administrations here in the US. Liberals are sane managers as opposed to the neo-cons and Tea Party people who live in an idealogical fantasy world.

They think lowering taxes, letting corporations do what they want and cutting social programs is the solution for everything. In case you haven't noticed that is EXACTLY what we have done for 30 YEARS - ever since Reagan. When is this ideologically pure magic going to start working?

Wow. Interesting conversations for sure. I live in Canada, where we have some socialist programs; some provinces more than others. Thankfully through this economy we have had a Federal Conservative government in place and have fared far better than other countries.

So, many European countries are doing similar rioting and striking. Why? Oh no. I cannot retire with full pension at 60 anymore. They want me to work until 62. Some of those countries that do not require regular days, weeks or years of work to realize retirement are on the verge of bankruptcy. Something must change in all countries around the world. How many of you would love to retire with full pension at 60. I know I would.

the "producers" are the workers and the business "fatcats" that organize and finance them. That's where jobs come from. The "takers" are the non-workers; welfare recepients. "Taking" refers to "unjustified" taking. Working for a paycheck is "justified" earning.

Never took a poliSci class, eh?

@ Shu Shu: regarding the change in retirement age, it depends on the country. Going from 60 to 62 would be strange, but the debate in most of the countries, e.g. Germany, is to bump the retirement age up from 65 to 67...which is, in my opinion, starting to get a bit old. I definitely hope that I'm not working at 67.

As far as socialism goes, I don't understand why everyone seems to think that every "socialist" country has the exact same system. As Shu Shu said, Canada has some socialist programs. Some countries have more, some have less (even the U.S.). So if "socialism" manifests itself to varying degrees and in different ways, why is it ALWAYS bad (in the minds of a lot of the posters here)?

I have lived in multiple European countries over the past few years - some with more, some with less socialist programs. I honestly don't see how anyone in the U.S. can claim that things are better in the U.S. (regarding the role of goverment and what it provides for the people) than in many European countries (not all of course). Where I'm living now, you get health care even when you're working part-time, five weeks of vacation, tax-free pay for a 13th and 14th month (don't ask me why they do that, but I'm not going to complain), etc. etc. etc. Of course they're feeling the squeeze in the current economic situation, but I would imagine that they don't owe the Chinese as much as we do...so they're not doing that bad.

It'd be nice to see people differentiate a little bit more when referring to "socialism". The Cold War is over and not every "socialist" is Chavez...

Hmm...is Capitalism in for the long run as well? I seem to remember something in 2008 almost bringing the system to a stop, if it wasn't for "Socialist" Government intervention.

Doug you dufus, the key words in your half baked statement are take and give. In a capitalist nations it's buy and sell.

Yeah, capitalism is so much better, economically...How deeply in debt are we? Forget capitalism and communism...it's European socialism all the way...

@carlos:

It's European socialism all the way until you also run out of money. Just look at Greece, Spain, France, and the UK...

It also doesn't help that Europe is getting older demographically, and is not producing enough new workers to fund their increasingly burdensome entitlement system.

Veteran,

Always room for improvement. This voting thingy hasn't worked out quite as well as thought. But a lot better than what's going on in Equador.

"always room for improvement". That's what democracy is all about. Peaceful improvements. At leaset our election news doesnt include body counts.

the technical term is "coup."

Key Orion: Have you been to Ecuador? It is not drug cartel run, though there is a lot of corruption. The interest that the US has in Ecuador has to do with OIL. Because Ecuador has oil the US has often been very involved in the politics of the country and currently they use US currency. With such a rich natural resource such as oil, it seems that the drug cartels have not been able to get the foothold in Ecuador that they have in other countries. Being a South American country does not automatically mean Drug Cartel controlled.

Also look at the history of Ecuador, unfortunately coups are common and seem to happen with regular frequency. It is almost ingrained in the political culture. Ecuador’s political system does not work the same way that the US system does and I doubt that those who are participating in the protests view what they are doing as illegal or criminal acts for which incarceration is warranted.

BS: He needs to change the whole team. The right already did everything before (cracking skulls, administrative trials, killing of civilians, redistribution of wealth), and even they had the opportunity to get rid of a president when that president decided to 'nationalize' the oil industry in Ecuador. So, the Ecuadorean people has a tough choice, either a leftist nutcase, supported by China and the other wackos in the area who sells them utopia, or a rightist nutcase, supported by the US, which would sell them absolutely nothing, but will take whatever they may have left to share it among 'their' people. Don't look at the mirror, you'll find that you're full of BS.

Chavez is much like Bush? Your name says it all, full of BS.

Marlen, learn to read. He wrote: Chavez is a small minded man, much like Bush...

Chavez is like Bush? Hmmm. How's Obama working out for you?

BS, I never get on these things but I have to say that Correa is nothing like Bush. I think Bush did mistakes while in office and also did some great things while in office all within a democratic system. Take a look at Correa's track record-ALL SOCIALIST (How is that like Bush?), which is the reason you have the country revolting, while there is a corruption at all levels of gov in Ecuador. Correa is trying to eradicate it with a cool glass of Chaveisim, problem is that will not work in Ecuador.

Second point is that you have Correa that is well educated in the US. Under that premise most people in Ecuador voted for him hoping to instill American Capitalism and Democratic values, but as you can see he turned out to be a leftist progressive that wants governmet take over again just like Chavez.

Truth Obama is spending LESS money then Bush spent and he wants to GIVE the largest middle class tax cut in history. Stop watching Fox and give msnbc a chance.

Wade that's complete bull and you know it.

Like hell it is thinking. What is bull is what the GOP and the TEA party is doing.

In 2008 President Bush requested 2.9 trillion dollars in expenditures in the budget proper. Even with the massive price tag the deficit was only 239 billion, according to the Printing Office.

In 2010 President Obama spent 3.552 trillion dollars(3,552,000,000,000) on the budget proper with a deficit of 1.171 trillion dollars. All of this can be found here.

Now even factoring inflation Obama is spending half a trillion more, as in $500,000,000,000 more. That's a lot, a lot, a lot of money. Oh and all of it is debt.

Go ahead thinking, let fox news do your thinking for you. Obama did not create the debt he inherited it from GWB. Obama is supposed to solve in 2 years a mess the GOP created in 8 years. Even I could not do that. And you want the GOP in power again? We need that like we need to be shot in the head.

After what the GOP pulled off those 8 years, I miss them like I miss a bad hemorrhoid.

Is there a good hemorrhoid? Just kidding, I agree.

Yes Fox News runs the Government Printing Office...wait the Federal Government's executive branch runs the Printing Office which takes information directly from the CBO and the White House in preparing a pamphlet on a governments budget.

But Wade don't let facts stand in your way.

actually...according to your account of how the Ecuadorian police handle business, it sounds like the people might have actually been safer with the police on strike, instead of on the job rousting...umm..protecting them.

If the American government wants to put down a rebellion in the US, they will use the military. I don't think handguns and hunting rifles will be able to stand toe-to-toe with a Blackhawk. You may keep the local police and National Guard at bay, but not the US military.

I doubt the military would ever do that, they would be more likely to turn on the govt.

Anyone remember the New York City Draft Riots of 1863, when the US Government sent the military in to retake New York City? The protesters, who had already sacked several police stations, were well armed and still the result was a rout. Or how about the 10-days war in the southern Colorado coal fields in 1914? The military made short work of the protesters there too. Anyone remember that tank blowing the top off that apartment building in Detroit in 1968 just to take-out a sniper?

Any popular uprising here would be facing the world's strongest military.

As usual I see you all missed the point completely. The Police In Ecuador stopped performing their duties hence the reason shop owners were closing up and looting and vandalism started. There was no one there enforcing the law. In fact it was the police that were breaking the law assuming they have laws against rioting vandalism, civil disobediance etc...

If the police aren't doing their duty and there not there to enforce the laws and protect the citizens what are you going to do wrap yourself in your prinicipals and hope they do the job?

I wish you luck with that.

U.S. military wouldnt attack the very people they are sworn to protect. If you ever served you would know that. They swear allegiance to uphold the CONSTITUTION not the POTUS.

It didnt stop McAurthur going after the "bond army". Still, I dont see the military culture tolerating more than isolated incidents. These scenarios are actually covered in the academies.

The military in USA will side with the people, won't turn against their fanilies, friends....The government knows that very well, thank god!

Senior military officials are pragmatic. They will want to restore law, order, and democracy as soon as possible. They will choose the side that offers them the quickest path to that goal.

@Resbot Nermo

Yeah, 'cuz the Iraqi insurgency was a real pushover...