And Mitt Picks...

[ylexot]

"personal freedom and personal responsibility." is a worn out tagline. To say the environment has no influence is just plain silly.

So now that you Twitter, you don't want personal freedom? You shouldn't be responsible for yourself?

 

[ylexot]

And these things exist in social democracy likewise, and that system *actually works*, and does so without massive waste of resources like the US lassez-faire system.

Which social democracy country are you referring to?

As for the US, we haven't followed libertarian principles in ~100 years, so don't confuse the country as it was founded with the one that exists now.

 

[OutofDate1980]

So now that you Twitter, you don't want personal freedom? You shouldn't be responsible for yourself?

http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/578257-mitt-picks-5.html#post4902450

Depends who is doing the defining. The planter elite at one time did the defining.

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued "importation" of slaves. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States then existing 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial/US history.[28]

As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited citizens from providing assistance to escaping slaves and required the return of chattel property to owners.

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[29] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation. They were represented primarily by men of their planter elite, who also dominated the presidency for nearly 50 years.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Which social democracy country are you referring to?

As for the US, we haven't followed libertarian principles in ~100 years, so don't confuse the country as it was founded with the one that exists now.

Do I have to refer to a country? There's more to life than a nation state.

Also, I'm sure people had a great quality of life 100 years ago and enjoyed the financial crashes thoroughly.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Do I have to refer to a country? There's more to life than a nation state.

Also, I'm sure people had a great quality of life 100 years ago and enjoyed the financial crashes thoroughly.

Those crashes affected people around the world. Government can't insulate people from that. Look at Greece. They are about to go broke and they have a social welfare system do they not?

The bold and underlined is a complete lie. The tax hit on retirement funds drawn before retirement age is reached is 10%, no more and no less. Your sources are not reliable, just as your apparent choice of government representation is not reliable or competent.

The penalty for early with drawal is your tax bracket + 10%. In some cases it's up to 25%. In this case, this co-worker and I were in the 35% tax bracket so the penalty is your tax bracket + 10% = 45% in this case.

Edit: Just checked the numbers and it appears I was wrong. 25% tax bracket, not 35%. So 25%+10% total is a 35% hit, not a 45%. My previous point stands though it's a ridiculously foolish move. Also interesting to note that one of Obama's first proposed solutions for the economy was to let people withdraw from their retirement tax free. That's absolutely brilliant. Hand someone a loaded gun and have them put it to their financial head. That's a wonderful solution. Thankfully it got shot down.

 

[ylexot]

http://androidforums.com/politics-current-affairs/578257-mitt-picks-5.html#post4902450

Depends who is doing the defining. The planter elite at one time did the defining.

Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Constitution of the United States was drafted in 1787, and included several provisions regarding slavery. Section 9 of Article I allowed the continued "importation" of slaves. By prohibiting changes for two decades to regulation of the slave trade, Article V effectively protected the trade until 1808, giving the States then existing 20 years to resolve this issue. During that time, planters in states of the Lower South imported tens of thousands of slaves, more than during any previous two decades in colonial/US history.[28]

As further protection for slavery, the delegates approved Section 2 of Article IV, which prohibited citizens from providing assistance to escaping slaves and required the return of chattel property to owners.

In a section negotiated by James Madison of Virginia, Section 2 of Article I designated "other persons" (slaves) to be added to the total of the state's free population, at the rate of three-fifths of their total number, to establish the state's official population for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional representation and federal taxation.[29] This increased the power of southern states in Congress for decades, affecting national policies and legislation. They were represented primarily by men of their planter elite, who also dominated the presidency for nearly 50 years.

The slavery argument...so predictable. I'll let Frederick Douglass (he was a slave...in case you don't know) handle this one. It's a long read, but the overall conclusion is that the Constitution and the founders were against slavery.
The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery? by Frederick Douglass

Now, does the fact that slavery existed back then negate the entire document?

 

[ylexot]

Do I have to refer to a country? There's more to life than a nation state.

Also, I'm sure people had a great quality of life 100 years ago and enjoyed the financial crashes thoroughly.

Sorry, I should have asked for an example instead of assuming that you were referring to a specific country. Since we can't agree on what right and left are, trying to figure out what you mean by a social democracy seems futile.

 

[OutofDate1980]

The slavery argument...so predictable. I'll let Frederick Douglass (he was a slave...in case you don't know) handle this one. It's a long read, but the overall conclusion is that the Constitution and the founders were against slavery.
The Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery? by Frederick Douglass

Now, does the fact that slavery existed back then negate the entire document?

Yeah, right. That's why it took a civil war to end de jure, but not de facto slavery.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Honest question for OutofDate1980. Is there anything about the Republicans you like? If so, what?

 

[ylexot]

Honest question for OutofDate1980. Is there anything about the Republicans you like? If so, what?

They ended slavery

 

[ylexot]

Yeah, right. That's why it took a civil war to end de jure, but not de facto slavery.

So you're saying you know more about slavery and the Constitution than Frederick Douglass? That takes some pretty big balls.

 

[A.Nonymous]

They ended slavery

Oh, I'm sure they got dragged into it by the Democrats.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Ylexot, social democracy is fairly common in Europe to varying degrees, outside of 7 or 8 post communist ones (Poland, Lithuania, Romania... you get the picture).
Ireland is a social democracy (lite, perhaps, but still), as is Belgium, Finland, Portugal.

Those crashes affected people around the world. Government can't insulate people from that. Look at Greece. They are about to go broke and they have a social welfare system do they not?

They are indeed broke, and we aren't helping. Lots of problems with that country.
It was a social democracy to a large extent. Problem was they had far too many public employees who weren't needed and the upper middle class didn't pay tax.
Pretty sure it had a better healthcare system than the States though.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Yeah, a healthcare system that they obviously can't afford.

 

[OutofDate1980]

So you're saying you know more about slavery and the Constitution than Frederick Douglass? That takes some pretty big balls.

You need not fantasize what I say, I write it out for you.

Actual history: There was chattel slavery in the US and it was legal under the original Constitution, which was later amended to outlaw same.

Actual history: Many of the founders owned slaves.

Alternate history: "Constitution and the founders were against slavery."

Can you tell the difference ?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Yeah, a healthcare system that they obviously can't afford.

That costs a third as much as yours....

 

[A.Nonymous]

That costs a third as much as yours....

That they still can't afford.

 

[ElasticNinja]

That they still can't afford.

What exactly is your point? They dont have enough tax revenues, and have too much spending. Doesnt negate my point. The most corrupt, bloated and inefficient country in Europe had a healthcare system more efficient than yours.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Gotta love Dems using Nazi references to go after the GOP. Stay classy. Stay classy.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Doesn't have the same ring as Feminazi, maybe shemalenazi.

Feminazi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Hitler came to power against the strong feminist movement in Germany, padlocked the family planning clinics, and declared abortion a crime against the state ..."

 

[jefboyardee]

I have to credit the Democrat party with pushing through the Twenty-first Amendment.

 

[OutofDate1980]

What exactly is your point? They dont have enough tax revenues, and have too much spending. Doesnt negate my point. The most corrupt, bloated and inefficient country in Europe had a healthcare system more efficient than yours.

Many don't understand micro/macro economics.

Close your eyes and pretend one is a CEO of an international corporation with wholly owned subsidiaries.

You have subsidiaries that can produce services at 1/3 of the cost of another subsidiary, can you implement this cost saving globally ?

 

[ylexot]

You need not fantasize what I say, I write it out for you.

Actual history: There was chattel slavery in the US and it was legal under the original Constitution, which was later amended to outlaw same.

Actual history: Many of the founders owned slaves.

Alternate history: "Constitution and the founders were against slavery."

Can you tell the difference ?

Yes, we all know slavery existed and many of the founders had slaves. That does not mean that the founders wanted to keep it.

"All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be imported."
Oliver Ellsworth, December 10, 1787

"I believe a time will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. Everything we do is to improve it, if it happens in our day; if not, let us transmit to our descendants, together with our slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
Patrick Henry, letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1773

"It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honour of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."
John Jay, letter to R. Lushington, March 15, 1786

"Slavery naturally tends to destroy all sense of justice and equity. It puffs up the mind with pride: teaches youth a habit of looking down upon their fellow creatures with contempt, esteeming them as dogs or devils, and imagining themselves beings of superior dignity and importance, to whom all are indebted. This banishes the idea, and unqualifies the mind for the practice of common justice."
David Rice, speech to the constitutional convention of Kentucky, 1792

"Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law.... The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all."
James Wilson, The Natural Rights of Individuals, 1804

​

 

[A.Nonymous]

National Debt hits $16 trillion. Every taxpayer now owes $140k. Let's pause and thank both parties for their contributions and admire how both candidates have plans that will increase the debt.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Yes, we all know slavery existed and many of the founders had slaves. That does not mean that the founders wanted to keep it. ...

Fact is the constitution permitted slavery and many white rich dudes made money off slavery, so therefore slavery was kept. Always follow the money.