Sweden got more socialist, economy now booming
Comments
-
AZDuck said:
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?salemcoog said:
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.AZDuck said:
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%PurpleJ said:
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.AZDuck said:
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemicPurpleJ said:Yes it was poorer in the 1800s before a wave of economic reform and a long period of peace. Relatively low government spending coupled with liberal economic policies (i.e. free market capitalism) sparked a period of growth that continued until the mid 20th century when things eventually started to sour due to socialist policies enacted during the 1950s.
And the whole spirit of the fucktard reporters rant is that we should be doing this. When the reality is that we already did this and have nothing to show for it other than another $8 Trillion in debt.
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.Sledog said:For all you "socialism is great" fans just renounce your citizenship and I'll chip in some money for your ticket to whatever socialist paradise you wish to now live in. May I suggest Venezuela?
This is America we have no room for this bullshit or you!
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kids socialist-y.
-
To be clear, the Rich still get to keep their shit, right? We're only talking about sharing the remainder with everybody, right?
-
No -but people forget you always have to get by Finland.Pitchfork51 said:
They sure as fuck ain't beating us in basketball anytime soon.Doogles said:I'm going to need to see black people before I make a determination on Sweden.
-
They should after all the fucking money we (?) had to spend after they supplied the Nazis with steel.AZDuck said:
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?salemcoog said:
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.AZDuck said:
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%PurpleJ said:
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.AZDuck said:
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemicPurpleJ said:Yes it was poorer in the 1800s before a wave of economic reform and a long period of peace. Relatively low government spending coupled with liberal economic policies (i.e. free market capitalism) sparked a period of growth that continued until the mid 20th century when things eventually started to sour due to socialist policies enacted during the 1950s.
And the whole spirit of the fucktard reporters rant is that we should be doing this. When the reality is that we already did this and have nothing to show for it other than another $8 Trillion in debt.
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.Sledog said:For all you "socialism is great" fans just renounce your citizenship and I'll chip in some money for your ticket to whatever socialist paradise you wish to now live in. May I suggest Venezuela?
This is America we have no room for this bullshit or you!
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kinda socialist-y.
The point was, in reference to your earlier poast, that Sweden doesn't have to deal with foreign obligations like the US does. Yet they spend a similar amount of GDP on national defense. The Swedes also spend 1% of GDP on foreign aid versus .19% here in the USA. Now, .19% of USA GDP is a helluva lot more in actual terms than 1% of Sweden, but proportionally, the Swedes do spend a large chunk of their national product on foreign obligations.salemcoog said:
Great! I'm sure this military superpower would fare just fine when attacked by anyone other than Norway.allpurpleallgold said:
BOOM! Roasted.AZDuck said:HI. Sweden, as a non-NATO member, spends much more than most European countries for defense and Swedish defense spending as a proportion of GDP has been comparable to America's for most of the past 50'years, and spending is also rising under the current government. Sweden also maintains a vigorous defense industry which produces most of the armaments purchased by the Swedish armed forces.
Stockholm is only 430 miles from St. Petersburg.
But do continue to reinforce the strawman, And again, let's visit this again when their bills come due.
#godwin
-
Gross. Build that fucking wall.PurpleThrobber said:
No -but people forget you always have to get by Finland.Pitchfork51 said:
They sure as fuck ain't beating us in basketball anytime soon.Doogles said:I'm going to need to see black people before I make a determination on Sweden.
-
You just couldn't resist, could you?Doogles said:I'm going to need to see black people before I make a determination on Sweden.
-
There are rich people and big multinational corporations in Sweden.doogie said:To be clear, the Rich still get to keep their shit, right? We're only talking about sharing the remainder with everybody, right?
AstraZeneca
Electrolux
Ericsson
H&M
Ikea
Skype
Spotify
Volvo
Skanska
It's not the People's Republic of Shitville, y'know -
Fuck you are a special case. These reforms were just set in motion LAST year. When they started to go full retard Socialist.AZDuck said:
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?salemcoog said:
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.AZDuck said:
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%PurpleJ said:
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.AZDuck said:
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemicPurpleJ said:Yes it was poorer in the 1800s before a wave of economic reform and a long period of peace. Relatively low government spending coupled with liberal economic policies (i.e. free market capitalism) sparked a period of growth that continued until the mid 20th century when things eventually started to sour due to socialist policies enacted during the 1950s.
And the whole spirit of the fucktard reporters rant is that we should be doing this. When the reality is that we already did this and have nothing to show for it other than another $8 Trillion in debt.
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.Sledog said:For all you "socialism is great" fans just renounce your citizenship and I'll chip in some money for your ticket to whatever socialist paradise you wish to now live in. May I suggest Venezuela?
This is America we have no room for this bullshit or you!
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kinda socialist-y.
The point was, in reference to your earlier poast, that Sweden doesn't have to deal with foreign obligations like the US does. Yet they spend a similar amount of GDP on national defense. The Swedes also spend 1% of GDP on foreign aid versus .19% here in the USA. Now, .19% of USA GDP is a helluva lot more in actual terms than 1% of Sweden, but proportionally, the Swedes do spend a large chunk of their national product on foreign obligations.salemcoog said:
Great! I'm sure this military superpower would fare just fine when attacked by anyone other than Norway.allpurpleallgold said:
BOOM! Roasted.AZDuck said:HI. Sweden, as a non-NATO member, spends much more than most European countries for defense and Swedish defense spending as a proportion of GDP has been comparable to America's for most of the past 50'years, and spending is also rising under the current government. Sweden also maintains a vigorous defense industry which produces most of the armaments purchased by the Swedish armed forces.
Stockholm is only 430 miles from St. Petersburg.
But do continue to reinforce the strawman, And again, let's visit this again when their bills come due.
And why are you ignoring the Trillions of dollars given in our welfare state the last 8 years and their lack of results in raising GDP and living wage jobs.
You are ignoring it because but, but, but Sweden!!!!!!!!! -
Stop it Bannon!!! It's nothing but caramel rivers and Ginger bread mountains in Sweden!!!!RaceBannon said: -
link, motherfucker?salemcoog said:
Fuck you are a special case. These reforms were just set in motion LAST year. When they started to go full retard Socialist.AZDuck said:
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?salemcoog said:
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.AZDuck said:
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%PurpleJ said:
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.AZDuck said:
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemicPurpleJ said:Yes it was poorer in the 1800s before a wave of economic reform and a long period of peace. Relatively low government spending coupled with liberal economic policies (i.e. free market capitalism) sparked a period of growth that continued until the mid 20th century when things eventually started to sour due to socialist policies enacted during the 1950s.
And the whole spirit of the fucktard reporters rant is that we should be doing this. When the reality is that we already did this and have nothing to show for it other than another $8 Trillion in debt.
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.Sledog said:For all you "socialism is great" fans just renounce your citizenship and I'll chip in some money for your ticket to whatever socialist paradise you wish to now live in. May I suggest Venezuela?
This is America we have no room for this bullshit or you!
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kinda socialist-y.
The point was, in reference to your earlier poast, that Sweden doesn't have to deal with foreign obligations like the US does. Yet they spend a similar amount of GDP on national defense. The Swedes also spend 1% of GDP on foreign aid versus .19% here in the USA. Now, .19% of USA GDP is a helluva lot more in actual terms than 1% of Sweden, but proportionally, the Swedes do spend a large chunk of their national product on foreign obligations.salemcoog said:
Great! I'm sure this military superpower would fare just fine when attacked by anyone other than Norway.allpurpleallgold said:
BOOM! Roasted.AZDuck said:HI. Sweden, as a non-NATO member, spends much more than most European countries for defense and Swedish defense spending as a proportion of GDP has been comparable to America's for most of the past 50'years, and spending is also rising under the current government. Sweden also maintains a vigorous defense industry which produces most of the armaments purchased by the Swedish armed forces.
Stockholm is only 430 miles from St. Petersburg.
But do continue to reinforce the strawman, And again, let's visit this again when their bills come due.
And why are you ignoring the Trillions of dollars given in our welfare state the last 8 years and their lack of results in raising GDP and living wage jobs.
You are ignoring it because but, but, but Sweden!!!!!!!!!
Also, never let facts get in the way of a good argument. GWB raised welfare spending thru Medicare Part D than Obama did with Obummercare. At least according to Forbes.
-
That is probably the most racist thing I've ever posted and it was completely in jest, but it will probably be my downfall if I ever get famous.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You just couldn't resist, could you?Doogles said:I'm going to need to see black people before I make a determination on Sweden.
Look what Derek's created. -
I saw two Ferarris and a Lambeau in eight days in a city with 120,000 people in Finland. So yes, there are still rich people.doogie said:To be clear, the Rich still get to keep their shit, right? We're only talking about sharing the remainder with everybody, right?
Guess how many cars of that caliber I've seen in Eugene after thousands of trips? Still zero. -
You're going to the wrong parking lotsMosster47 said:
I saw two Ferarris and a Lambeau in eight days in a city with 120,000 people in Finland. So yes, there are still rich people.doogie said:To be clear, the Rich still get to keep their shit, right? We're only talking about sharing the remainder with everybody, right?
Guess how many cars of that caliber I've seen in Eugene after thousands of trips? Still zero.
-
I'm sorry that you are struggling with counting.AZDuck said:
link, motherfucker?salemcoog said:
Fuck you are a special case. These reforms were just set in motion LAST year. When they started to go full retard Socialist.AZDuck said:
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?salemcoog said:
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.AZDuck said:
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%PurpleJ said:
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.AZDuck said:
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemicPurpleJ said:Yes it was poorer in the 1800s before a wave of economic reform and a long period of peace. Relatively low government spending coupled with liberal economic policies (i.e. free market capitalism) sparked a period of growth that continued until the mid 20th century when things eventually started to sour due to socialist policies enacted during the 1950s.
And the whole spirit of the fucktard reporters rant is that we should be doing this. When the reality is that we already did this and have nothing to show for it other than another $8 Trillion in debt.
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.Sledog said:For all you "socialism is great" fans just renounce your citizenship and I'll chip in some money for your ticket to whatever socialist paradise you wish to now live in. May I suggest Venezuela?
This is America we have no room for this bullshit or you!
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kinda socialist-y.
The point was, in reference to your earlier poast, that Sweden doesn't have to deal with foreign obligations like the US does. Yet they spend a similar amount of GDP on national defense. The Swedes also spend 1% of GDP on foreign aid versus .19% here in the USA. Now, .19% of USA GDP is a helluva lot more in actual terms than 1% of Sweden, but proportionally, the Swedes do spend a large chunk of their national product on foreign obligations.salemcoog said:
Great! I'm sure this military superpower would fare just fine when attacked by anyone other than Norway.allpurpleallgold said:
BOOM! Roasted.AZDuck said:HI. Sweden, as a non-NATO member, spends much more than most European countries for defense and Swedish defense spending as a proportion of GDP has been comparable to America's for most of the past 50'years, and spending is also rising under the current government. Sweden also maintains a vigorous defense industry which produces most of the armaments purchased by the Swedish armed forces.
Stockholm is only 430 miles from St. Petersburg.
But do continue to reinforce the strawman, And again, let's visit this again when their bills come due.
And why are you ignoring the Trillions of dollars given in our welfare state the last 8 years and their lack of results in raising GDP and living wage jobs.
You are ignoring it because but, but, but Sweden!!!!!!!!!
Also, never let facts get in the way of a good argument. GWB raised welfare spending thru Medicare Part D than Obama did with Obummercare. At least according to Forbes. -
losers losesalemcoog said:
I'm sorry that you are struggling with counting.AZDuck said:
link, motherfucker?salemcoog said:
Fuck you are a special case. These reforms were just set in motion LAST year. When they started to go full retard Socialist.AZDuck said:
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?salemcoog said:
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.AZDuck said:
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%PurpleJ said:
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.AZDuck said:
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemicPurpleJ said:Yes it was poorer in the 1800s before a wave of economic reform and a long period of peace. Relatively low government spending coupled with liberal economic policies (i.e. free market capitalism) sparked a period of growth that continued until the mid 20th century when things eventually started to sour due to socialist policies enacted during the 1950s.
And the whole spirit of the fucktard reporters rant is that we should be doing this. When the reality is that we already did this and have nothing to show for it other than another $8 Trillion in debt.
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.Sledog said:For all you "socialism is great" fans just renounce your citizenship and I'll chip in some money for your ticket to whatever socialist paradise you wish to now live in. May I suggest Venezuela?
This is America we have no room for this bullshit or you!
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kinda socialist-y.
The point was, in reference to your earlier poast, that Sweden doesn't have to deal with foreign obligations like the US does. Yet they spend a similar amount of GDP on national defense. The Swedes also spend 1% of GDP on foreign aid versus .19% here in the USA. Now, .19% of USA GDP is a helluva lot more in actual terms than 1% of Sweden, but proportionally, the Swedes do spend a large chunk of their national product on foreign obligations.salemcoog said:
Great! I'm sure this military superpower would fare just fine when attacked by anyone other than Norway.allpurpleallgold said:
BOOM! Roasted.AZDuck said:HI. Sweden, as a non-NATO member, spends much more than most European countries for defense and Swedish defense spending as a proportion of GDP has been comparable to America's for most of the past 50'years, and spending is also rising under the current government. Sweden also maintains a vigorous defense industry which produces most of the armaments purchased by the Swedish armed forces.
Stockholm is only 430 miles from St. Petersburg.
But do continue to reinforce the strawman, And again, let's visit this again when their bills come due.
And why are you ignoring the Trillions of dollars given in our welfare state the last 8 years and their lack of results in raising GDP and living wage jobs.
You are ignoring it because but, but, but Sweden!!!!!!!!!
Also, never let facts get in the way of a good argument. GWB raised welfare spending thru Medicare Part D than Obama did with Obummercare. At least according to Forbes.
this is SHOW and tell. -
We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
-
LOL, fucktardsalemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
The most popular politician in America identifies as a "democratic socialist."
But please, tell me more about your "woke" America where the Republican candidate lost the popular vote by 3 million votes to Hillary fucking Klinton.
-
Flagged for backup quarterback smack.AZDuck said:
LOL, fucktardsalemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
The most popular politician in America identifies as a "democratic socialist."
But please, tell me more about your "woke" America where the Republican candidate lost the popular vote by 3 million votes to Hillary fucking Klinton.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician. -
Fair poont, but:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Flagged for backup quarterback smack.AZDuck said:
LOL, fucktardsalemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
The most popular politician in America identifies as a "democratic socialist."
But please, tell me more about your "woke" America where the Republican candidate lost the popular vote by 3 million votes to Hillary fucking Klinton.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician.
Ford > Reagan?
Sometimes you need to develop the position. -
There's nothing democratic about socialism.
-
So you're saying Bernie is too young?AZDuck said:
Fair poont, but:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Flagged for backup quarterback smack.AZDuck said:
LOL, fucktardsalemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
The most popular politician in America identifies as a "democratic socialist."
But please, tell me more about your "woke" America where the Republican candidate lost the popular vote by 3 million votes to Hillary fucking Klinton.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician.
Ford > Reagan?
Sometimes you need to develop the position. -
I'm saying the old coaching staff was playing favoritesTierbsHsotBoobs said:
So you're saying Bernie is too young?AZDuck said:
Fair poont, but:TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Flagged for backup quarterback smack.AZDuck said:
LOL, fucktardsalemcoog said:We all lost those last 8 years and the country is woke that Socialism doesn't work, no matter how many @d2d dog and pony show crayon sharts you wish to splatter up there.
The most popular politician in America identifies as a "democratic socialist."
But please, tell me more about your "woke" America where the Republican candidate lost the popular vote by 3 million votes to Hillary fucking Klinton.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician.
Ford > Reagan?
Sometimes you need to develop the position.
everyone says so -
Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost. -
That's dumb. Where was he going to get three million votes?Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost. -
He certainly would have run a different campaign.Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
The "but she won the popular vote" losers think the Cougs should get credit for putting up a million yards of offense...while ignoring the 7 turnovers. -
Through campaigning in areas completely lost in the electoral college, like California.AZDuck said:
That's dumb. Where was he going to get three million votes?Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
A lot of apathetic lazy motherfuckers out here who don't go out to vote because they know it's blue all the way.
-
"Generic Democrat" wins 2016 in a landslide. "Democrat with a Pulse" flips the Senate.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
He certainly would have run a different campaign.Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
The "but she won the popular vote" losers think the Cougs should get credit for putting up a million yards of offense...while ignoring the 7 turnovers.
Popular vote is a relevant metric because most presidents post-Civil War have won it. It matters because we have this naïve belief that America is a democratic republic, and 3MM is a fuckton of votes.
You'll never hear me say that Trump didn't win fair and square, or that he isn't legitimately the President, but I do think that his mandate to govern is weak at best, given the popular vote total and his razor-thin majorities in the critical Midwestern states that put him over the top.
Hillary ran a shitty campaign, period. She had the highest negatives of a major party candidate, ever (I'm not sure who had higher negatives in 2016, Trump or Hillary, but both were historically high). Nobody associated with the name Clinton or that campaign (I'm looking at you, @JohnPodesta, @MandyGrunwald, @HumaAbedin, @JoelBenenson) should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power of the Democratic Party for at least 20 years.
But that's a wish I won't see granted. -
We don't deal in hypotheticals here.AZDuck said:
"Generic Democrat" wins 2016 in a landslide. "Democrat with a Pulse" flips the Senate.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
He certainly would have run a different campaign.Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
The "but she won the popular vote" losers think the Cougs should get credit for putting up a million yards of offense...while ignoring the 7 turnovers.
Popular vote is a relevant metric because most presidents post-Civil War have won it. It matters because we have this naïve belief that America is a democratic republic, and 3MM is a fuckton of votes.
You'll never hear me say that Trump didn't win fair and square, or that he isn't legitimately the President, but I do think that his mandate to govern is weak at best, given the popular vote total and his razor-thin majorities in the critical Midwestern states that put him over the top.
Hillary ran a shitty campaign, period. She had the highest negatives of a major party candidate, ever (I'm not sure who had higher negatives in 2016, Trump or Hillary, but both were historically high). Nobody associated with the name Clinton or that campaign (I'm looking at you, @JohnPodesta, @MandyGrunwald, @HumaAbedin, @JoelBenenson) should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power of the Democratic Party for at least 20 years.
But that's a wish I won't see granted.
Agree otherwise. -
Losers change the rules after they lose.AZDuck said:
That's dumb. Where was he going to get three million votes?Doogles said:Trump would have won the popular vote if he needed it to win the presidency.
The rules of the game he played dictated his strategy. If you can't see that, you're probably still confused how Hillary lost.
You've reached reddit status in this thread and I question your reasoning skills to be a Mall cop.
