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.
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemic
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.
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.
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
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!
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kinda socialist-y.
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.
BOOM! Roasted.
Great! I'm sure this military superpower would fare just fine when attacked by anyone other than Norway.
But do continue to reinforce the strawman, And again, let's visit this again when their bills come due.
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.
Fuck you are a special case. These reforms were just set in motion LAST year. When they started to go full retard Socialist.
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!!!!!!!!!
link, motherfucker?
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.
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.
Except the Social Democrats controlled their parliament since 1890, but never let facts get in the way of a good polemic
Taxes were kept below 10% of GDP until the 30s and they didn't really start to increase until the 50s, but still.
Not the case. Most Swedish taxes are paid to localities. Maximum national income tax rate is 25%
Lets revisit this conversation next year, like when the bills start really rolling in.
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.
So we ignore the 70+ -year track record of success and bank on Sweden failing in the next year or two?
OK!
And America has never done anything close to what Sweden has in terms of health care, welfare, etc.
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!
No room for differences of opinion? Sounds like Venezuela or Russia are more your speed, fren.
There's nothing in the Constitution about social and economic policy, except "to promote the general welfare," which sounds kinda socialist-y.
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.
BOOM! Roasted.
Great! I'm sure this military superpower would fare just fine when attacked by anyone other than Norway.
But do continue to reinforce the strawman, And again, let's visit this again when their bills come due.
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.
Fuck you are a special case. These reforms were just set in motion LAST year. When they started to go full retard Socialist.
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!!!!!!!!!
link, motherfucker?
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.
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.
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.
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, fucktard
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.
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, fucktard
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.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician.
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, fucktard
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.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician.
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, fucktard
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.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician.
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, fucktard
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.
Bernie fucking lost to Hillary. Shit candidate, shit politician.
Fair poont, but:
Ford > Reagan?
Sometimes you need to develop the position.
So you're saying Bernie is too young?
I'm saying the old coaching staff was playing favorites
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Generic Democrat" wins 2016 in a landslide. "Democrat with a Pulse" flips the Senate.
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.
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.
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.
"Generic Democrat" wins 2016 in a landslide. "Democrat with a Pulse" flips the Senate.
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.
Comments
Look what Derek's created.
Guess how many cars of that caliber I've seen in Eugene after thousands of trips? Still zero.
this is SHOW and tell.
You sound poor.
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
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.
A lot of apathetic lazy motherfuckers out here who don't go out to vote because they know it's blue all the way.
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.
You've reached reddit status in this thread and I question your reasoning skills to be a Mall cop.