Bernie Sanders has the highest approval rating of any U.S. senator

originally posted by: neo96
We have military spending to thank for the last 50 years of PROGRESS.

You are correct....the world's largest socialist program.

I guess that makes you correct about the irony as well.

And, yes, the US military (any non-conscription, continuously standing, publicly funded military really) is a socialist program.

A true capitalist nation wouldn't have any military. Defense (and offense) would be left to individuals, to pay for on their own dime.

a reply to: peck420

Military spending isn't 'socialist'.

It's something every single person in this country get's a direct benefit from. Says so in the US constitution.

And what GENERAL WELFARE meant. The well being of the STATE, and by extension the people to prosper.

First off it employs millions of people in one way or another.

Second off it creates middle class jobs that actually DO pay income taxes that fund the lefts social programs.

Unlike the lefts sacred cows where the people using it paying nothing in to get it. Which is why it runs massive debts.

A nation of over 18 trillion dolllars in debt isn't prosperous, and robbing from the haves, and giving to the have nots ALL so they can go out, and buy more stuff isn't prosperous either.

People can hate military spending all they want.

The fact is they OWE their existence to it.

originally posted by: neo96
I don't actually know what a socialist program is.

FTFY.
2nd.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: peck420

Military spending isn't 'socialist'.

It's something every single person in this country get's a direct benefit from. Says so in the US constitution.

And what GENERAL WELFARE meant. The well being of the STATE, and by extension the people to prosper.

First off it employs millions of people in one way or another.

Second off it creates middle class jobs that actually DO pay income taxes that fund the lefts social programs.

Huh? The military is funded by the same taxes that welfare programs are funded by. Actually welfare taxes are considered more important than military spending since it is considered required spending.

Also, you can literally describe all welfare programs with the same descriptions you just supplied. They employ tons of people who also pay taxes.

Unlike the lefts sacred cows where the people using it paying nothing in to get it. Which is why it runs massive debts.

A nation of over 18 trillion dolllars in debt isn't prosperous, and robbing from the haves, and giving to the have nots ALL so they can go out, and buy more stuff isn't prosperous either.

People can hate military spending all they want.

The fact is they OWE their existence to it.

It's interesting that you seem to think that taxes used to pay for the military come from everyone, but taxes used to pay for welfare programs only come from the "have's" and no one else.

I'm not sure you understand how taxes work.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Also, you can literally describe all welfare programs with the same descriptions you just supplied. They employ tons of people who also pay taxes.

NO they don't,

Military spending creates NEW wealth instead of just recycling it like the left's programs.

t's interesting that you seem to think that taxes used to pay for the military come from everyone, but taxes used to pay for welfare programs only come from the "have's" and no one else.

They are suppose to, but it doesn't since HALF of this country doesn't pay income taxes. That is suppose to offset that spending.

And as was already said the people using those social programs sure the hell aren't paying ANYTHING in return.

But who the hell cares.

Keep arguing for the hell of it, and put MILLIONS of middle class workers out of work.

GO Sanders!

Comrades.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t
NO they don't,

Military spending creates NEW wealth instead of just recycling it like the left's programs.

No it doesn't. It largely contributes to destroying wealth and resources more than creating new wealth. Sure some technology that was developed by the military is later repurposed for civilian use, but only the delusional think that out paces the amount of destruction caused by the military.

They are suppose to, but it doesn't since HALF of this country doesn't pay income taxes. That is suppose to offset that spending.

There are more taxes than just income taxes. I really wish conservatives would get that through their heads...

And as was already said the people using those social programs sure the hell aren't paying ANYTHING in return.

But who the hell cares.

Keep arguing for the hell of it, and put MILLIONS of middle class workers out of work.

GO Sanders!

Comrades.

Actually welfare recipients are contributing towards the economy. It's not like they are getting their welfare checks and sitting on them. They go out and spend that money, which goes towards driving the economy. I'm not sure you understand the economics behind these programs like you think you do.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

Just because you don't want to look doesn't mean they don't exist:
10 world-shaping Swedish companies

Here's a company on that list you may have heard of that fulfills your criteria, Spotify.

Spotify financial results show struggle to make streaming music profitable

Nope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: neo96

What are you trying to prove here? You asked for a company from Scandinavia that is innovative, employing tons of people and has changed the world. I gave you 10 of them. You respond with tech created for the military that has been adopted for civilian use, which isn't Capitalism by the way. It's more or less a form of Communism actually. Government owned production of goods and services.

10 "World Shaping" companies (haha, that's a stretch - let's go down that list with a magnifying glass, shall we?

1. AstraZeneca - a pharmaceutical company - really? How are they world shaping? They make heartburn medication for pete's sake!

2. Electrolux - an appliance manufacturer. Not world shaping, they make microwaves and refrigerators like EVERY OTHER APPLIANCE MANUFACTURER. Their key difference is that they have a teeny-weeny market share.

3. Ericsson - we can count them out because their entire business is based on technology built on Military research. They didn't shape the world, they jumped on a bandwagon...no, scratch that, they're chasing behind the bandwagon yelling "wait for me guys!!"

4. H&M - FASHION? YOU THINK FASHION IS WORLD SHAPING?

5. IKEA - OK, I can agree that IKEA does shape the world - or at least the size and shape of landfills around the world! Absolute garbage!

6. Skype - Newsflash - they didn't invent it internet telecommunications. They branded and marketed it well enough to get bought out by Microsoft.

7. Solvatten - they "invented" the solar water purifier decades after everyone else.

8. Spotify - I can honestly say that I've never ever used this service. I didn't know what it was until you linked this article. They didn't shape any part of my world. The article I linked in a previous comment shows that they're trying to stay afloat, so it seems that the only world they're shaping is their own - and it's going flat.

9. Peepoople - a poop bag, a composting poop bag - are you kidding me? They've created a product for people who don't have a pot to piss in. Someone didn't think this through. Their target market can't afford toilets which in many parts of the world are just a hole in the ground.

I haven't looked...I hope you have at least one "world shaping" company in the list...

10. Wrapp - digital gift cards..... just like Gyft!! - only nobody's ever heard of them. I've come to expect nothing more!

a reply to: stutteringp0et

So after reading this travesty of a post I've come to the conclusion that you don't know what it means to be "world shaping". Apparently certain industries can't help shape things in the world according to you.

I mean dismissing a pharmaceutical company like AstraZeneca as not world shaping? Lol.

a reply to: neo96

I'm not really sure what it is that you're arguing. In this and every followup post you say I'm wrong, and then you go on to list all of the ways in which government spending has been beneficial... you even point out where the government is obligated to do this under the Constitution. What exactly do you think socialism and welfare spending are?

I never said military spending wasn't beneficial, but it is what it is. Also, you misunderstand the 50% who don't pay income taxes bit. It's not that 50% don't pay them (and that's not even a problem), it's that we have more people consuming taxes than paying them. If you work for a state university, you're a tax consumer, a road crew, police, fire department, military, most areas of research, defense contractor, and so on. These are all tax consumers, not tax producers.

This is why our budget is in such trouble by the way. Pretty much everyone (even you) recognizes the value of government spending, but no one wants to raise enough taxes to actually cover it... yet we still spend.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm pointing out that they've done NOTHING that hasn't been done (likely better) elsewhere. Do they shape the world? I don't think so. If they were, for example, a leader in vaccine development - I might change my mind...

From their own website - their involvement in vaccines is limited to "Seasonal Influenza" which we all know is a shot in the dark, and I believe is totally unnecessary.

I haven't had a flu vaccine in nearly 21 years and I haven't caught the flu in 20 years - I think we're better off without vaccines for the common cold.

So, you didn't mention the other 9, does that mean you admit that your list was bunk?

a reply to: stutteringp0et

You don't have to invent new things to be world shaping. Improving on existing products can be good enough. Google didn't invent the web browser but you'd be hard pressed to say they weren't world shaping. Keep trying. You'll get it soon enough.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Those companies aren't leaders in their fields. They're playing catch-up behind the "world shaping" companies.

No, Google didn't invent the web browser, but they did change the way search engine indexing and retrieval was done (an invention ), and with that you're bringing up an American company built upon...wait for it....a few more dots for dramatic effect....THE INTERNET which was created as a military communications research project.

I think you set very low standards just to have examples to defend your position. You should have looked harder and you might have impressed me by naming Volvo.

a reply to: stutteringp0et

I think I posted the opinion of a journalist, so why don't you take it up with him? Maybe you just don't have a clear definition of what world shaping means? To me it means that the company is innovative enough to be in the collective consciousness for extended periods of time, often shifting paradigms in pop culture, the sciences, military, or any other field. The reason you don't see it with the companies in that list is largely because you aren't as familiar with them as you think you are.

Ikea for example. That was just an insulting dismissal of what they are and what they do without any thoughtful analysis towards their effect in their market. Do you think I'm going to take YOUR opinion seriously because you can childishly dismiss something on the internet? Get real. You are just trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing.

The idea that Sweden can't have world shaping companies because it is a Democratic Socialist country is the most absurd argument I've ever heard, and you backing it up with your trivial dismissals of the link I provided just makes you look ignorant of the topic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're defending IKEA now? I suggest you move to Sweden, where you can pay a huge taxes and be proud of your locally manufactured heartburn medicine and particle board furniture.

You know...I'm just going to head this one off at the pass.

I'm sure you're going to say something about IKEA making furniture out of solid wood.

To that I preemptively reply:

You should read this article titled "Inside Ikea's Globe-Spanning Project to Make Solid Wood Furniture" where you'll learn that solid wood furniture from IKEA is a relatively new thing - It's about a year old.

originally posted by: stutteringp0et
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're defending IKEA now? I suggest you move to Sweden, where you can pay a huge taxes and be proud of your locally manufactured heartburn medicine and particle board furniture.

What's wrong with IKEA?

a reply to: Aazadan

Apparently, Krazysh0t thinks IKEA is a world changing company - and here I thought they just made cheap particle board furniture.

If that's what you like, by all means - buy IKEA, but don't kid yourself - it isn't top quality furniture.

originally posted by: stutteringp0et
a reply to: Aazadan

Apparently, Krazysh0t thinks IKEA is a world changing company - and here I thought they just made cheap particle board furniture.

If that's what you like, by all means - buy IKEA, but don't kid yourself - it isn't top quality furniture.

It's better than Sauder. How's that for American quality for ya? Never had worse furniture than Sauder's junk, yeesh. Looks pretty, sure, but falls apart faster than Walmart clothes.
Ultimately, you get what you pay for, and if it were a choice between Sauder & Ikea, I'd go for the Swedish budget furniture over American here. There is a quality difference (hint: their cheap particle board is somewhat better)

a reply to: neo96

Of course it creates new wealth. When people can survive and buy things to live like food -- farmers, distributors and corporations that own supermarkets make money and can expand their businesses and hire more people.