[QUOTE="geaux321"]

[QUOTE="Espurs117"]LOL that was a pathetic showing by the US. Im sure they will play better next game.Espurs117

What do you expect when you don't have your best players.

I expected a loss not a blowout. You know Mexico didnt have their players either...but I hear no one say that.

The only person I know who was missing for the Mexicans was Borgetti. Who else were they missing? The US was missing 6 key starters. Donovan, Onyewu, Bocanegra, Beasley, Dempsey, and Mastroeni. I can't believe Bradley sent them away. It was reported they didn't request to be released. Do y'all remember all the crap Lallas caught over hinting Beckham might not be released to play for the England nation team during the MLS season?

Im going for Mexico,despite the loss against the lucky team of USA,they have to get agressive and come out on top on Copa America,my second pick is argentina because they actually have all their stars present,unlike Brazil...jedi_marcos

Why is the mls so boring compared to other leagues? And europeans, football has quite a large following in the US, just baseball, basketball, and (the other) football overshadow it.helium_flash

Yeah no doubt Argentina was going to win with all its stars,superb team,especially Messi jedi_marcos

Especially with the US not having6 of its starters. Its Brazil's and the US's own fault though. But man am I pissed.

Social democrats have given up the workers' struggle since long and are only interested in maintaining capitalism through the state. They talk about a "human capitalism". They will never challenge the capitalists. Here in Sweden they are totally dominating the trade unions and are a major obstacle in the workers' struggle.

doubutsuteki

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="tobenator"]It's called socialism, and it's never worked, and never will, and America is getting closer and closer to it.doubutsuteki

Actually, it works really well in a proper balance with capitalism. As always, moderation is the best way to go. You balance two opposing ideas to ensure that they help to keep the negative aspects of each other in check.

America is weighted too heavily towards capitalism. This weight has allowed certain individuals to become far too wealthy, to the point where the vast majority of the country's wealth is in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population.

Too good the economy in the world is not dictated by ideas, but by people and their actions. There's no reason people would take back a little bit of what the capitalists have stolen and stop there, unless some "worker friendly" aristocrat comes around and decides that the working c.lass aren't ready yet (they aren't, because they have illusions about the "worker friendly" social democrats and social democracy as an alternative to capitalism) or that "we have come to an agreement with the capitalists", or whatever. They are the ones who have discredited socialism. The working c.lass hates their "socialism" (but they will take it as long as they don't know about an alternative - stalinism is not one), and they're certainly not going to learn about any alternatives from reading the news papers and watching TV (80% right-wing, 20% working c.lass aristocracy "social democrat" bull). It's always this "workers and capitalists together" bull. That's not to say one only has to read a newspaper. We primarily learn through our own experiences. After all, in Sweden in general, people have it way better than in most other countries.

But people who have expressed the silly idea that Sweden and other countries such as Canada, etc. are socialist, I know what socialism is, and that's not what Sweden is - I was born here, I live here, I suffer here. A mixture of "socialism" and capitalism is nothing but social liberalism, essentially liberalism, and that's what we have here. And god forbid those who are either right- or left wing - although it has become increasingly accepted to be right-wing lately. That's what silly moderation has done to Sweden. It has worked in a discrediting manner towards socialism (as a Social Democratic party has ruled Sweden almost exclusively for a hundred years). That's not to say the Social democracts haven't been involved in making Sweden better, but we have had no bigger social reforms over the last 30 years. Social democracy is dead ideologically.

Socialism IS anti-capitalist, international and revolutionary. Social democracy is none of it.

I agree with most of what you have said otherwise in this thread, so don't take this as a harsh critique of anything else than your "socialism". Of course taxes must stay as long as capitalism does, and the tax scale should be progressive - it is. Also, it is a matter of where the tax money goes.

But whatever you do, don't tell people to fight for something and then stand there and stop them when they go beyond capitalism. Like Social democrats have done and continue to do.

There are many people here who like/have feelings for a girl. Why havent you asked herout yet? Scared? Sad? Dont know whats gonna happen? Need help?SovietKid17

Ummm. Cause I'm married.

[QUOTE="fillini"]I guess I don't see America as such an Imperialistic entity as you do. What is your best example of the imperialism of the US?pianist

Imperialism doesn't need to be militaristic. Look, there's only so much money in the world, and America has a much bigger piece of the pie than most other countries in the world. How do you think that happened? American businesses profit from labour practices in foreign nations that would be illegal in America... that's how. It's a subtle way of leeching the wealth out of a nation and funneling it into your own pockets, and it's widespread.

In terms of military intervention, Iraq is a simple example of a country that was invaded in large part to secure a vital resource, and attempt to elicit in a part of the world that possesses that resource a pro-America attitude, if only through the threat of invasion. Iraq was invaded because it was an easy target, and it was not co-operating with the US foreign policy. Other nations that are not co-operating with the US foreign policy are now finding themselves in the crosshairs.

Don't try to argue that the US has pursued any significant war without its self-interests in mind. If Iraq had invaded Kuwait, but Kuwait was not involved in oil shipments to America, do you think America would have intervened to suppress a brutal dictator? Of course not. pianist

Of coursethey were fought in our owninterests aren't nearly all wars? Whether it be security, oil or land. Dems and Republicans are guility of this. So is the fricking UN (more of not taking action to perserve its self interests) I would like to think we would have still havewaged war in 91' even if the Kuwaitis weren't involved in oil. Because the idea a dictatorlike Saddamcould invade a country and have no recoursecouldn't be.Look at the Korean war. Our self interest was to stop communism, right? Why did we want to stop communism. Because it was a system whose ideals would destroy our own. Selfish? Maybe. Afghanistan was probably the most selfish war we have had to date. America didn't care so muchabout the suffering of the afghanis pre 911. Post 911 t was kick the Taliban's but by supporting the over throw of their nation so wecan feel secure again.

Take away the desire to buy that new MP3 player every month, and you are effectively taking away the company's motivation to make them. If you punish people for buying, it will have a dire effect on an economy that is totally dependent on sales. Your idea would be a great way to curb inflation, but it would certainly not work favourably for economic growth. I do agree, however, that this culture has become obsessed with materialism. Average personal debt nowadays is unbelievable.

Yes, the government's income is not fixed with income tax. However, you can rest assured that it is much easier to assume people will continue to generate incomes than buy products that would fall under the 'want' category. The real problem with a stiff commodity tax is that it provides political leverage to those who have money to spend - because if the government ticks them off, they can hoard their money, and in so doing suffocate the government's taxation income. People will work because they NEED to earn money to survive, but they don't NEED to spend it on wants, and they won't if they know they can press a personal agenda. If this were not true, there would be no such thing as a boycott. You may immediately bring up the case of strikes, but let's put it this way - a person can only hold on without an income for a limited period of time. This period of time is much shorter than a person can hold on drastically limiting his or her spending on 'wants.'

The last part of your argument depends on the notion that the rich do not collude to press their interests. This is not the case. If the government approves a tax hike on the wealthy, the majority of them disagree with it, and if you give them the leverage to fight against it, they will use it. Just look at political campaigns... do you REALLY think a political candidate will risk offending the interests of major business or wealthy private individual supporters? Of course not... because it's much easier to retain the support of these few individuals than rely on the middle and poor classes to cover the withdrawn support.

The rich pay the majority of the taxes in this nation, and that's how it should be. The topic creator is arguing against that philosophy and I'm supporting it. It's as simple as that. You take more from society, you need to give back more.

pianist

I am truely afraid of 50/ 75 years down the road; when there is two generations of bankrupt adults. Allbecause they had to take third mortgages to shell out tuition for their kids. How are those future generations going to vote in the way of social services/economic policy. Because what those generations are going to be thinking is that "Its the govt's responsibility to save me".

I understand the issue of loss of tax income if the rich get pissed and hoard their money. I still don't think it would happen to such a scale that it would hinder the govt to work. But I believe the consumption angle would give the government a fixed income. As you say there will be a spending on things of necessity. Do you think my or your idea of things of necessity are the same as David Beckham's or Carmello Anthony's? We would see a difference, just like now, between what is spent on necessities and what is deemed discretionary income.

I don't know why you insist on the taxation of the production of our workers is such a good thing. The only reason I think we did and still hold on to that philosophy/system is because its the easyist way to control and manage taxes coming in. Does it really make since to taxour nations workers? Are we trying to encourage the increase in productivity or discourage it? By the way who ever lame brained politician thought it would be good to tax my overtime at a hirer rate is a total wanker. Why shouldn't I be able to work 10 hours each week extra to buy that xbox 360 I want or have my wife stay home with the kids instead of having to work.

Back to tax policy. Yes the rich pay the most taxes. That is not necessarily a huge issue with me. I do have an issue on what some people think rich is. What was it Hillary said a week or so ago? $200,000. Are you frickin' kidding me? does she know how many people in our country make 200k a year? I know of 30 plus clients in the bank I worked at made that a year. And it wasn't in the most affluent (sp)part of town either. Thats only people I had contact with face to face.

We shouldn't supportpolicy that takes the money from the rich just because their rich. We should support tax policies that encourages them to give back to communities and society. Lets say we take all the their money away today and repo their companies but leave the capitalist system in place. Are those same rich people going to move back in with their mommies? No their going to bust their butts or their brains to come up with a way or product that will better their lives.