You_Fool,

Are European nations not far less culturally diverse than America? They are. Do 47% of people in any European nation depend on government for income? I haven't looked that one up, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

The standard of living of nobody who wants to work and live well in America is harmed by those who have no will to work and live off of our welfare system. You speak as if it is. This is a logical error on your part.

The portion of our population which has no desire to work and lives off of welfare for generations, bringing down national averages for education, productivity, and income, is higher than similar portions of other nations by leaps and bounds. Because of the relative cultural homogeneity of virtually all European nations compared to America, you don't seem to even comprehend this point as I say it to you. The cultural and historical (government) reasons for these people's lack of any desire or motivation to work says nothing of capitalism, freedom, and low taxes. You speak as if it does. This is a logical error on your part.

" Of course anytime there is studies released on the unemployment benefit they find that there isn't this group of people"

I disagree. America has millions on welfare for generations. They vote literally 99%+ for the biggest government candidate available. They vote for the biggest possible handouts reliably. They have no desire to work. And studies confirm this. Which we'll get to after...

"that the average stay on the benefit is much lower (<3 years) than the right wing idiots try to claim and of course that the benefit is way too low to survive with the so called perks these "trash" are meant to have off our taxes."

Wait, the benefit is too low to survive, and this is made worse by other perks? How does giving people more perks make it harder for them to survive? I thought most of your unemployment packages stopped at 3 years in most European nations; nations that tried higher max time limits found that people stayed unemployed longer, so most nations walked back their limits to 3 years. This backs up my point.

Studies in America show that most people find work very quickly just before or after their unemployment benefits run out. This backs up my point. There are many other forms of government income in Amerika which are not unemployment and don't time out. You speak as if completely unaware of the huge number of unwed mothers in the USA collecting government money for their fatherless children as their sole source of income; they even have more children on average than mothers not on welfare who can afford their children. Again, more evidence to my point.

"I may as well argue that communism works perfectly as agree with you, both work in the text book but neither work in real life. Of course I am sure you can't see that since you are so blinded by ideology."

The notion that freedom is good and lower taxes is good is as ideological as the notion that communism is good for mankind? Yeah, it's not like we can find any examples of freer nations with lower taxes having far better standards of living than oppressive nations with centralized governments and massive state programs. Oh, wait. There's tons of them.

You're just randomly demagoguing ideologues, as if everyone who values freedom is an ideologue, because you have nothing else to offer. The world is as full of examples of freedom being successful as it is attempts to make it work. Sadly, corrupt politicians hungry for power seek to stiffle freedom wherever they can because it makes their societies look bad by comparison, and frightened, sheep-like ignorant people are easily scared into thinking that they are, in fact, too stupid to profit from their own freedom. It's pretty sad.

You never responded to my question regarding your statement that lower taxes make poor people poorer. You're just demagoguing and running from your own statements without accounting for the fact that you are now avoiding claims you made not 24 hours ago. Pardon me, but this is stupid. If you can't defend a statement you made a day ago, or concede that maybe it wasn't exactly accurate, why post? You're just spamming as much text as you can, because you're not talking about anything I've said or even anything you've said. You just keep pumping out more, trying to hide the fact that you're constantly abandoning your own positions as they're exposed as erroneous and factually wrong.

The Yell,

The fact that the existence of rich people doesn't inherently harm poor people is lost on the envious pawns of their would-be slave drivers.

"you make it sound like the American experiment is a complete failure "

I simply pointed out that government has intentionally and actively cultivated dependence in certain subpopulations of the American people, and these subpopulations pull down America's averages. This intentionally bred dependence was not part of the initial American experiment; it is the result of corrupt politicians using people's own tax money to bribe them for the sake of securing political power and expanding that power.

By all measures, the American experiment is the biggest success in the history of mankind. Even with these deadbeats which are not a result of the American experiment, other nations without such deadbeats in large numbers barely edge out America's averages in some measures.

I'm getting the impression that you have no idea what America's founders' values were, don't understand how a welfare state is not consistent with those values, and have literally no idea what I'm saying in this thread. Your responses consistently miss the point and employ fallacious reasoning.

"The exact statement can be made about communism, including the freedom bit despite your thought on what communism is... "

More dishonesty. You just claimed that communism has worked well and improved standards of living everywhere its ideals are used as a basis for society. This is just ignorant and wrong.

Including freedom? Again, more dishonestly. You're factually wrong. You can't claim that wage controls and government forced "equality" of income is freedom without redefining words. What you're saying literally doesn't make any sense. Taking away economic freedom is not freedom. Law of noncontradiction. Basic logic. Something can't be both freedom and the lack of it at the same time. Communism is defined by restrictions on economic freedom. To describe is as inherently championing freedom is just a failure of your knowledge of English.

"Edit: Apparently I missed some sort of question by you that got lost in the mass of racist & bigoted post you made...."

And more dishonesty. Being aware of trends is not racist. I'm well aware that certain statistics, like an 80% illegitimacy rate in the black portion of the American population is entirely cultural. I've said literally nothing racist here or anywhere else. I'm sure of this because I believe that racism is inherently evil. Yet here you make accusations without any evidence whatsoever. Oh, I get it; you're trolling. Nobody is this incoherent unintentionally.

"Lower taxes make the poor poorer because the rich have more money, thus more power in today's society, thus more ability to enforce their desires on the rest of society."

And, of course, you fail to provide a single example of how they do this. Any examples you could come up with would have absolutely no dependence on low taxes. You are clouding issues together as if they're the same thing when they're not necessarily even related.

Low taxes inherently make the poor poorer because wealthy people have purchased loopholes in tax laws? That doesn't make any sense, since it doesn't rob poor people of money or purchasing power, nor does it have anything to do with low taxes. The fed and inflation? Nope, again no relation to low taxes.

In a free country, nobody has the ability to "enforce their desires on the rest of society" via purchase. Nobody can be made to shop anywhere, live anywhere, eat anything, do anything.

You language is all ridiculously abstract and ideal. But in a very real and literal sense, it doesn't make any sense. Nobody is poorer and can afford less food because some people are rich. There is not a finite amount of wealth to be enjoyed in this world; wealth is created every day. These are facts. You disagree with them. You are wrong. You are factually incorrect.

"however we are not (otherwise we would all live in a communist utopia) "

In an ideal world, I would still deserve more than you. I've earned it. You haven't. Even in whatever world you imagine is ideal where everyone cares about each other, justice would demand I have more power and stuff than you.

"and thus the rich would use their power/money to increase their slice of the pie, meaning that everyone else would find themselves in worse conditions and less money"

The notion that wealth is fixed and cannot be created is factually incorrect. This is ridiculously obvious enough that I'm not going to waste time with an explanation. That you deny this speaks for itself.

America's failings are a result of moving away from freedom. It skyrocketed to #1 because of freedom.

Make up whatever comforts you. Some people just hate freedom.

Again, you're factually wrong on wealth being finite. "Limited" in some ways, sure. Everything is. But that's not the same thing as finite. You're wrong on the facts. Wealth can be created. This is a fact. Through hard work, society as a whole can have more than it once did. When production is rewarded and people are motivated to produce, things get made and prices fall. Everyone has more. This is lost on you. But you can define the loss of economic freedoms as the expansion of freedom, so let's not let words get in the way.

When did the Libertarian experiment fail? The USA was doing pretty well for a while there. Freedom and prosperity didn't bring us down, NWO banksters taking over the world and robbing people did. A colossal cultural failure to appreciate our republic and our freedoms did. Libertarianism benefits every locality that tries it out; they get better services for less money. And heck, some of us aren't terrified of life. We kinda like not having babysitters.

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that some people work harder than others and ought to be rewarded more. You call me an idealist, but it's you who wants a government with the power of God to make everyone artificially "equal," despite the fact that people aren't equal. Equal under the law, great. I'm a big fan of that idea. But equal in the amount of thanks society owes them in the form of money? The notion is laughable, and you champion it.

My point regarding the relative cultural homogeneity of the nations you're comparing America to was obviously lost on you. You're not making any point by brandishing numbers that you do not understand in response to a point that you do not understand.

"The US is not #1 on all scales of standard of living and hasn't been for some time. It may be argued that this has been during the time that Flint was whining about, though it has been such since the end of the 70'a and thus includes everyone's favourite Regan era... Yes the US is top 5-10 on all scales, if not top 3, but has to put up with being behind other countries, some of which tend to be "left wing socialists" that Flint and you say are crap, which should point to you being wrong. "

Well those scales are subjective aren't they? I mean if you awarded points for not having your cities bombed, you ALL lose on that one, and if you give credit for no change of government and no occupation by nazis, then us an britain are on top.   Or maybe Spain + US.  what does that tell you?

He is trying to take credit for Conservative Victories.