Yes there are no jobs for lots of them, but there are plenty of jobs for many of them. Look at the video in original post, last time that dude worked was "half a decade ago" or something like that. He even does not LOOK for a job, he simply does not WANT a job. Does not WANT to work. Thats the type of trash I am talking. Not those that look for a job and can't get it.

America without taxes - wow what a new level of populism. Are you serious to believe that?

And Republicans cater for the other end to get their money and votes. So your is?

What I'm talking about is you being an idiot. If you know that countries with the best welfare are also the most developed countries, why are you saying welfare is not a good thing for a country's development? It would seem the opposite is true, idiot.

You're not an American so please stop trying to lecture about something you have no clue about, and stop avoiding the question about which shithole of the world you are from.

Don't forget that all those developed countries with the "best" welfare are now going bankrupt. That's the flip side of the coin.

Amazing... most people in this business are at least a little open minded.

Apparently it doesnt apply to everyone.

Not when it comes to politics. The Republicans on here can find nothing to like about any Democrat idea & the Dems think Bush is the cause of all evil and Romney is the second coming of Bush.

It's the sports team mentality. I'm a Miami Dolphins fan...and no matter what happens I'm rooting for them.

Seems to be the way American politics is now too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_H...alth_system s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._external_debt

Check the lists.

The reason for debt is far more than Welfare. It's about giving the entire population more than they earn. All the population, not just the unemployed. In fact what they take has less impact than you imagine. Less impact than tax cuts.

It's about balancing the books, countries only spending what they earn. That means a cut in living standards. The borrowed money didn't stop when it hit the immediate beneficiaries, it filtered up, down and sideways.

I'm neither now. I see the fuck up of they all made to get votes. They promised tax cuts without pain. Then borrowed to cover the pain.

Simply put, if a person borrows money and spreads it around all his friends. The friends benefit, the borrower is left with the debt.

In this case it was leaders borrowing for populations to make things look good and now the populations are left with the debt.

Cutting taxes will result in cutting jobs which will lead to less money being spent or more borrowing, which will lead to more debt.

Saying cutting taxes leads to more employment, was true when the West produced more, exported more and imported less. Today it won't.

I guess you mean philosophically Paul. Because you do not and have never lived in the United States or been a citizen here. So you could never have been a Democrat or Republican. :)

:2 cents::2 cents::thumbsup

Stop thinking so narrowly and you might see the real problems.

The problem is the same in most Western countries and my posts address that wider problem. Conservatives promise tax cuts, Socialists promise more spending. Both promise this will not effect the country long term and will benefit it. They lie to get voted into power by sheep who believe them.

So please think the wider picture, because the trouble your country is in, is made worse by the trouble the EU is in, we're not buying as much of your goods as we were. That might of been memberships to your sites or memberships off the galleries you were pushing when you made your millions.

Now if the West stops the borrowing, the money flowing around the system will be reduced and you will see less. If Western Governments cut spending, this will mean more people spending less, less memberships.

Unemployed spend money in shops where people have jobs, and head office employ people. There's also a lot of people working in the welfare system, do they lose their jobs as well?

I'll use the UK as an example.

Unemployment in the UK now stands at 2.59 million. So cut each one by $10 a week each, leads to $25.9 million less being spent in shops. $1346.8 million.

There were 29.12 million people in employment in the UK. That puts $46 a year in the pockets of those in work. Yes 88 cents a week extra to spend. But there not a dime more in the UK economy.

what would you spend 88 cents a week on?

My maths might be out a bit, but try it yourself and see were you end up. Also it makes no difference if you carry the cuts through to the office workers working in the benefits office. Same end result. Shifting money from Jim to John, doesn't create jobs or wealth. It might even cost you joins. :(

I remember that

"Decent" people do not vote for Obama.

:2 cents:

well if some fake nick troll faggot says it then it must be true :helpme :1orglaugh

All long term unemployed should be pushed to work unless they have a very good reason for not working. The local council can give them a broom and tell them to sweep the streets in return for the check.

Businesses will not employ them. the extra cost can be passed onto the tax payer until some go and get/keep a job. Working for a week/month, doesn't make the person short term unemployed.

Will do nothing to solve the problems or debt, but will make it fairer.

Just priceless!
they don't know shit, yet they have the Right to Vote...:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh