Well to me America's economic model/system like its ethnic identity is a bit of a patchwork with the free market being the foundation, and the rest being a mixture of crony capitalism, socialism with just a sprinkling of communism and Marxism among others. So in actuality socialism by that definition is very American #meltingpot

This is so untrue. Americans give more PRIVATE welfare (charity) and help each other more than most of Europe. Ironically, the only other countries in the world that give more are those which have freer economies. Which is a more charitable people, those who do it out of their own free will, or those who do it because they are forced to? 

Much of that private giving just goes to churches, though. Not to say churches don't do good things in their communities, but that is not primarily what they do nor primarily how that money is spent (most of it is just sustaining funds for church activities)

While it's true that Canada, Australia, New Zealand are Ireland have more economic freedom than the US. (http://www.heritage.org/index/heatmap ) Those countries do have more socialism than the US and they're doing just fine.

if you start calling the country you live in as Brazil, and not Federative Republic of Brazil, you cant expect me to respond to you.

You and people like you that so aptly display their ignorance, annoy me. Your arrogance in trying to snidely correct people on a name of a country, is sadly misplaced America is a correct name for the United States of America.

if you are going to try to correct people for using a correct shortened name of a country, you better get the name of your country correct, and better not shorten it.

also its the Republic of Cuba, not Cuba. get it right

Depends on how you define "more socialist", either way the markets are freer in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland than the U.S. 

Actually if you look at OECD's Social Expenditure stats, 

http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG

for the U.S  - Voluntary private:

3.9% GDP on Old Age

.4% GDP Incapacity Related

5.9% Health Related

0% Other

That is 10% of total GDP spent on Old Age, Disabilities, and Health. Let's compare it to say, the UK. 

4.5% GDP on Old Age

.4% GDP on Incapacity

.3% GDP on Health (arguably with public health care there is less of a private need)

.1% GDP on other social policies

With a total of 5.3% 

They are quite similar, yet Americans are supposedly evil and greed people who only care about themselves. 

That's because other countries have coverage for old age, incapacity, and health. They don't feel the need to donate it as we might. That we donate more does not nearly make up for the shortfall in government services.

Yeah definately as if socialism ever replaced capitalism it may solve some problems but it would add some of it's own as its also an imperfect system. That's why I believe in a mixed system to have the best of both

And yeah you can't have a universal application of happiness, it just don't work like that. Although, I can't see how excessive materialism can be great for anyone (except those profit from it). And despite our different views, I am much the same as you. I am fairly poor but i'm comfortable with it as I saved for much of what I wanted. I'm not starving or homeless or anything, so i'm already better off than others.

Except there are no true free markets anymore, the authorities get all pissy if you sell stuff on the street or take in lodgers or anything. All of today's big business most likely started off selling stuff on the street before growing into shops, then national icons etc but that is seemingly discouraged now when compared to before.

Also, if we think of the current system in the US where the biggest companies use (really bribe) the state to rig the market so that stuff like hemp is illegal. I don't know that is considered free but i'm not sure how you balance it because i feel a handful of regulations are necessary like working conditions, working hours, minimum wage and environment etc. But even they hurt small business too so I don't know. All I know is that regulations are over the top right now.    

Also, that's one I hate more than any other about capitalism. Whenever it fails we the poor get hit hardest, never those who caused (the banks) get any trouble for their actions

And the U.S does not have social security, medicaid, and medicare? According to OECD 15% of social expenditure is Public 10% Voluntary Private and 5% Mandatory private. That adds up to 30% of GDP spent on social expenditure. Comparitively, say Norway, has 30% Public expenditure, and essentially 0-1% of everything else. You can argue efficiencies, but would a national health-care system be as efficient for a diverse population of 300 million as it is for 5 million people of the same ethnic and similar socio-economic background? 

My point was that if Americans didn't want public social expenditure if they were greedy, selfish, and only cared about themselves, then would they also not give to private charity?