It seams that they always tring to redistribute the wealth. Isnt that a part of Marx's theory?
2006-10-12 09:48:45 · 12 answers · asked by mark a 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. But that is the direction the party is taking. Universal Health Care, Refusal to fix social security, over taxing the rich (yes, I mean that) But to be fair it isn't really Marxism, but yes socialism. It is contrary with personal freedoms and responsibilities. It is killing the entrepreneurial spirit. The party that used to be about personal freedom is making way for the party that is all about perpetuating the underclass. I believe their intentions are good, just misguided. It is really an elitist mentality that believes the working class can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps through some hard work and ingenuity. I guess that is why my grandfather, went through the great depression, built a million dollar business was a Democrat. The party has changed. If Grandpa would have to try to do it again, he would probably be an independent or republican, due to the stifling business environment created by today's "democrats." That is why I'm no longer a democrat, but an independent.
2006-10-12 10:19:16 · answer #1 · answered by robling_dwrdesign 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They back a number of social programs. They want to redistribute wealth in the regard that they believe the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. They do not follow Marx's theory. That's just the rich crying foul.
Most people today support the idea of a fair tax where everyone contributes equally. That's not likely to fly because the right and left get too many miles out of arguing over who should pay more taxes.
2006-10-12 17:00:17 · answer #2 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It only seems that way if you're a right-winger.
In the same vein, I could ask: Are Republicans Fascists?
It seems that they always try to take personal freedoms away and keep anyone from criticizing the government and live exactly the way they prescribe. Isn't that part of Hitler's philosophy?
It isn't true, and neither is it true that Dems want Marxist-style wealth redistribution. Why is it that the best economic times this country has ever known post WWII have been under Democrats?
Don't believe me? Well, believe Forbes Magazine.
2006-10-12 16:56:18 · answer #3 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well if/when there is a handful of people that have EVERYTHING and millions who have nothing in the USA, I'm guessing by the acuity of your question that you too will have nothing. Of course there will also be a very few stupid people among the haves like Dictator Dumbya. An extremely polarized wealth distribution is a drag on aggregate wealth as most economists would say.
2006-10-12 17:06:01 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It certainly is a major tenet of Communist philosophy. Liberals don't believe that the people own the money. They believe government does and folks need to understand this. To them there is nothing at all wrong with heavy taxation because the money already belongs to Big Government in the first place. The basic idea of someone's "hard earned money" is a concept that is totally alien to them. And we'll all receive a fresh reminder of this in the form of big-time tax hikes if these people win big in November. Count on it.
2006-10-12 16:59:03 · answer #5 · answered by Wayne H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Greetings!
You should not be surprised to learn that they do not want to redistribute the wealth. Like the Republicans, they choose to keep it all for themselves.
Good Luck
2006-10-12 16:52:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm adamantly against socialism and Im a democrat. But Im moderate democrat who believes in fiscal responsibility. Not all democrats are Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.
2006-10-12 17:17:16 · answer #7 · answered by cynical 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and if I wear a purple shirt, I'm a grape. *eyeroll* Democrats are somewhat in favor of the government actually helping some of it's people who can't help themselves... therefore they are communists. Socialists. Marxist. Etc.
Yeah.........
2006-10-12 16:54:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
no and the Socialist don't want them in their party either
2006-10-12 17:26:28 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
members of the Democratic Socialist party:
Congressional Members of the
Progressive Caucus
(sorted by state)
Rep Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Rep Eni Faleomavaega (AS-AL)
Rep Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Rep Lynn C Woolsey (CA-06)
Rep George Miller (CA-07)
Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Rep Fortney "Pete" Stark (CA-13)
Rep Henry A. Waxman (CA-29)
Rep Xavier Becerra (CA-30)
Rep Julian C. Dixon (CA-32)
Rep Esteban Edward Torres (CA-34)
Rep Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Rep George E. Brown (CA-42)
Rep Bob Filner (CA-50)
Rep Diane DeGette (CO-01)
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL)
Rep Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Rep Carrie P. Meek (FL-17)
Rep Alcee L. Hastings (FL-23)
Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04)
Rep John Lewis (GA-05)
Rep Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Rep Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Rep Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Rep Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Rep Danny Davis (IL-07)
Rep Lane Evans (IL-17)
Rep Julia Carson (IN-10)
Rep John Olver (MA-01)
Rep Jim McGovern (MA-03)
Rep Barney Frank (MA-04)
Rep John Tierney (MA-06)
Rep David Bonior (MI-10)
Rep Lynn N. Rivers (MI-13)
Rep John Conyers (MI-14)
Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02)
Rep Melvin L. Watt (NC-12)
Rep Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Rep Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Rep Major Owens (NY-11)
Rep Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-12)
Rep Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26)
Rep John LaFalce (NY-29)
Rep Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Rep Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Rep Louis Stokes (OH-11)
Rep Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Rep Elizabeth Furse (OR-01)
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04)
Rep Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Rep William Coyne (PA-14)
Rep Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (PR-AL)
Rep Robert C. Scott (VA-03)
Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL)
Rep James A. McDermott (WA-07)
2006-10-12 16:52:21 · answer #10 · answered by Cherie 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋