they claim they are not socialists. whats the difference? the public school system resembles the socialist ideology by not letting students go to whatever public school they want, instead they're put into districts, so there's virtually no competition between them, besides sports. ya, sports are more important in public schools. no wonder americans know more about every football team than they do about just 1 of their own congressmen.
they want *socialized* health-care. this alone qualifies them as a socialist party. no explaination needed there.
clinton attacks big corps for having record profits, meaning success is actually punished. what she denies is that the top 10% of america pays 66% of all taxes.
john edwards wants to nearly double taxes across the board, ya that'll make you want to invest, won't it?
obama has slave reparations gleaming in his eyes.
whats the diff between european socialist and american democrats? personal attacks mean you know nothing.
2007-08-02
03:16:13
·
25 answers
·
asked by
blank
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
raoul, youre forgetting that libertarians are non-religious conservatives. you didnt account for them.
2007-08-02
03:41:59 ·
update #1
jimmy, i did think about all the small businesses that filed for bankruptcy under clinton's high taxes.
2007-08-02
03:54:57 ·
update #2
There is no difference. They are desperately pushing America toward French-style Socialism. A good example is a bill just passed by their House of Representatives. This is a bill that provides Socialized healthcare for children, illegal immigrants and the elderly, even those who make 90k per year. The cost is 80 billion over five years and is such a corrupt law because we must borrow money to pay for it. But worse is the fact that Socialism does not work: France has double the unemployment and suicide rate of the U.S. But that is what the Democrats are pushing us toward--a nation where people lose their jobs and kill themselves. Capitalism, on the other hand, provides jobs for the poor for people like me. I used to be on welfare but thanks to capitalism, got good jobs and can now provide for my family. I feel bad for my poor friends who will not be able to get jobs do to the Democrats disdain for the poor.
2007-08-02 03:25:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Lighthearted 3
·
3⤊
3⤋
I'm 60 years old and as long as I've been alive, people have attended the schools of their district. They have to have some idea of how many students they will have. You can't have everybody attending the same school. Not realistic.
Maybe you think it is ok to be owned by China but I don't. Reagan is probably rolling over in his grave to think the U.S. is now dependent on a Communist country. Reparations might be in Obama's thoughts, but see if that gets enough votes in Congress to pass. No way.
The success of corporations is largely due to the practice of giving corporations the welfare conservatives so detest. Tax breaks for going to foreign countries and using slave labor. That doesn't make me proud.
If you think paying $4,000 for one injection after a stroke is not anything but blackmail, I guess we really do view things differently. I'm not sure I agree with universal health care, but I will never in my life understand what makes 1 pill worth $100.
Somewhere here, there has to be a middle of the road answer to this. I haven't heard it yet. We all love our country and appreciate democracy. There must be checks and balances, even on capitalism.
2007-08-02 03:41:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
To classify "All Democrats are Socialist" is wrong....they are not. There is a difference in the ideology between Democrats and Republicans - the biggest difference being that the Democrats believe in capitalism but with regulations so that the working class are not used and abused in the name of higher profits and the bottom line. I think the bigger farce is in the Republican party which lays claims to being a "morale and Christian" party yet by their own actions and their idealogy of capitalism shows them to worship money and could care less about humanity as a whole.
2007-08-02 03:36:52
·
answer #3
·
answered by Becca 4
·
3⤊
1⤋
by way of fact those soft "socialists" are desperately suffering against the ostracism that the leaders of the Democratic social gathering have been dealing out to them for years, on the grounds that all of the some time past interior the days whilst they have been talked approximately as "DESOC" and "SDUSA." it somewhat is a doomed warfare. there is not any place even for their kind of pretend socialism in a brilliant corporation social gathering like the Democrats or the Republicans. they ought to furnish up on the misnamed "Democratic socialism" and merely be Marxists, already. .
2016-10-13 11:46:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
People that say there is no difference don't understand the difference between the two systems. Simply put, democrats still work under a capitalist system. Socialism doesn't accept capitalism as the best economic system, rather than profit, socialism is more concerned with its people.
2007-08-04 08:16:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Cassandra R 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There's a large continuum of the term 'socialist'.
There are countries (social democracies with elections) that enjoy as much if not more freedom than USA such as Holland, Germany, Canada, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, etc. etc.
Then there are totalitarian socialist states like USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc.
The big difference is the presence of a police state and military control of people. Also things such as wiretapping, appointing a partisan judiciary, torture, and control of media that you will not find in EU or Canada or Australia.
So if you think that national health care makes one "socialist" then you believe the scare tactics of the neo-cons that want you to think that if we have affordable health care (with the govt. being allowed to negotiate economy prices) that the next step is Stalin or Castro.
It's clear there are cognitive distortions in that reasoning:
Black and white thinking, jumping to conclusions, magnifying reality, emotional reasoning, fortune telling, and general ignornace of facts.
BTW if the (R)'s can raise revenue by cutting taxes, let's get rid of all income tax, then we'll have a huge surplus and can pay for everyone's health care and education.
2007-08-02 03:34:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by topink 6
·
3⤊
2⤋
You wouldn't (obviously) know Socialism if it jumped up and bit you in the butt. Fascism is more your style.
Please tell us what you would do with millions of starving people, school children who try hard but just don't make it. Would you pull a Nazi trick and just eliminate them as enemies of the state or as unfit to live? Would you take someone who is temporarily down on his luck because your government helped in shipping his job over seas and make him do very low paying menial labor just so he will have a job or would you re-train him or help him find an job with a salary close to what he is used to? If someone gets sick do you just let them die in pain because they are not able to afford the expensive doctors or medical facilities that could save their lives and make them productive again? Would you allow old people, who were productive and made life easier for you because of what they did, to be so poor they must decide on medication or food? This seems to be your mantra and anyone who wants to help those less fortunate, in your feeble little narrow mind, is a Socialist.
Do you know why we have anti-trust laws and why OSHA exists? These you may consider Socialist too. It is because of the irresponsibility of your precious big business and their drive only for money. People be damned they are driven only by money, money and more money. I have nothing against money or those who have it. How they use it and how they run their business in the communtity does concern me. If that makes me a Socialist than so be it. Even Ebenezer Scrooge who started out to be a Con came around to being more liberal in his attitude. Was it Socialistic for Scrooge to give Tiny Tim medical treatment. Why didn't Bob Cratchett pay for it? After all Tim was his son and Scrooge had no obligation to Cratchett, right? So Scrooge went from Fascist to Socialist in one night. Amazing!
2007-08-02 03:30:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
Nearly everything that the democrats stand for is socialism. All the things you stated plus wealth redistribution and a plethora of big government social programs. Our country is turning into a liberal, big government 'Nanny State' of "We know what's best for you, and will force you to comply, against your will!"
2007-08-02 09:44:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your definition of socialist is very broad and would include quite a few Republicans. A progressive tax system, public education and taxation of corporations do not add up to the classic definitions of socialism. Universal health care is needed in this country so if you want to call that socialism, so be it.
Your views make the label of socialism meaningless in a modern, complex, developed society.
2007-08-02 03:30:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by quest for truth gal 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Name only... some democrats, however, actually identify themselves as socialists though... like Bernie Sanders, Senator from the State of Vermont... he is a self avowed socialist... so at least he's honest about where he stands...
Nominally he's an independant, but in all reality he's a democrat, as he caucasses with the Dems... and is treated as a Dem in committee assignments...
2007-08-02 03:27:02
·
answer #10
·
answered by Schaufel 3
·
1⤊
2⤋