It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

modern Democratic Party = Communist Party?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 10:45 PM
link   
What is the major difference(s) between the modern Democratic Party in the U.S. and the Communist Party in the U.S.? The more I think about it, the more these two parties seem to have in common...

-redistribution of wealth (take money away from people who work hard and give it to people who don't work at all; P.S. -- I don't think this is the same as fair tax rates, such as a sales tax)
-fights against private ownership of land (in the name of the environment, in the Democrats case)
-is against privatization of peoples' education, medical care, and retirement (the government is supposed to only be there to pick up the slack where the private sector leaves off, IMO; not take over everything!)
-has no limits on where the government can regulate, legislate, and tax people's private lives

...and so on. Their views sound eerily simliar when you read each parties' views on the issues. What do you think?

www.democrats.org...

www.cpusa.org...

P.S. -- This is not an endorsement of the Republican Party, but it a critique of the Democratic Party...




posted on Jul, 17 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
HELLO! ive been saying this for a long time! im lucky though im more of a centrist than a republican or a democrat.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud
What is the major difference(s) between the modern Democratic Party in the U.S. and the Communist Party in the U.S.? The more I think about it, the more these two parties seem to have in common...

-redistribution of wealth (take money away from people who work hard and give it to people who don't work at all; P.S. -- I don't think this is the same as fair tax rates, such as a sales tax)
-fights against private ownership of land (in the name of the environment, in the Democrats case)
-is against privatization of peoples' education, medical care, and retirement (the government is supposed to only be there to pick up the slack where the private sector leaves off, IMO; not take over everything!)
-has no limits on where the government can regulate, legislate, and tax people's private lives

...and so on. Their views sound eerily simliar when you read each parties' views on the issues. What do you think?

www.democrats.org...

www.cpusa.org...

P.S. -- This is not an endorsement of the Republican Party, but it a critique of the Democratic Party...


If one considers the sales tax as a fair and equitable tax they are way out in right field. In states that don't have an income tax like mine(Tennessee) the sales tax is raised to terrible heights. It takes much more of a percentage of lower income's money than it does for the people with a lot of money. Anytime one hears a rich man on talk radio wanting to stay away from an income tax watch out. He is trying to protect his money and doesn't give a crap about what happens to yours.

We recently had the fight here in Tennesee about the income tax. Two rich guys on the radio were trying to defeat it claiming NO new taxes were needed. The legislature instead raised the sales tax, and both commentators stated they had accomplished their mission. I thought their mission was NO new taxes. In other words they accomplished their mission of not having to pay additional taxes for screwing the common folk.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You know this is funny, Dems as Commies?


Has anyone read the Communist Manefesto? The works of Marx are the basis for the American Communist Party and are very far from where the Dems stand.

Where do you see redistribution of wealth in the Dems platform? Are you talking about the repealing of the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy? If so, that money is probably not going to go to the poor but to cover government costs. As several famous economists have noted, tax cuts only work when spending is cut.

I'd argue that madmanacrosswater is right sales taxes are not far, because they unfairly punish the common man, but I feel that's something for another debate.

I don't think that it's Communist to want a public education, or public health care, they may be socialist ideas but there is nothing that marks the ideas as comming from the Communist party.

The Dems sure as hell do see limits on government regulation and legislation! They fight for free speech, freedom of religion and many other base freedoms that the Republican party has been legislating against, like same-sex unions.

I really think what you are confusing here is Communism with Socialism. Communists are socialist, but not all socialists are Communists. Socialism has taken root in Europe over the past few years, and I think the United States is playing catch-up. Communism, on the other hand, is dead, Marxist Communism never acutally happened, and the only country where any semblance of real Communism exists is Vietnam, and it's a very weak flavor there. Cuba and North Korea are dictatorships, not government by the people and China is fast turning into a Capitolist nation, even though they still say they hail Mao.

I think, ThunderCloud and Ivan, you're seeing what you want to see here. You don't like the Democrats so you pick up on every simmilarity, no matter how slight to your old enemies the Communists. The Cold War is over, time to move on.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
You know, someone could just as easily make a thread titled "Modern Republican Party = Facist Party".



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:36 PM
link   
How is a sales tax unfair? The more money you make, the more stuff you buy; the less money you make, the less stuff you buy. The more stuff you buy, the more sales taxes you'll pay; the less stuff you buy, the less sales taxes you'll pay. Add to that the fact that some items are autuomatically exempted from sales taxes (such as food, clothing, and hygiene products that aren't also luxury items) and it's fair -- and best of all, simple and unintrusive, unlike the income tax is -- at the same time...


[edit on 7/19/2004 by ThunderCloud]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Actually the sales tax is very different from state to state and even in some cases from county to county. In many states, Wisconsin comes to mind, clothing is taxed and the rules are variable. Now it's not as obtrusive as the UK which used to have a tax for owning a television, but it still punishes those making less.

What you forget is that regardless of income there are some things that everyone needs, like a refridgerator or furnace that cost major ammounts of money and are taxed.

Now I'm not saying that we should have some sort of sales tax that is keyed to one's income or anything like that, it'd be damn near impossible and just invite cheating. We should however utilize fair taxes that are keyed to income and ownings like income taxes and property taxes more so and lower the sale tax rates.

I'd say that income taxes are fair, the rich can afford to pay a higher percentage of their income than can the everydayman or the working poor, and therefor should. With wealth comes responsibility, such is morality.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 05:18 PM
link   
People, especially the right-wing are too quick to call people who question there beliefs a "communist"

I am a registered voter under the Socialist Party USA. "Wealth redistribution" is a loose term used to describe hard-communism.

A big misunderstanding is the right-wing think in Socialism your wages are equal to everyone else in the country.. something which is not true at all. People are quick to automatically think of modern Socialism as the Soviet police-state form... which is simply not the case.

Why I think Socialism works in Europe...

1. They do not have a big "ego" to push like the USA.. What countries in Europe can you consider an ultra-power? Besides Russia, Russia has a large remaining left-over Cold War force but lacks the funds to keep most of it running properly. They *Could* be considered a superpower in some ways but not all ways. But first we need to define superpower.. websters dictionary says :

" A powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its allies or client states in an international power bloc."

As I said.. Russia has a large remaining post-Cold War military force but lacks the funds to keep it running properly... that can be left for another discussion thread.

2. They have not much of a reason to spend a huge proportion of tax incomes on a military superforce.
3. I think the governments and people of Europe are trying to make a more advanced society and after two world war's they finally see the true nature of war. The countries will join up in cooperation to better peoples lives and enhance peace.

I believe the basis for nearly all the problems we see politically are all based on money... especially terrorism. Some people will kill for it.... I do not believe we will see a "New world order" in the future but a more better cooperation and understanding between nations and people. It would reduce much of this terrorism we see today... I believe most terrorism has something to do with gaining more money.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
True socialism is like a rare-Earth element that doesn't exist in nature; chemists can create one of these elements in a lab, but they don't last for even a day! They quickly decay into a more common, naturally occuring Earth element isotope.

I think human socieities work the same way. Dicatorships (however distasteful; empires and monarchies are really just other names for dictatorships) and democratic republics are the only two naturally existing human societies that can be stable. Socialism is totally artificial, on the other hand. It will quickly decay into a dictatorship or variant of it once created.

One of my favorite articles, from one of my favorite editorial writers, Thomas Sowell, can say more eloquently than I can:

"How you look at the free market depends on how you look at human beings. If everyone were sweetness and light, socialism would be the way to go. Within the traditional family, for example, resources are often lavished on children, who don't earn a dime of their own. It is domestic socialism, and even the most hard-bitten capitalists practice it. Maybe some day we will discover creatures in some other galaxy who can operate a whole society that way. But the history of human beings shows that a nation with millions of people cannot operate like one big family..."

The whole article can be read at capmag.com...

Socialism might sound nice on paper, but it's impossible given human nature...



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   
to be the fair though socialism is a economic rather then political system. Its no more possible for socialism to decay into dictatorship then it is for your tv to turn into a toaster. Now if your saying that socialism can be an influence toward autocracy I wont disagree with you. However the same can be said of unrestricted capitalism.



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
to be the fair though socialism is a economic rather then political system. Its no more possible for socialism to decay into dictatorship then it is for your tv to turn into a toaster. Now if your saying that socialism can be an influence toward autocracy I wont disagree with you. However the same can be said of unrestricted capitalism.


I think you're confusing socialism with communism! According to the dictionary Socialism is a system of governing. Communism is the economic system.

Now to the politics, unlimited goverment is dangerous, no matter what blueprint you start with. I don't think the Democrats (or the Republicans for that matter) are Socialists. Are they perfect? Not by a long shot. but that does not make them Commies, just like not everyone who's an extreemist is a Terrorist. There is a diffrence!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance



posted on Jul, 21 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   
in my state sales taxes are on food and clothing. It is the most regressive tax there is. Example.

A person who makes $200/wk goes to the store and buys $50 of much needed groceries. He pay sales tax at 6% He has paid $3 or or 1.5% of his income on taxes for said groceries.

A person who makes $600/wk does the same thing. He has paid .5% of his income. AS income rises the percentage declines.

I hope this clarifies my statement.

The lower income people pay a disproportinate percentage of their income in sales tax.



posted on Jul, 22 2004 @ 07:16 PM
link   
No, Socialism is an ecomonic system.. as well as communism. Two different economic systems.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Yep I was wondering why Chinese business and military leaders were making large donations and accepting payments for certain "business" (stealing US technology) during the Clinton Administrtion.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
You know, someone could just as easily make a thread titled "Modern Republican Party = Facist Party".


Indeed, that definately says it all. Although how the Democrat party can be seen as even remotely left is beyond me and laughable, they have one or two leftist ideas to give the illusion of difference but they're basically the same bag as Republicans anyway.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Well, if balancing the budget and trying to get rid of the national debt while using diplomacy before bombs is Communist, call me Chariman Mao.

Christ...



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The two most socialistic countries in europe today are frace and germany. Both have record levels of debt, both have ridiculously high unemployment, and both are looking at cutting retirement and healthcare benefits to save thier economies. The reason is simple socialistic systems do not motivate average people to reach beyond thier grasp. Why work an extra 20 hours a week to be more succesful if the tax structure ensures that the government takes most of your extra earnings? Why not do the minimum if you will still enjoy an acceptable standard of living? Why not allow the government to support you if they are willing to? Socialist economies grow slower, are less efficient, and produse less wealth, and products than free mrket economies because peopele are not inspired to overreach. Do the dems have socialist leanings? Yeah but even I can't honestly compare them to communists at least not all of them.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 03:50 AM
link   
BTW one other point about the dems being for free speech, Doesn't anyone remember Gore's attempt to ban records with "explicit lyrics"?
Or the fact that his 2000 campaign had cesorship as a central issue?
Does free speech mean the government gets to tell me what movies I can watch or wht music I can listen to?
Allthough I found Ice-t's song "cop-killer" repugnant I would march or fight for his right to sing it, would Gore have had he been elected?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join