First, take at a look at the following:
Maybe not. Consider:
The ideologies of liberalism, socialism, & progressivism are to be found mainly within the Democratic party. The ideologies of capitalism & conservatism are thought to be found mainly in the Republican party - we are told.
But, on a closer look, based on Congress' voting records, there appears to be plenty of liberalism, socialism, & progressivism living within the Republican party as well. Today, a clear distinction between the two parties is often difficult to discern. As both liberalism and progressivism are subsets of "socialism" and conservatism is a subset of "capitalism", for the remainder of this offering I'll stick with the terms socialism and capitalism. Doing so may make things less confusing.
A capitalist's view of socialism goes along the lines of the old saying, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." This view, as an addition, is likened to what some call the "Robin Hood" syndrome: Take from the rich and give to the poor.
Now, a socialist's view of capitalism may be stated as the inverse of the Robin Hood syndrome: Take from the poor so the rich can get richer.
Take a look at these differing views using common sense. In order to fully understand this common sense approach to things, one must, if possible, remove oneself from whatever political "comfort zone" one lives.
Let's start with the Robin Hood syndrome.
If we continually take more and more from the rich and give to the poor, indeed, after a while there are no more rich from whom to take. Then what happens? Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, provides an answer, described in a prior piece I did. Dependence upon the government becomes the norm for the ordinary citizen. Once dependence upon the government is secured and there are no more "rich" from whom to obtain funds, except of course the government leaders - which, by definition, no funds from the leaders (i.e., the "elite") would ever be taken, then chaos occurs leading, possibly, to dictatorship.
Now, the inverse of the Robin Hood syndrome:
If capitalists truly do want to "bleed the poor dry" so they can become even more wealthy, wouldn't this desire undo them in the long run? For, if the "rich" have taken all the "poor's" money, who, then, would buy the capitalists' stuff?
No, the capitalist needs to have more and more people lifted from poverty, and even from the middle class, ever upward in financial wealth. Doing so enables more and more "stuff" to be sold (and, of course) bought. Thus, making the "rich get richer" - and everyone else along with them.
Think about it!
Remember, the government has abolutely nothing that it didn't take from somebody - either via the willingness of someone or against their wishes. If you truly believe that the government is giving you something, look at your tax bill. If it did not go up at least as much as the value of what you received, then whatever that something is came from somebody else's pocketbook; the dollar amount of that "free thing" was earned by them - not you.
Did you, even once, get to vote on the government providing any benefits to anyone? Did you get a choice in giving up your hard earned income for such "allocation of funds"? You may have even wished to provide such benefits. But, did you get to vote on it? You know the answer.
So, when a candidate speaks, independent of the candidate personally or his/her party, listen to what they are "offering". If their message even sounds like the giving to others is a compassionate or a right thing to do, be wary. They are only seeking your increased dependence upon government - a government they wish to lead; and thus, become one of the "elite".