Trump administration considering sending checks directly to Americans to bolster economy amid...

Maj John Bell - wait, so giving money to everyone is not socialism? just like giving money to the rich? but giving it to the poor is socialism? you can try to define it all you want but in the end, it's all socialism just like the road, bridges, and highway you use everyday.

MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi - haha, if I see social security at all.

Cpl Tou Lee Yang - Do you actually read my posts before you respond to them.
Did I say giving money to the rich was socialism? I did not.
Did I say giving money to the poor was socialism? I did not.

Throughout this entire thread you have clearly demonstrated that you do not know what socialism is. Look in a dictionary. Take a class in economics. You are the one in this post who has defined charity (albeit government mandated charity also known as social welfare spending) as socialism. Because it contains the word social, do you assume the the 8th grade Ice Cream Social is socialist in nature.

Since you don't like the definition provided by recognized lexicons of the English language:
_The Oxford Dictionary,
_The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and
_the Free Dictionary,
Or generally accepted writings on economic theory:
_Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, By Ludwig Von Mises,
_On the Economic Theory of Socialism, by Lange, Taylor, and Lipincott
_Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, by Engels
By all means provide an alternative definition by some recognized lexicon or economic treatise. We can then have a meaningful discussion with a commonality of terms. But "Cpl Tony Yang says so" doesn't pass muster.

Government disbursement of tax payer dollars for individual welfare is bad policy NO MATTER WHO the recipient is, no matter what their economic station is.

I agree that public roads, bridges, and interstates are in fact socialist spending, but their use is not means tested. Anyone can use them and benefits from them. That is why it falls within the General Welfare Clause, and has a Constitutional basis.

Social welfare spending (individual welfare spending) is merely redistribution of wealth. Not everyone can use the social welfare programs or benefits from them. Many economists would argue that this nation's economic down turns have been precipitated, exacerbated, or prolonged by such social welfare spending. Government economic engineering through tax code and tax payer funded government disbursements during time of crises is akin to an elephant doing brain surgery with a hatchet in a rubber life raft in the rapids. It's a really bad idea.

Oh... by the way... did you return the difference in your paycheck when the GOP and President Trump pushed through tax cuts?

Maj John Bell - first off i'm reiterating what i said on my post. you can try and sugarcoat your bullshit, but that still won't change the fact that it is socialism. Second of all, I didn't get a fucking tax cut, I paid $277 extra this year in taxes. So I don't know what fucking tax cut you're referring to, not many people are millionaires like you.

Public schools are on the slope of socialism. But they are well within the bounds of the General Welfare Clause of the Constitution.

Social security is not on the slope of socialism.

Socialism -- a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Social Security is Social Welfare Spending, which has no Constitutional basis.

I have no idea Capital Socialism is and I cannot find it in any lexicon of economic theory.

And no... bailouts for the wealthy are not okay.