dantoujours saidFor the trillionth time: look up the word socialism. NOTHING the Democrats propose meets the definition of socialism. In a socialist system there is no private property. All means of production and distribution are public (government) owned. That means everything.
The U.S. has always had a mixed private-public economy. What services are provided by government and which are provided by private entities have always varied. But outside of Cuba and North Korea socialism doesn't exist anywhere.
It's the favourite demonizing word to throw around, but it's just meant to scare people.
I kind of think this is a pretty good definition (from wikipedia):
Socialism refers to various theories of economic organisation advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterised by equal access to resources for all individuals with an egalitarian method of compensation
Government ownerships interests in GM and some of the banks would fulfill the "public ownership of the means of production" part of the definition.
And, our tax code is extremely geared towards the reallocation of wealth from the highest earners to the lower earners (problem is, that money somehow gets lost in the maze of government as it is on it's journey from the wealthy to the lower and middle classes).
When I hear Barney Frank who is chairman of the House Finance Committee (or whatever it is called) advocating limits on compensation for executives and employees at financial companies, to me, that's an attempt at socialism.
Sorry, but nothing you described meets the definition.
Everyone in Congress acknowledges that the GM and bank bailouts are temporary just so they can get back on their feet. These weren't permanent government takeovers, but a government loan that has to be paid back.
Secondly, the tax code has nothing to do with socialism, even by the definition you provided. Every tax code has always redistributed wealth. There is much less of this happening in the U.S. now than in the past. In fact, in the 1940s and 1950s the tax rate was 90% for the wealthy and under Obama's plans it is less than 40%
And limiting compensation doesn't meet your definition either.
(Why don't people actually read and think about what they post? Are people allowed to own business property in America? If so, no socialism.)