I understand fully that there are monies going to people from the government. I understand that they are going to be, in some cases "gifts" as the folks will not have paid taxes [or enough taxes] to make a balance.
But that said, the point that I have been trying to look at since this whole thing came up is that it simply is NOT Socialism and I really don't think it is "a step toward" Socialism as that requires a endgame that just does not exist nor is it conceivable in a Capitalistic Economy.
Using a annoying analogy, if you have a daughter who, at 15 and 5'6" weighs 120 pounds, when she gains a couple of pounds for whatever reason you say "You're getting fat". "You are on the road to FAT". Nevermind that, at 15 muscle mass changes, hormones change, and it may just be that she is meeting a boy at the Sonic having a milkshake once or twice a week. But because you see ONE indicator, you assume she is getting FAT.
That is what I see with these calls of Socialism. Other than the intent to induce Fear, Uncertainty, Confusion and Dread, folks make the leap that, because X is happening in a Capitalism Economy and X also happens in a Socialism Economy, THEREFORE we must be making the leap to Socialism.
It is very possible for X to occur in BOTH types of economies without osmosis occuring. But the LEAP assumes that it must.
It is another step towards socialism. You think we can stop partway and only have the goodness that socialism brings? Whether we continue to make steps and complete the journey becomes up to us. I'm not sure how the 15 year old female analogy fits into this, but if it's what you had on your mind, so be it.
You really like your little catch phrase, there, like to use it to dismiss things that don't stick, and things that do. I put it right up there with "the rich man is holding me down," "you must not care about sick, poor, starving children if you don't want the federal government to do charity," and other deflection techniques that are used to vindicate an ever increasing span of governmental control. And, it is control, just like the folks on the alleged right want to control the wombs and email inboxes for their moral causes of saving the unborn and protecting us from the boogey man terrorists, the left wants to control just as many people for their moral causes and use government to do it. There is NO difference and both are dead wrong in this country.
In this particular instance, the author in the OP said, essentially, that we will be taking an unprecedented step towards a socialistic system in using the IRS to redistribute wealth, in giving people who owe no income taxes a refund. That is true. Add to it the politics of promising a majority of the people free stuff and money and saying out loud that the money is coming from the minority. In this case, the promises are 95% get money from 5%. That's quite an election year formula, eh? Good lesson for the young electorate, as well. That 5% is those nefarious rich people who took money, right? This is well justified, right? After all, they all got rich on the backs of the working man . . .
I have a good friend who just made VP in my company. He started out as a student operator some 30 or so years ago, at one of our fossil plants, worked his way up through the ranks of operations, went over and ran their engineering group (without a degree) and set up the best reliability plan the company had in that organization, became plant manager, set record after record, and is now a VP. He's a real people person, the folks at the plant he is leaving would follow him anywhere. Worked his ass off, made the company better, and now has his reward. What should his penalty be? What is his fair share? Most importantly, what has he done to deserve the categorization of the boogey man in our latest class warfare? While I understand there are many who came about their wealth in less honorable, perhaps even illegal methods, I would expect that the majority who have it earned it.
Now, with regards to the step, here's a simple question for you: If a majority of people were seduced into believing that a socialistic economic system was best, that the government should take and distribute all wealth, could that be done without an amendment to the COTUS? Yes or No, then with explanation, no deflection nor catch phrases, pls.