Of course, govt spending is always political. At one time, one could both pay off supporters and build up the country. When we have to choose, the former always wins.
So...when the government pays people to do things, that's socialism?
I seriously doubt that's how a governmental program training and employing the youth to repair the infrastructure would be viewed, and especially not as proposed to the more socialistic policy of welfare.
So...when the government pays people to do things, that's socialism?
Of course, but the statement itself is a bit meaningless and appeared to me to be flippant, at that.
When the government pays people not to do things, that's a more extreme form of socialism.
To me, the question is one of subsidy. UI[1] is a 100% subsidy. A WPA type of deal could potentially be no subsidy at all, at least to the individuals. It would merely be directing tax money at a particular kind of boondoggle.
[1] Notwithstanding that the I stands for "insurance," since it's structured as a tax, at least here in the US.
Seriously? Have you lived in the US for the last 10 years or seen a Republican recently? rst, if anything, understated how Republicans would attack such a program.
Sorry, Roosevelt did that, but nowadays I am pretty sure it would be called socialism.