Nobody has asked the most important question. We're all arguing over exactly how to define socialism. I think we all know what the asker means generally speaking (even if we can't agree specifically).
What I want to know is, what is benefit? So to clarify, If I give you $100 and you give me back $50 and then ask me, "did I benefit from receiving $50?", is the answer yes or no? Or, perhaps more reasonably asked: If I give you $100 and you give me back $100, but then tell me that though you gave me $100 in benefits, I now owe you more money over the next X number of years because you overspent the money I gave you on other people and ventures... did I benefit? And most importantly, I would want to know the answer to this: If you don't give me a choice but to give you $100 so that you can give me back $100 in benefits and then force me to give you additional money in the future because you overspent the original $100 I gave you... have I benefited?
I would say the answers to these are obviously NO. Which is why I think most entitlement programs are a JOKE and completely unconstitutional. Sure, I collect from them. But did I really benefit?