More evidence, if any is needed, that “socialism” is the proper term for those government policies that do not benefit you specifically (via Andrew Sullivan):
We’re all Bachmanns now. James D. Schwartz:
[I]t is undeniable that driving places enormous costs on our society, and this cost is highly subsidized by our government. … In China a litre of gasoline ($0.946) is almost 3 times the cost of a one-way ticket on local public transport ($0.32). In the United States a one-way ticket on public transit ($1.94) is almost double the cost of a litre of gasoline ($1.00).
Lloyd Alter concurs:
If the government owned all the grocery stores and apartment buildings, and and then sold or rented it with a massive subsidy to everyone, it would be called socialism. But Republicans have no problem with government owning the roads and giving them away almost for free, (the gas tax only covers a portion of the costs), and complaining about a few nickels being directed to those who do not drive. Who are the real socialists?