Socialism is a pretty complex system that requires a lot more factors than just Minimum Wage and Social Security.

So, let's break dis shit down:

Socialism can be seen in two ideal ways and a few moderate ways.

Ideal 1 - Marxism. Government would lay out the infrastructure and such for the people to be able to use among each other. Property, btw, would eventually exist once government is no longer necessary. Marx wasn't, exactly, anti-Capitalism. he was against the social structure that made wealth so disproportionate. He was a man who saw that an Aristocracy was keeping the poor man poor and the rich man in power. He, with Engels, wrote the Communist Manifesto as a philosophical interpretation of how society, at its point, would eventually lead unto a Utopia where we are post-materialistic (or some shit like that). Socialism was the economic system of a perfect Communist situation, where wealth and property was pretty much even, for no one excelled in anything (and wasn't allowed to... Marx never was good at describing exactly how Socialism could thrive without government).

Ideal 2 - Stalinism. Also known as State Socialism or State Communism. Now, Stalinism is to Communism as Nazism is to Fascism... there are some differences (mainly in the mass murder field), but what I'm trying to get at is pretty similar. State Socialism would have the State take control of all Capital, business, labor, and distribution of goods and services. This, of course, requires a lot of bureaucracy, which fixes itself considering that the State will employ everyone. The State is the decider of all economic issues. It investigates demand and chooses supply. This would mean little to NO private property. The State owns everything and distributes it among the people.

Fascism - Varies greatly in the economic aspects. Similar to Socialism in that there is a totalitarian control over property. The major difference is that people still have a right to that property and to do with it in which they please. Government can still, at any time, tell you what to do with your property, but when it isn't, you can do what you want. China is a great example as to how it works. China was, at a time, Communist. We allowed overseas trade with the country and that led the leaders to eventually allow free trade and enterprise within their own country. China can still, at any time, bar anyone from starting or engaging in business, but that power is not utilized in a way that is destructive towards their economy. Essentially, there is a free market that is standing on the edge of a knife. As long as that free market continues for their economy to grow, they will not infringe on it that much. But they still have all the power to do so.

Social Democracy - A bit like Fascism, but with less State tyranny and a more static economic control. This is the economic views of those like Paul Krugman and we can see it utilized in countries like Spain and Canada. Still, this is the same case in the United States, for we have many regulations (like the EPA and FDA). As well, the taxing system is very progressive with much variance. Then comes assistance for less well-off Americans, like welfare and medicaid. The key points of Social Democracy, be it strong in Spain or moderate in the States, is to have legislation to keep things, for what they feel, in control. Social Democracy, when referring to economics, differs from Socialism in that government views itself as an overseer to what we do in our personal lives. This includes the Market. It will not take full control, however (unless we let it).

Republicans want to cut back on certain regulations in the market. So, if they're under the line of Social Democracy (which is far from Socialism, in its respect), how could Republicans be anywhere close to Socialist?

It seems that you're taking a few economic aspects and saying that it makes one a Socialist if they support it. However, that would mean that one is anti-woman's rights if they are against partial-birth abortions.

Instead, Republicans (and Democrats), to me, are in support of Corporatism and Cronyism. They DO NOT support the true merits of Capitalism, but they aren't Socialists, either. They are for mixed economies, which brings us Corporatism and Cronyism, of course.

1. You don't have a master's degree. If you do that school needs to be shut down immediately.

2. A social program does not equate to socialism.

3. A minimum wage is not even a social program, it's a law. If it is a socialist law than so is every other law.

4. Pray tell how would making poor people's lives more miserable help the middle class? Do you believe people having even less money would boost the economy? Or as I suspect are you so base and simple seeing others with less makes you feel like you have more when in reality you do not?

Republicans wants to stay strictly to the Consitution. Democrats want changes to the Consituition. Saying Republicans are Socialist is like say Jesus was Satanic.

To say a republican is socialist is saying they sit way on the left and republicans sit way on the right! So to say they are even close to socialist is just nonsense!

Republicans are more of a dictatorship, than anything else. They want the rich to be extremely rich and laws to be paid for.

They are fascists, not socialists. Fascism is right wing, and socialism is left wing. ;)

I dont think so