so for you policies can only be socialist when all means of production are publicly owned and the state is abolished?
You and I are clearly operating under a different definition of "socialism." Socialism, properly defined, has always means "public ownership of the means of production." It can be by the state seizing private firms, or by the workers directly controlling the means of production through co-ops and similar entities (meaning your local credit union is an example of socialism).
But you've made it abundantly clear that you define socialism as "whatever the government does" (a few steps beyond the typical right-wing red-baiting where "socialism" is "whatever specific policies and programs I don't like."). It's clear not just from your comments in this thread, but your comments in other threads. You just plain don't like governments in general, and appear to ascribe to some sort of minarchist or right-libertarian worldview where taxation is theft (which I guess makes the Founding Fathers thieves vis a vis Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution) and that spending those tax dollars on anything is "socialism." It's a worldview that's ironically the flipside of doctrinaire Marxism, wishing for an ideal world that never was and never will be. And I've found that people that ascribe to such views are impossible to argue with because they operate on a wavelength completely alien to more mainstream political viewpoints (not even the Republicans think taxes are theft, and are find with the government spending money on fighter jets, wars of choice, and border walls even if they're against spending on social programs). If you want to live in fear of Stalinist boogeymen hiding behind every bush waiting to oppress you with the "totalitarian horrors" like single-payer health insurance, anti-trust legislation, and having to pay your taxes, be my guest, but I'm done wasting my time trying to convince you that "socialism" doesn't mean "anything the government does." Next time we talk, it'll be about video games.