Unfortunately it's even broader - any government spending is now socialism. So bailing out banks is "socialism for the rich", even though it's neither social ownership nor for social welfare.

I feel like most liberal democracies* have a large section of the population who think the welfare state, or UBI, is socialism. But yeah, the US seems particularly nuts on the definition of "socialism".

* Using this term liberally (heh) - capitalism making actual democracy impossible notwithstanding.

Even if you look at the pure definition, it can be fuzzy. Who should control the means of production is the great debate among leftists. The problem is "social ownership" can take many forms, and how well they represent society widely varies. If a government is corrupt, government ownership certainly will not represent the people. I've come to the conclusion that a variety of approaches is probably necessary as each has its own weaknesses. Natural resources need to be protected from exploitation by even local communities. But people are also right to not trust governments to continuously maintain their best interests. Generally speaking, keeping stuff as close to the people as possible is ideal. Workers, and not investors or government officials, should control the means of production in a business. At the same time, there should be a low barrier of entry for people to come together and form competing businesses. Investment may be necessary, but at the very least, investment should be a one time thing with a limited return on that investment. It should exist to lower barriers of entry, not raise them. And people certainly shouldn't be able to make a living off of loaning money. While the answers aren't always clear, there are some fundamental things all leftists should be able to agree on, though.

I could be wrong but I always thought they go hand in hand, if the people get the money from the production it's spent on the people with social programs, or that's my basic understanding.