Yeah, I know someone who is really successful despite having student loans, so the education system is pretty much perfect imo and I see no problems with it.

The right sets up this notion that there is some contradiction between "free market" and "government intervention". There is no real difference between the two. If Sanders wins, what you'll see is a free nation of people deciding that we want it to be that way. We want to pool our money together to close an equality gap and improve the quality of life of hundreds of millions of people while outright admitting we want to take wealth away from the those who have it.

Sanders probably won't win because there are not enough people out there who feel this way. But it's it's a growing population for sure and we'll get there eventually. Basically ikes wants it to be one way.

If you want the rich to have less and the poor to have more then their should be mandatory transfers of wealth where the government only acts as a payment processor and not a decision maker. They should collect the money and then pay it out directly in cash payments. They shouldn't be spending any of the additional inflows on things like Medicare, Social Security, infrastructure, military, etc. If taxes increase on the rich they should be direct transfers to the poor as there is way way way too much wasteful spending when the government controls the allocation of funds and oversees the projects.

This is fantastic.

I haven't heard anything this good since Occupy Wall Street.

I'm saying that the current system of people paying for college themselves is not broken. The costs of attending different schools are easily verifiable and there are tons of resources out there to help people evaluate which ones make sense. Entrants should weight the pros of more expensive programs vs. the costs and make an educated and rational decision. Furthermore, there are scholarships available for ~every college in the country and also need based aid and scholarships available to those with hardships. All the information to allow people to make informed decisions is there.

The government and public should not be on the hook for people who want to spend 7 years in college or want to get a degree in social media (which is a real thing these days) or a liberal arts field with no practical application. If you want to do that kind of **** then pay for it yourself.

Don't infrastructure projects like roads/bridges pay for themselves in jobs and savings?

A tax increase for a university entitlement would also stop destroying the wealth which can be created by those in their 20s and 30s, the easiest times to do so without dependents.

As for mandatory leave, successful companies grant long leaves and vacation times already, especially in Europe. Is it a liability to their viability? Are there not net gains to applying these policies to those not in these positions who are overspending on bad day care just to have someone with their kids? A culture where parents get a break is a huge gain to crumbling family values that lead to far worse multi-generational problems we can less afford.

That works for me.

The other laughable thing from most right-wing voters is that they're basically voting against their own self interest solely because they've been manipulated into thinking it makes them part of the group that benefits from the massive inequality.

Cutting off their own noses to spite the face of their poor black neighbor.

They're temporarily embarrassed millionaires dude, don't be so mean.

Tut, you acknowledge that it isn't a fair plan. What makes you want to support something that you see as unfair? The millionaires and billionaires have typically worked very very hard (or in the cases of inherited wealth have had an ancestor who did) in order to get to their position. If you do this you are stripping them of their hard earned gains.

So now that you acknowledge it isn't fair then what makes it acceptable or right to strip hard earned gains from the rich, but definitely not ok to strip hard earned gains from the working poor? Just the mere fact that they live comfortably even though they have taken specific actions to reach that point?

Many rich people have made huge sacrifices on the family and personal level forgoing relationships and other life opportunities to work and work some more in the relentless pursuit of professional success and wealth. Taking their wealth away from them can never provide them with these opportunities. Had they known about this they may have structured their whole life differently (some may not have obviously).

Did you go to a public university? Should all universities be privatized? Should high school be privatized? Elementary school?

You can use any definition you want really. It doesn't matter.

That's on them. They should be fully aware that the rules of the game can change at any time. They certainly do against the rest of us often enough.

I just think that companies should have the right to decide this for themselves. if people want to work at Company X bc of their amazing policy on Z, then that's fantastic. if their ****ty policy causes people to leave or for them not to recruit good people to begin with, then it should be on them to fix it. or not fix it. but businesses should have the right to figure out what's best for them, not the government which has far less understanding of their challenges, etc.

and just to back up - having kids isn't mandatory. it's a choice (some) people make and I think people should be responsible for costs associated with their choices. And I don't think (lack of) population growth is a problem we have - perhaps the opposite actually.

Right, Bernie wants to turn America into Sweden or Denmark. A nightmare!

Ultimately I guess you can argue there's some decision making involved, but it's something we're biologically wired and need to do so "that dumb ghetto bitch shouldn't have had 5 kids" doesn't really apply as much as you probably think it does.

Also, population growth is an undeniably good thing if we're actually in the most propserous era of all-time. How else are we gonna keep growing?

Libertarian leaning keeed?

Also, not sure what about destroying free trade agreements and pining for having only one choice of shoes or deodorant is Sweden/Denmark.

that dumb ghetto bitch shouldn't have 5 kids, and Upper Middle Class White Guy (me) probably shouldn't even have a 2nd. Kids are crazy expensive. whether someone gets 6 weeks or 12 weeks is the tiniest drop in the bucket compared to the lifetime (or at least 18 year) expenses that come with children. I'm not a farmer who needs an extra set of hands so this is certainly top of mind for me.

I don't understand this point

I have a lot to catch upon but I'd love some elaboration on this. Because I find this very far fetched.

Pretty sure that this wins the award for most unnecessary parenthetical of all time.

I'll tell you what is far fetched: being worried about a slippery slope from altering the second amendment to the first.

nah, I went to a private university bc I deemed it better than the opportunity to go to a public university for free even while factoring in cost. I went to public school from kindergarten through high school.

I don't have a specific view on whether all schools should be privatized or not. I am open to arguments on both sides.

I think all public colleges and universities should be run to be breakeven. Charge whatever it costs to maintain campus, pay faculty, etc. I do support price discrimination such that in-state students pay less than out-of-state students which already happens. I also believe in price discrimination based on hardship and parental income in which there would be scaled costs to people coming from families with incomes below $X/yr and then full sticker (2 separate scales for in-state and out) for those above $X/yr.

I also think there should be "forced diversity" in that public colleges should be mandated to accept a certain percentage of these hardship cases (not necessarily by race/religion/etc.) in order to make sure that capable, yet underserved students have the opportunity to elevate their status in society.

I know. When will a gun free zone ever become a safe speech zone?

also

- whether or not to have kids
- how many kids to have

has been a thought out decision for basically every couple I know. it's absolutely a decision - or should be. financial consideration is a major factor.

Sweden is much wealthier than Denmark.

Sweden is much poorer than their climate/population analog of Maine/New Hampshire/Massachusetts/Maine.

It's about $10k/person in per capita income.