-j-p-shmorgan said:Public healthcare SHOULD be a right for all. Plenty of countries have successfully implemented this.
Publicly funded elections - notice the difference on how Sanders raised his money for his campaign when compared to Hillary or Jeb?
He's referring to small donations by the people for campaigning - not big corrupt lobbyists.
We could cut defense spending, and use SOME on education while still saving $
For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that universal health care and free education are in fact rights.
We then encounter a problem that all advocates of state funded services fail to address and that is: What is an acceptable minimum standard of health care or education? Once an "acceptable" standard is somehow arrived at, then every incumbent government is lobbied by vested interest groups to maintain or broaden the acceptable minimum standards. Now as no person's needs are identical to another, the solution usually arrived at is a compromise, or in other words some are serviced at the expense of others. This is the very same situation Sanders is currently opposing, his policies would not change that, they would merely redirect the favouritism.
-j-p-shmorgan said:Increase public spending - as in - increase our wages, thus boosting the economy.
I can't see a connection between increasing public spending and increasing our wages.
-j-p-shmorgan said:Notice he mentions that 99% of all new money generated goes to the top 1% ? You think that's right?!?!?!?!
I don't know, those figures may be correct. There is some debate about it, The Washington Post says Sanders is telling fibs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ncome-is-going-to-top-1-percent-of-americans/
-j-p-shmorgan said:Out of all the candidates, who do you see most fit shiney?
ALL OF THEM ARE EVIL & CORRUPT PUPPETS EXCEPT FOR BERNIE. lmao
I can't help you out there jp, I have no idea and unfortunately I am of the opinion that anyone who runs for public office is a touch sociopathic.