Bernie Sanders 2020 Watch

[happyfunball 481]

Bernie is too old but the Clinton loyalist are awful

Ms. Tanden acknowledged tensions with what she called “millennial agitators” in her party, but blamed Mr. Trump, who made “crazy, radical ideas seem more normal,” she said in the interview.[/Quote]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/tanden-sanders-.html

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

ENDORSE BERNIE YOU COWARD

She has more leverage and influence by not endorsing Bernie and I think you know this. 

[bad_teammate 13132]

23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

She has more leverage and influence by not endorsing Bernie and I think you know this. 

Of course, i'm just talking shit

Endorsing now doesn't mean anything. Need to wait for maximum primary voter attention.

(Also, let's see if the ancient socialist can literally survive that long.)

[bad_teammate 13132]

 

[AeroHorn 735]

Bernie is my leading candidate and it hasn't changed. One negative raised earlier is that he won't be able to beat Trump. If the only way to beat Trump is to get down in the gutter with him, then it may be true. But I prefer his sticking to issues rather than personalities, and boldly pushing ideas rather than being weighed down by election calculus. Is this the price an idealist (read a relatively decent person) has to pay? Depends on the voters, I guess, if they can think for themselves or fall for political gamesmanship. Being somewhat of an idealist myself, I clearly prefer Bernie's method as opposed to crafting an agenda that maximizes across donors, special interests, and voter blocks. Regardless, I think Bernie has the best chance to win, for the same reason Trump won; ideas and force of personality can overcome establishment, and I don't see any other Dem candidate with such forcefulness and clarity as Bernie. 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

To win the White House back, the Democrats need to keep the Hillary states (all are safe) and pick up Pennsylvania (where Bernie just nuked FOXNews in a town hall), Wisconsin (which he won in 2016), and Michigan (which he won in 2016).

His path to victory in the general is obvious.

[henrygandorf 29174]

so @bad_teammate - after the soundbyte/video clip of bernie basically talking thru the network to the president, challenging him to produce his tax returns, can you now finally admit that it was important that he disclosed them, even if it wasn't necessarily "right" or "consistent from candidate to candidate" or "consistent from year-to-year"?

they've been running that clip all day, it's fucking fantastic.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Important in a tactical sense, absolutely.

[henrygandorf 29174]

tactics win elections.

[bad_teammate 13132]

tactics win elections.

ur mom wins elections

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

tactics win elections.

ur mom wins elections

you're god damn right.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

She won my erection.

[bad_teammate 13132]

GET HIS ASS

 

[gmr548 16491]

5 hours ago, AeroHorn said:

Bernie is my leading candidate and it hasn't changed. One negative raised earlier is that he won't be able to beat Trump. If the only way to beat Trump is to get down in the gutter with him, then it may be true. But I prefer his sticking to issues rather than personalities, and boldly pushing ideas rather than being weighed down by election calculus. Is this the price an idealist (read a relatively decent person) has to pay? Depends on the voters, I guess, if they can think for themselves or fall for political gamesmanship. Being somewhat of an idealist myself, I clearly prefer Bernie's method as opposed to crafting an agenda that maximizes across donors, special interests, and voter blocks. Regardless, I think Bernie has the best chance to win, for the same reason Trump won; ideas and force of personality can overcome establishment, and I don't see any other Dem candidate with such forcefulness and clarity as Bernie. 

 

 

I'm so fucking tired of hearing this. I'm by no means a Bernie Bro, but every indicator out there says that's false.

[henrygandorf 29174]

as of current polling, if bernie can't beat trump, we're all proper fucked.

[bad_teammate 13132]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

as of current polling, if bernie can't beat trump, we're all proper fucked.

Which polling are you talking about?

[EuroHorn 3204]

Bernie might beat trump but in doing so he’ll get an independent elected. 

[GRHorn 105]

SIAP

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Which polling are you talking about?

trump's.

and bernie is the current front-runner.

if trump stays where he is, there are a number of dems that can take him in the general.

[NowThis 931]

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Great counter to the supposed greatness of Canadian style Berniecare. His draft legislation compels everyone to government care destroying my private health insurance along with hundreds of millions of others. Our system of private insurance needs a new generation of Republican Gen-Xers like myself to come up with a way to keep private insurance and help subsidize basic, no frills care for the non-Medicaid qualifying lower class. Republicans need to get on the ball and counter with reform to the private health insurance model. We need to hammer away at the awful wait times for appointments and procedures in Canada and the U.K. and how in the U.K. the doctors in the NHS are mostly 3rd world foreigners with real British doctors available for pricey concierge care. Note that that even that wasn’t good enough for Mick Jagger and other wealthy Brits who come here to get the best medical care in the world. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-alternative-to-medicare-for-all-11555457596

Not so fast. The experience of Canada, which follows the Sanders model, shows that single payer is not the best way to achieve the goal of access to timely care. Its single-payer program is universal, funded by taxpayers without deductibles or copayments, and excludes premiums for most users. Objective measures of performance show it’s a comparatively expensive system whose results are mediocre—and sometimes very poor.

A Fraser Institute study published in November examined 28 universal health-care systems across 45 indicators of performance. After adjusting for differences in the proportion of seniors, Canada ranked among the top spenders—fourth-highest as a percentage of gross domestic product and 10th-highest per capita. Yet it had less medical resources available for patients and painfully long wait times for specialists. Canada ranked 26th out of 28 for number of physicians, 22nd out of 27 for MRI units, and 25th out of 26 for hospital beds.

Overall, Canada performs worse than other universal-coverage countries, particularly Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany. Why? Unlike Canada’s single-payer system, the Swiss, Dutch and German systems rely on private insurers, whether nonprofit or for-profit. Government helps the needy make premium payments.

German enrollees can use a public system composed of 145 competing independent nonprofit “sickness funds” or buy insurance from 43 companies or nonprofits. In the Netherlands and Switzerland, residents must select a standard insurance package from private insurers, of which both countries have dozens.

Unlike the U.S., with Medicare and its massive trillion-dollar unfunded liabilities, these countries cannot pass unreimbursed current expenses onto future generations. If the expenses of private insurers exceed their revenues, they face bankruptcy.

Edited April 17, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 hours ago, GRHorn said:

SIAP

Uh oh. Looks like ya got em this time. 

If the bern does somehow win the dem nomination he will then wipe the floor with trumps mushroom dick after kicking his fat orange wig wearin ass. Just like he would have in 2016 if the Democratic Party hadn’t acted so Democratic Party. 

[David Dennison 18652]

29 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Great counter to the supposed greatness of Canadian style Berniecare. His draft legislation compels everyone to government care destroying my private health insurance along with hundreds of millions of others. Our system of private insurance needs a new generation of Republican Gen-Xers like myself to come up with a way to keep private insurance and help subsidize basic, no frills care for the non-Medicaid qualifying lower class. Republicans need to get on the ball and counter with reform to the private health insurance model. We need to hammer away at the awful wait times for appointments and procedures in Canada and the U.K. and how in the U.K. the doctors in the NHS are mostly 3rd world foreigners with real British doctors available for pricey concierge care. Note that that even that wasn’t good enough for Mick Jagger and other wealthy Brits who come here to get the best medical care in the world. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-alternative-to-medicare-for-all-11555457596

Not so fast. The experience of Canada, which follows the Sanders model, shows that single payer is not the best way to achieve the goal of access to timely care. Its single-payer program is universal, funded by taxpayers without deductibles or copayments, and excludes premiums for most users. Objective measures of performance show it’s a comparatively expensive system whose results are mediocre—and sometimes very poor.

A Fraser Institute study published in November examined 28 universal health-care systems across 45 indicators of performance. After adjusting for differences in the proportion of seniors, Canada ranked among the top spenders—fourth-highest as a percentage of gross domestic product and 10th-highest per capita. Yet it had less medical resources available for patients and painfully long wait times for specialists. Canada ranked 26th out of 28 for number of physicians, 22nd out of 27 for MRI units, and 25th out of 26 for hospital beds.

Overall, Canada performs worse than other universal-coverage countries, particularly Switzerland, the Netherlands and Germany. Why? Unlike Canada’s single-payer system, the Swiss, Dutch and German systems rely on private insurers, whether nonprofit or for-profit. Government helps the needy make premium payments.

German enrollees can use a public system composed of 145 competing independent nonprofit “sickness funds” or buy insurance from 43 companies or nonprofits. In the Netherlands and Switzerland, residents must select a standard insurance package from private insurers, of which both countries have dozens.

Unlike the U.S., with Medicare and its massive trillion-dollar unfunded liabilities, these countries cannot pass unreimbursed current expenses onto future generations. If the expenses of private insurers exceed their revenues, they face bankruptcy.

We're going to wind up with Medicare for All. That's how this is going to shake out.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Trump should go on fox and do a town hall like Bernie just did. I would tune in for the hilarity of that for sure.

Just get someone to ask an innocuous question that doesn’t completely kiss trumps ass and he’ll go off on the questioner, tell the host to go fuck himself and storm off. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

7 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Trump should go on fox and do a town hall like Bernie just did. I would tune in for the hilarity of that for sure.

Just get someone to ask an innocuous question that doesn’t completely kiss trumps ass and he’ll go off on the questioner, tell the host to go fuck himself and storm off. 

When Trump was stoking racial fears, he campaigned on populist policies (talked about paying for healthcare that would probably lead to taxes on the rich like himself) but turned around and of course, to the surprise of no one intelligent, did the exact opposite once elected. I honestly hope M4A is something we can get people to buy into because it's clear that a lot of people bought into Trump because of this kind of message, even if that means they were okay with his blatant racism.

[Fozzz 152]

Really enjoy this podcast, and this is a good episode discussing the big daddy bucks Bernie controversy and the dem primary more generally.  One of the hosts is Australian, so please excuse her accent.

 

[GHOSTUSER 361]

1 hour ago, GSU&UT said:

When Trump was stoking racial fears, he campaigned on populist policies (talked about paying for healthcare that would probably lead to taxes on the rich like himself) but turned around and of course, to the surprise of no one intelligent, did the exact opposite once elected. I honestly hope M4A is something we can get people to buy into because it's clear that a lot of people bought into Trump because of this kind of message, even if that means they were okay with his blatant racism.

M4A as proposed by the Bern would be a disaster. His legislation denies us Americans freedom of contract by banning private insurance and doctor provided plans. People like myself will fight tooth and nail to keep the devil we know in our private insurance plans with direct access to specialists with a PPO versus government gatekeeper care. If the Dems were going to actually do something to halt illegal immigration, I’d actually be worried about M4A becoming a reality. Think how much illegal immigration pisses off people. Add the tax burden of illegals and their anchor babies health care costs. The base will never put up with lowering their standard of health care to raise the health care access of an illegal and her kid. That’s what community health care centers, Ben Taub and charities for. 

Edited April 17, 2019 by Iconoclast Texan

[bad_teammate 13132]

@henrygandorf

In the PETE! thread EPIC TAKEDOWN you referenced the common shitlib trope that Bernie Bros are TEARING APART the Democratic Party

Do you have evidence for this?

Because it doesn't make any sense in terms of voter profile and it's not based on anything statistical.

Is it a real thing that people like you genuinely believe? If so, what is it based on?

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

@henrygandorf

In the PETE! thread EPIC TAKEDOWN you referenced the common shitlib trope that Bernie Bros are TEARING APART the Democratic Party

Do you have evidence for this?

Because it doesn't make any sense in terms of voter profile and it's not based on anything statistical.

Is it a real thing that people like you genuinely believe? If so, what is it based on?

 

"people like you"?

i never said what you're implying - in fact i've stated the exact opposite numerous times and thought it was awesome that the bros (led by bernie himself) actually rallied behind hrc when, if the roles had been reversed, is not something i don't think would've necessarily happened (obviously no proof of that, just my opinion).

so i guess what i'm asking is, what?

[bad_teammate 13132]

13 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i never said what you're implying

 

*excerpt from EPIC TAKEDOWN OF LEGEND with JOHN WILLIAMS score*

the democrats have a real problem, which is probably why they lose so god damn always.  i think you know what the problem is.  and if you don't, see if you can find a mirror nearby. 

Perhaps I misunderstood and this isn't you shaking your first in the sky about Bernie Bros?

[henrygandorf 29174]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*excerpt from EPIC TAKEDOWN OF LEGEND with JOHN WILLIAMS score*

the democrats have a real problem, which is probably why they lose so god damn always.  i think you know what the problem is.  and if you don't, see if you can find a mirror nearby. 

Perhaps I misunderstood and this isn't you shaking your first in the sky about Bernie Bros?

someone recently dropped the old adage "democrats fall in love, while republicans fall in line."  it's catchy because it's true.  i don't think it's specifically aimed at bernie at all, but i do think dems have a habit of getting so head-over-heels passionate for "their candidate" that they get completely blindsided and disillusioned when things don't work out.  and when i said that, i meant "people like you" in that way.  not you (bernie bro) specifically. 

i've made no secret of the fact that i think hillary voters have a certain way of thinking that is counterproductive.  when hankkingsley was talking to you last night about pete being "just another privileged white male", he was referring to the rhetoric coming from the hillary camp, not the bernie one.  a lot of the bullshit "this guy is #cancelled" noise was coming from that same group.  unfortunately, with passion comes defensiveness - and you're definitely guilty of that.  i don't think i've said one negative thing about bernie, even in passing. (and saying he should release his taxes isn't negative, it was a fact).  once again, you're assuming that i'm attacking your guy.  i get it, but i wasn't.

i probably could've been more clear and not overgeneralized, but yes, you misunderstood.  you may think i "try to stay neutral" or "don't stir the pot" but you've only seen me on this board.  i'm pretty straightforward and honest and transparent on at least 5-6 boards and have been for the better part of two decades (and 3-4 iterations of this site). 

[bad_teammate 13132]

I think you're conflating criticism of me personally (which is valid because I'm an annoying garbage can and tempting because there's an eager audience for it) with a wider analysis of Democratic electoral failure. Democrats don't lose because of overly-loyal zealots within the party.

Since the Democratic Party is the big tent party of the people, it's the people who move in and out of participation that cost Dems elections. If we're concerned about winning, and we should be, we need to understand that Democrats win or lose based on the behaviors of non-voters, who are...

---------------------------------------------------------------

They’re younger. Roughly a third (34%) of nonvoters are younger than 30 and most (70%) are under 50; among likely voters, just 10% are younger than 30 and only 39% are under 50.

They’re more racially and ethnically diverse. Fully 43% of those who are not likely to cast ballots Tuesday are Hispanic, African American or other racial and ethnic minorities, roughly double the percentage among likely voters (22%).

They’re less affluent and less educated. Nearly half of nonvoters (46%) have family incomes less than $30,000, compared with 19% of likely voters. Most nonvoters (54%) have not attended college; 72% of likely voters have completed at least some college.

----------------------------------------------------------------

If we're going to win elections, those are the people we need to turn out. The candidates who excite those bases are where we will find our wins.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Bernie's campaign team has a podcast. The first one was with Bernie himself, and it was good, but Episode 2 is 3 (female) staffers talking about their healthcare experiences and one of their stories legitimately pisses me off (she's Type 1 Diabetic and her insulin situation is alarming).

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23356]

Lol Tucker

[American Swindle 102]

On 4/17/2019 at 8:46 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol Tucker

It's kind of ironic, but I do like him on Auditing the Fed and Ending Cronyism, but his constant demonization of rich people, unsustainable social programs, and economic illiteracy loses me.  

Quote

When confronted as being among those he has long villainized, Sanders became defensive:

“I wrote a best-selling book,” he declared. “If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too.”

Translation: "I made my money fair and square, so quit hassling me about it."

It is at this point that we start to see Bernie Sanders undermine his own claims about millionaires, wealth, and capitalism.

 

[Dropout 355]

Username checks out part 2. Everyone saw those headlines coming. It’s based on nothing really.

Stating facts about tax cuts for the rich or how money is distributed in America isn’t demonizing the rich. I also see we are worried about the national debt again. Tweet Trump. Economic illiteracy? Is that your opinion? 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/opinion/bernie-sanders-tax.html?searchResultPosition=3

The answer seems to be that Sanders got a lot of book royalties after the 2016 campaign, and was afraid that revealing this fact would produce headlines mocking him for now being part of the 1 Percent. Indeed, some journalists did try to make his income an issue.

This line of attack is, however, deeply stupid. Politicians who support policies that would raise their own taxes and strengthen a social safety net they’re unlikely to need aren’t being hypocrites; if anything, they’re demonstrating their civic virtue.

Even now, most Americans don’t seem to realize just how rich today’s rich are. At a recent event, my CUNY colleague Janet Gornick was greeted with disbelief when she mentioned in passing that the top 25 hedge fund managers make an average of $850 million a year. But her number was correct.

One survey found that Americans, on average, think that corporate C.E.O.s are paid about 30 times as much as ordinary workers, which hasn’t been true since the 1970s. These days the ratio is more like 300 to 1.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Bernie in South Carolina

A little context for what Dr. West is talking about, here is Bernie, in 1986, 5 years into his tenure as mayor of Burlington, VT, traveling across the country to promote black rights and justice.

 

[Dropout 355]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Bernie in South Carolina

 

Tone Dr. West.

[Bruh Man 3160]

 

[Anastasis 23393]

How does that even make sense?

[Anastasis 23393]

Cornel West is fucking great. 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

Fantastic ad.

 

[henrygandorf 29174]

he needs someone better to word his tweets, as that one is a little wonky.  but they need to run that shit on a loop in industrial states that trump carried starting yesterday.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin

[bad_teammate 13132]

People in the replies mad that the Lordstown ad doesn't have more POC (in a <2% black town).

People mocking those replies are killing me

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by bad_teammate

[henrygandorf 29174]

3 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

 

@bad_teammate

i believe you personally when you say if bernie loses the nom to pete you would vote for pete (or whomever wins the dem nom), but this poll paints a largely different picture.

i know you communicate or at the very least monitor the bros online/twitter/whatever.  do you have a sense of whether this poll is accurate?  if it is, it's scary.

[Bama Chick 28596]

I don’t like Bernie at all but dig into those numbers and that poll is weird.

5% of Sanders supporters say that they would vote for Trump in the general OVER SANDERS.

12% of Warren supporters say that they would vote for Trump in the general OVER WARREN.

It’s less than 1,000 people and it uses landlines and some Amazon thing to get respondents.

I think some of the loudest online Bernie Bros are complete garbage but that poll doesn’t seem very accurate.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Among my ilk, absolutely not. The Left Bernie Bros are no threat to vote Trump. The worst we'll do is vote for Marianne Williamson in non-swing states once she transcends the mortal concerns of two-party politics and starts the God's Gentle Laugh Party, sending Breatharians door-to-door to campaign for her.

What we need to worry about are the swing voters in the Rust Belt. The Obama->Trump guys in Lordstown are not leftist Bernie Bros like me with terminal irony poisoning, Patreon-subs to transgendered YouTubers, and shitposting running through their veins, they are economic populists whose towns and cities are dying and are clinging to whatever hope that is offered to them. If their choice is between Trump shouting about a great economy and jobs and bringing even more back and some dead-eyed, robot-smiling centrist technocrat in a VERY CONCERNED tone of voice offering them U-Haul money so they can leave for the big city to work at Arby's then they'll vote for Trump again.

[bad_teammate 13132]

I posted this in the 2020 Dem general thread, but some interesting information about bernie's legacy as mayor of Burlington.

Now that Sanders is running for president, the eight years he spent as Burlington’s chief executive (1981–89) will be under close scrutiny. Although President Obama recently joked at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that Sanders is a “pot-smoking socialist,” he was actually a hardworking, pragmatic, effective mayor who helped transform Vermont’s largest city (population: 38,000) into a thriving town.

Thanks to the enduring influence of the progressive climate that Sanders and his allies helped to create in Burlington, the city’s largest housing development is now resident-owned, its largest supermarket is a consumer-owned cooperative, one of its largest private employers is worker-owned, and most of its people-oriented waterfront is publicly owned. Its publicly owned utility, the Burlington Electric Department, recently announced that Burlington is the first American city of any decent size to run entirely on renewable electricity.

...

Burlington was no hippie counterculture enclave. Although the city attracted many young, educated people because of its natural beauty and the presence of the University of Vermont, it has always had a large working-class population (many of them from French Canadian stock) who, until Sanders came on the scene, tended to vote for moderate Democrats and Republicans. Each time he ran for mayor, Sanders attracted increasing support from the city’s blue-collar precincts.

In his first two years in office, the City Council refused to allow Sanders to hire more than a handful of staff, while the entrenched bureaucrats in City Hall sought to thwart his initiatives. Randy Kamerbeek, the city’s planning director, “tried to sabotage everything that Bernie proposed,” recalled Michael Monte, who worked in that agency. “He told us not to allow Bernie to have any visible successes. He figured Bernie would be out of office after his first term.”

After he was re-elected in 1983, and voters swept in a more progressive City Council, Sanders gained a stronger foothold in City Hall. With the support of local Republicans and business leaders, he created the Community and Economic Development Office (CEDO) to carry out his vision for more affordable housing, more locally owned small businesses, greater community engagement in planning, and job development.

When Sanders took office, Burlington’s Lake Champlain waterfront was an industrial wasteland. Tony Pomerleau, an influential local businessman, planned a mega-project that included a 150-room hotel, retail space, a 100-slip marina, and 240 condominiums in 18-story buildings. In his first campaign, Sanders pledged to kill that plan. After Pomerleau withdrew his proposal, Sanders backed another waterfront plan that included some commercial development, affordable housing, and generous public access. But after voters defeated a bond measure for this proposal, Sanders went back to the drawing board to envision a “people’s waterfront.”

According to Monte, who worked on the waterfront project for Sanders and was CEDO director for 12 years, “Bernie wanted to make sure that it was a place with plenty of open space and public access, where ordinary people could rent a rowboat and buy a hot dog. That wasn’t just for the elite. It was Bernie who set the tone that the waterfront wasn’t for sale.”

Thanks to Sanders, the Burlington waterfront now has a community boathouse and other facilities for small boats. There’s also a sailing center and science center, a fishing pier, an eight-mile bike path, acres of parkland, and public beaches. The commercial development is modest and small-scale. On May 26, Sanders kicked off his presidential campaign with a rally at Waterfront Park.

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

@henrygandorf

Answering Bernie Qs in the Bernie thread to keep the Warren thread about Warren.

Quote

ok, how will we pay for bernie's plan?  how much will it cost?  does that factor in the rising number of kids who will want to go to college now that it's free?  what percentage of college will be covered in such a plan (is it only tuition for in-state, etc)?

what are the long term impact benefits (besides relief from student loan burden)?  will it make us a smarter country?  smarter workforce?  has free tuition worked in other countries (notably, countries that are ahead of us in certain stats re:education)?  do countries that are considered "more educated" than us offer free tuition? 

is there any type of benefit or incentive to the student to graduate, other than the obvious degree?  is there a downside to offering up a compromise like pete has thrown around (college is free if you put in some public service)? 

and finally, will the investment pay for itself?

Summary of Sanders's College for All Act (PDF)

In that document you see costs and payment.

You threw out a lot of questions, so as I respond and you feel something was neglected, let me know. I am not intending to ignore anything, but I also don't want to do the tedious thing I'm often guilty of and quote/respond 20x in a single post.

Regarding models in other countries: Yes, of course. The typical liberal response of, "Norway!" fits here. Not just there, of course, as tuition-free public universities exist in Scandinavia and lesser (according to my bloodline) European nations like Germany and France.

Regarding being an investment that "pays for itself": The answer to this is not material to me.

Regarding students being in school too long: This isn't about cost of living expenses, just tuition. Ostensibly, people still have to have a means of living while attending school.

Regarding smarter population: Yes, obviously. It's higher education.