"And many of them turned out to be really, really pretty."
Not in my opinion. Some of them turned out tolerable, but still not preferable to a non-corporatist, non-centrally planned system. The rest turned out to be deadly. And in reality, there have been far more that turned out deadly then didn't.
"Its more difficult to own median home priced, and the price of college education is non linear."
Coupla things. First, a Median priced home is going to be bigger and more elaborate today that you would have seen in 1950. Those numbers have been posted here before. Second, I would argue that owning a home is actually easier, even if it is more expensive, due to easier access to credit. Third, I'm not sure how you correlate home ownership with economic health. In many Urban areas, apartments are the norm. I'm not sure that an exec living in an apartment in midtown Manhattan indicates failure on his or her part, simply because they don't own.
At the same time, access to college loans is only getting easier, particularly for low income earners. I would submit that's a large part of the problem. The education system is being flooded with money, so some level of inflation would seem normal.
Yeah, but wages have flat-lined for at least the last 30 years.
Negative, Ghostrider. Wages for the bottom two quintiles have remained steady in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. Wages for the remaining 60% of workers have gone up, sometimes dramatically. In 1975, having a college degree would earn you a 5-10% premium over someone who didn't have a college degree. Now a college graduate will statistically earn roughly double the income of a high school graduate, and three times as much as a high school dropout. If you have a masters degree, the difference is even greater, making slightly less than three times as much as an HS grad.
Can you understand the disconnect between corporate profits and wages?
Not really. You may have a valid argument, if it weren't for the fact that wages for professional labor continues to increase as a result of demand. I don't think this is because the corporate employers want to pay them that much more, it's because they have to if they want the skills those workers are able to provide. The decline in wages for low and unskilled labor is equally explainable, since at the end of the day, virtually all of us are equally qualified unskilled laborers. And if you're competing with someone who is going to accept a fraction of what you will to do the same job, you've already lost.
"What regular Americans are mad about are those at the top NOT being held to the same standard as they are, and all you have to do is look at the 2008 Bank Bailout -- $12 Trillion set aside to bail out those at the top after their own undisciplined behavior got them into trouble, but regular Americans get uncompromising capitalism."
I don't disagree. I would have let them fail...just on principle. That being said, the bank bailout appears to have been successful from an economic standpoint-the banks paid back the money they owed. In other words, they were given assistance, and in return for that assistance they remunerated the taxpayers, including interest. Now let's compare that to a recipient. What Bernie is offering is a slew of benefits, provided by taxpayers, that need not be paid back. Don't want to work and pay taxes? No prob. Your healthcare will still be paid for. Wanna major in interpretive dance? No problem, the taxpayers will fully fund your four years of advanced hobbying. Hopefully you can see the difference between the two.