Rebuttal to Sen. Bernie Sanders Socialistic Agenda

Socialist Bernie Sanders, Senato r from Vermont, is still preaching his socialistic views.
He is against the Republican proposed budget for the following reasons: It would throw millions of Americans off health insurance. It would cut $4.3 trillion from programs like Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid. Education programs would be scaled back. Pell Grants for college students would be frozen. Wall Street regulations would be reduced. It doesn’t address the 11 percent real unemployment. It doesn’t create any jobs. It doesn’t fix crumbling roads and bridges. It doesn’t make college more affordable. It doesn’t raise the minimum wage. It would leave in place tax loopholes that let the wealthy and big corporations avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
Let's look at these things one of the time.
Healthcare insurance is a deception. People don't need healthcare insurance. They need healthcare, which they already have through their own efforts of home treatment and access to emergency rooms and hospitals, where they do not have to pay if they are poor.
Cutting taxpayer subsidies for users of Medicare, food stamps and Medicaid is logical. Users of those facilities should be paying more out of their own pockets, rather than depending upon their neighbors to pay for them. Obviously, there are indigent people unable to cope in our present society, and the rest of us have a responsibility to aid in their continued existence. We call this welfare. However, welfare recipients should not be living on a grander scale in any form than those who pay for the welfare.
Everyone must be responsible for his own advanced education. We already have free education in grammar and high schools. "Free" means taxpayer supported, which is already a socialistic program. For those persons who spend their money on cars, new houses and other items of at least semi-luxury, they have apparently decided to do without the expense of an education or expect, as socialists do, have their neighbors pay for it. Education programs would only be scaled back if there are a reduced number of applicants for college education. That's the free market. However if individuals want to come up with the money, there would be no scaling back. Pell grants are just taxpayer gifts to college students. They should be eliminated. Higher education is a personal responsibility. In fact, we should take another look at whether neighbors should be paying the cost of sending your kids to grammar school and high school. It's not the government's job to make higher education affordable. The market and individual effort will decide what is affordable.
I don't know what Wall Street regulations will be reduced, but it is hardly likely that any Republican proposal will give Wall Street operators an opportunity to fleece the American public. Republicans well know that private companies and corporations are basically responsible for the health of the economy. They obviously will do nothing to hinder the operations of those companies, which would be the case if some sort of fraudulent feeling was engendered in the public mind.
It does indirectly address the 11% real unemployment rate by trying to reduce government restrictions, and allowing companies to grow with the hiring of more people.
It does indirectly fix crumbling roads and bridges. Spending less money on giveaway programs will allow funds for road and bridge maintenance.
There may be some tax loopholes which should be closed, but I don't know of any specifically. However, I do know that the federal government taxes corporations and then subsequently taxes again the stockholders who own those corporations. This double taxation never made any sense to me. Just another gimmick to collect more federal revenue to establish a broader socialistic society.