Some of those I believe do , which is why there's a large disparity between rich and poor and it continues to grow and has grown since 60s when social welfare really started to pick up steam. So short answer is yes, I'm not going to address one by one your answers so take this as a general answer.
This actually isn't accurate.
American Inequality in Six Charts
"Once again, the long-term trends are clear. Between the start of the Second World War and the first oil-price shock of 1973, families in the bottom ninety-nine per cent saw their incomes rise sharply. With the exception of the late nineteen-nineties, the past forty years have been marked by slow growth. For those at the top of the income distribution, recent history has been very different. After growing modestly in the postwar decades, the incomes of families in the top one per cent took off in the late nineteen-seventies, and have been zig-zagging upward since then."
Inequality started getting supercharged in the late-70s, early-80s when conservatives began waging war on labour and the social safety net. It was the mid-century period of FDR's socialist New Deal and LBJ's socialist Great Society that laid the groundwork for a healthy, robust middle class.
We have a moderate capitalistic and socialist society what's dangerous and naive is the thought process that you believe people given free stuff will work just as hard without the positive and negative incentives that has driven man since the dawn of time.
So according to you, the wealthy are the laziest group in society because they no longer have positive and negatives incentives to drive them? I think in reality, what robs people of motivation to progress their lives is the belief that there is no opportunity to progress because society has stacked the deck against them by not giving them the tools they need to rise from their condition through socialist policies. And again, these aren't "free stuff" being given via socialist policies, they're the benefits and rights you are owed by society as a citizen. You pay for them via taxes and civic behavior. No one calls the police "free", no one calls the military "free", no one calls social security "free", no one calls roads or the postal service or any of the other myriad things the government does to uphold society "free". It's a deal, and it's the basis of a healthy society.
It's a bit funny because I'm saying invest instead in K-12 which is horrendous except for....the tuition based schools! ! Lol
It's education now, why don't we give everyone a million dollars at birth as well.
K-12 is free, due to socialist policies, and robust investment in it is a progressive, socialist policy! I've never in my life heard of a progressive that was against more investment in public schooling. It's almost always conservatives touting the "no free lunch" ideology that you've been displaying that have acted to starve public schools, and they've used your idea that it will separate the deserving wheat from the indolent chaff as justification. Free college is just a natural extension of free K-12 that acknowledges we live in a modern world and economy in which knowledge work is becoming increasingly centralized, and social education policy should reflect that.
this is a total non-sequitur. First, AOC doesn't have the skeletons that Gabbard has, so this has no bearing on AOC's communication strategy. Second, useless neocon shytheads like Meghan McCain have already been tweeting their nonsense bad faith arguments at AOC, she ain't scared and has been handling them beautifully. Third, you were sucking off Barack yesterday, and his people get clapped up on Twitter every day. 
