A the beginning on Bernie Sanders's candidacy, the media treated him like a joke and paid little attention to him. Now that he is rivaling Hillary Clinton, who was seen as unbeatable, in poll numbers and closing a previously wide gap, the media has been attacking his policies from every angle. This is fair; it is what journalism should be used for. Yet, I cannot help but feel the criticism is disproportionately targeted at Sanders over Clinton.

Recently, I read an article that dissected his proposals and crushed the "Danish Dream." It focused on his economic policies and grand promises of free college and single-payer healthcare. Again, this is warranted and in the right of the writer. However, it is in my right to rebut the fear-mongering and list my grievances with the article.

1. It implies that Sanders's proposals are not popular.

"They are supporting a guy who fundamentally wants to reshape the American economic system, and thus reshape American culture and values."

Sanders's views are actually quite popular when people are asked if they support them. However, people poll less favorably when asked if they support them even if it means higher taxes because Americans fear the effects of public funding.

2. This writer claims that Sanders would give more money and power to the establishment.

"If you radically increase the amount of money going to the Washington establishment, as Sanders would, you’re giving that establishment greater resources to control American life."

The establishment already has lots of money and power because of the enormous money poured into the government via lobbyists and big donors, tainting the sincerity of American democracy. By barring big donations, the establishment gets less power. Moreover, higher taxes does mean more money in the hands of the government, but if they were hands clean of money and corruption, those hands would better represent the people's wants and needs.

3. The writer claims a Sanders presidency would give the middle class less choice because of the heavier taxes on the rich.

"Sanders would weaken the ability of members of the middle class to make choices about their own lives. He would raise taxes on the rich, but there is only so much money you can squeeze out of such a small group of people... You really can't have a Swedish-style welfare state without a broad high tax burden.That means less spending power for most Americans, and fewer resources to choose one's own lifestyle."

Not only does this make little sense, but a welfare state gives the middle class a more economic freedom and free college gives them more educational and occupational freedom. This allows for an enriched economy and a more active flow of labor.

4. It suggests that the "small group" of wealthy people does not have an enormous amount of money.

"Third, Sanders would change the incentive structure for the country’s most successful people. He proposes raising the top tax rate to 52 percent. AsJosh Barro noted in The Times, when you add in state, local and other taxes, top earners would be paying a combined tax rate over 73 percent. In high-tax locales like New York City and California, it would be even more."

The extremely wealthy people of America pay very little taxes through tax evasions, tax havens, trust funds, loopholes, and subsidies. They are estimated to owe millions, even billions of dollars to the government.

5. It suggests that higher taxes on the rich will scare them out of the country, as if there are better places for capitalism.

"It’s possible that entrepreneurs, company founders and others would pay these rates without changing their behavior, but I wouldn’t count on it. When you make risk-taking less rewarding, you get fewer risk-takers, which is exactly what you see across the Atlantic."

Sanders is not trying to make the country less capitalist; he is trying to help the poor so that they have a chance at capitalism. Goldman Sachs CEO once lamented the lack of pure capitalism in this world, and said China is beating the US economy because of superior technology. However, the US has a very unregulated free market and claims to be more innovative when it is not. Nevertheless, businesspeople do worry and feel patriotic. They do not run on selfishness, just as Sanders critics like to point out.

6. The writer claims that free college benefits the wealthy more so than the middle class.

"Sanders would Europeanize American public universities. It sounds great to make college free. In fact, it’s a hugely expensive program that would mostly benefit the already affluent."

How does free college mostly benefit the affluent when it is less money of their pocket in proportion to what the middle class pays in student loans and interest, or even up-front pay from the upper-middle class? Moreover, the cost of free college is much less than that of wars.

Plus, I do not like how it takes a jab at "profession students" just because I would love to be one. Not because I want to freeload, but because I want to learn everything. I do not think we should ever start undermining education. ([Free college] would create ... a legion of eternal students who have little incentive to leave school because the costs are so low.")

7. The writer thinks that the American psyche of individualism and working hard will diminish if we have free college.

"It would reduce the pressures universities now feel to reform themselves because it would cushion them with federal largess."

The disappearance of the burden of education costs would encourage people to go to college even more and get better jobs. We have a shortage of people in sciences because they cost more since they require more years in college. People are passionate about these subjects but fear the costs.

8. The writer believes that Sanders and his administration would not take into account the bad parts of single-payer healthcare.

"His approach would also, as in Europe, reduce the rate of medical progress, increase the rationing of care, increase the wait times for patients, induce many doctors to retire and centralize decision-making."

I believe that with our American psyche, we could revolutionize the "welfare state" to simultaneously allow for capitalism and innovation, without the expense of the poor. Because of Sanders's passion for the people, he would likely take note of the issues and compile a committee of some sort to ameliorate the conditions of healthcare under public funding.

All in all, I feel that people are too scared of change, which is especially apparent in the United States. If we want to help the middle class, to keep it from shrinking, to allow for equal opportunity in a capitalistic society, to better people's chances at living without dying in debt, how else are we to do it? Little other options have been proposed compared to Sanders's supposedly extreme offers. However, it has been noted that Sanders is the only primary candidate that is on the left side, and he is only center-left. Everyone else, even Hillary Clinton, is right or far-right. If the United States wants to shift to the left a little bit, they cannot be stopped; it is the will of the people.

Also, it should be noted that Denmark and Sweden are among the happiest countries in the world and are in the top three least corrupt countries in the world, which combats the author's notion that the concentration of power and higher taxes will destroy American society and government.